Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Leader introduced the report and explained that a cross party working group had been set up to oversee a community governance review prompted by the receipt of a valid petition from Pittville Parish Council Campaign Group for the creation of a new parish council.  The terms of reference were agreed by Council on 27 March 2017.

He thanked the working group which had met three times and had:

·         Considered the proposed boundary provided by the Pittville Parish Council Campaign Group.

·         Considered proposals from three of the existing parish councils about consulting on extensions to their current boundaries as part of this review, plus the anomaly areas in Merestones Drive and St Nicholas Drive. 

·         Planned the consultation phase for the review and a process for determining what the result was from the responses received. 

The Leader referred to the differing views of 2 local ward councillors as to how best to represent Pittville. He thanked Councillor Dercyk Nash, Gloucestershire Association of Parish and Town Councils who had served as the independent chair of the group. He also wished to thank Helen Down, Team Leader Participation and Engagement for her support in this work.  He reported that a Member seminar had recently taken place and a question and answer sheet had been circulated to all Members.

The working group now sought Council approval to commence the consultation with electors and stakeholders in Pittville, in three of the existing parish council areas and in 2 small areas (St Nicholas Drive and Merestones Drive) during August and September 2017.  The aim would be to bring back a report to Council in December 2017. The working group has recommended some amendments to the boundary for consultation in Pittville and ascertained that the electoral register can be used to consult with registered electors in the areas under review.  Recommendations would be brought back to Council, including how to deal with any allotment sites in areas to become parished. 

Cllr Nash was invited to address Council. He referred to the fact that there was a drive from the Department for Communities and Local Government to support areas to become more fully parished.   He then highlighted that the working group considered the fact that the University of Gloucestershire’s Pittville Campus has been developed into a student accommodation village and the boundary between Prestbury and Pittville wards runs across the middle of it (see map 3 in Appendix 2A).  The community governance review could only affect change on parish council boundaries, so the working group proposed that the parish council boundary between Prestbury and Pittville be kept coterminous with the ward / parliamentary boundary and that accommodation blocks be counted as falling on either side of the boundary depending on which side the majority of the block is on. However, the working group also noted that it was not good practice for the boundary to split the campus in this way and therefore has recommended that this is put to the Boundary Commission next time a review of ward or parliamentaryboundaries is made. 

The following points were raised by Members :

• Map 4 did not correspond with the description given in the report ?
• A Member said that whilst Members were supportive of Parish Councils this was only where residents supported them. Residents should make a decision based on clear facts rather than conjecture and the role of councillors was to support the view given rather than push a particular view. In response the Leader said that one of the big discussions in the working group was how the consultation results would be assessed in terms of the proportion in favour versus the proportion against and those who took an interest in the consultation in the first place. He also informed Members that officers would be writing to every elector rather than every household.
• Cllr Nash explained that National Association of Local Councils (NALC) was asked whether there had been similar experiences elsewhere of setting any minimum number of responses that should be received, but there was no evidence that a minimum return to a consultation had been required anywhere else. The decision would be based on the number of responses and common sense.

RESOLVED (unanimously) THAT

1. an amendment to the boundary for consultation in Pittville as per the description in paragraph 5 of Appendix 2 and map 2 in Appendix 2A be approved.

2. amendments to the terms of reference for the Community Governance Review 2017 to include consultation about making changes to the existing parish council boundaries be approved as follows :

·         The addition of 4 small consultation areas for Charlton Kings Parish Council (see map 4 at appendix 2A)

·         The addition of a consultation area for Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council (see map 5 at appendix 2A)

·         The addition of a consultation area for Up Hatherley Parish Council (see map 6 at appendix 2A)

3. the consultation process as described in Appendix 2, paragraph 8 and the respective consultation documents be approved to go out to:

·         All registered electors at 24.7.17 within the proposed Pittville Parish Council area (Appendix 2B refers)

·         All registered electors at 24.7.17 within the proposed consultation areas for Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council; Charlton Kings Parish Council and Up Hatherley Parish Council (Appendix 2C refers)

·         All registered electors at 24.7.17 in the small parts of St Nicholas Drive and Merestones Drive (Appendix 2 D refers)

·         Stakeholders with an interest in the Community Governance Review in and around the four areas (Appendixes 2E and 2F refers). 

4. the recommendation from the working group about the process for determining the results of the consultation as described in Appendix 2, paragraph 12 be approved.