Agenda item

Report of the Leader

Introducing the report, the Leader made the following points:

-       local government reorganisation, with the abolition of all Gloucestershire’s seven district and borough councils, will leave areas of Cheltenham outside the existing five parishes without any real local representation – hence the agreement to undertake a community governance review.  Stage 1 ran from May to July, and since then officers and members of the Community Governance Review working group have developed the recommendations outlined in the report;

-       about 100 responses were received, largely through an online survey, with some more detailed proposals sent by email.  It is important to understand the views of the public, community groups and various organisations within Cheltenham, and she put on record her thanks to everyone who has contributed so far, assuring them that any feedback on how to improve offline communications for Stage 2 of the consultation is being taken on board;

-       Stage 1 has resulted in no clear consensus or specific proposal that can be presented as the finished article for Stage 2, so today’s recommendations are essentially proposing a review of certain parishes and their surrounding areas, based on the survey responses and proposals provided, in addition to asking the public for their views on the development of any new parish or town council.

She said that since the publication of the report, a few questions have been asked, and she went on to highlight a few corrections and points of clarification in the report

-       regarding how Stage 2 of the consultation will be conducted with no additional  financial implications, she said it will be largely along the same lines as Stage 1 but that paper copies of the documents will be made available, and the offline element of the consultation will be improved where possible.  It is not economic to email or send printed leaflets to every household, but is really important that we as local representatives and councillors do as much as possible through various channels to keep people informed;

-       paragraph 2.7 of the covering reports notes that a community governance review can make changes to parishes not looking to change; it has been pointed out that this is confusing, and the report and public consultation website will be amended accordingly

-       there are some minor formatting issues in the report which means the recommendations in the summary don’t reflect those at the end of the report or in the covering report – theses will also be amended;

-       following conflicting feedback from Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council, it has now been agreed that a complete review of that parish is needed and a recommendation to that effect has been added. 

Questions

In response to Members’ questions, the Leader confirmed that:

-          the first round of consultation was always going to be tricky, as people would be faced with a blank piece of paper and have no real sense of what any changes would mean to them. She anticipated that Stage 2 would be more inclusive, providing more detailed information and recommendations, and therefore get a better response;

-          the Monitoring Officer confirmed that there would be no minimum number of required responses for any recommendations to be enacted, but it would ultimately be for Members at Full Council to determine whether they were satisfied that the responses were enough to move forward with a reorganisation order;  

-          regarding what the general population may know or not know about local democracy, she was not intending to include anything about local government reorganisation in the community governance review, but could see that a lot of people were not engaged and, for example, didn’t understand the differentiation between town and parish councils.  She hadn’t considered producing any short form videos or Facebook posts to improve understanding to date, but was happy to take this suggestion away for a conversation with the communications team; 

-          the Monitoring Officer said the only real legal difference between town and parish councils is that a town council can appoint a mayor should it wish, while a parish council cannot; otherwise their powers and responsibilities are effectively the same;

-          it is not the government’s intention to allow town and parish councils to take on the responsibilities of borough councils. She had not heard anything from the county council about its expectations around town councils, but could pick this up off-line with the Member.

Debate

Members welcomed the report, looked forward to the second stage of consultation, and made the following comments:

-          the report is warmly welcomed and supported; we still have powers over community governance, and the council is paying proper attention to this tier of government, to ensure it is more immediate, accountable and cost effective.  The comments regarding Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council are particularly welcome – that area provided the best response in the town, with strong support for a boundary review to include Pilley (which merged with Leckhampton in the early 20^th century and feels itself to be part of the parish)  and Bournside (with its strong connections with Warden Hill and already part of Warden Hill district at county level) making them both a logical fit with the parish.  He strongly supports these two areas becoming part of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish, though is aware that there may be increased staffing requirements for such a large area;

-          the results of the Stage 1 consultation clearly highlight the requirement for a number of reviews of existing parishes, to either include previously-excluded parts or to move things round a bit – the opportunity to look at this is welcome, though any suggestion that a boundary line could be put along the railway line would not work, as this would cut through the heart of St Peter’s ward;

-          it is clear that, after potential boundary reviews and inclusions, and a potential new parish of Benhall and The Reddings, the majority of what is left will include  Cheltenham’s highest areas of multiple deprivation, as well as the town centre, with its many assets and green spaces enjoyed by all residents and visitors alike.  Management oversight and responsibility and the associated precepts in this large town centre area would be disproportionately unfair, and raises the question of how town centre assets can be managed collectively;

-          having tried and failed for three years to set up a neighbourhood forum in St Peter’s, in an effort to secure more CIL funds for local projects, and noting a similar lack of success in West Cheltenham, Springbank and Hester’s Way, recruiting members for a parish council is likely to be just as difficult – how will these residents be represented?

-          support for a town council will ensure that non-parished areas don’t get left behind, but the town centre include areas of deprivation and it will be important work together and share issues across boundaries;

-          another concern is how people will know what is going on in the next stage – it is important that local councillors help them to understand the difference between a town and a borough council, and explain what the changes will mean to them – just describing it as ‘a different level of government’ is not very meaningful for most people;

-          with local government reorganisation coming and the possibility of one unitary council, it is particularly important to have town and parish councils representation for the whole of Cheltenham, as there will be fewer ward councillors to help people with small but important local matters. Tewkesbury and Cirencester already have town councils and Cheltenham should have similar local representation for its residents to make sure they’re not left behind when big decisions are made at higher level; 

-          the only caveat here is that potential unitary divisional or ward boundary issues should be considered when looking at boundaries for parish and town councils to avoid any confusion for people as to where they actually live and who represents them – this must be aligned as much as possible;

-          Swindon Village is a perfect example of this – a ward separated by two parish councils and an unparished area, which causes confusion and some irritation to residents.  If the council is considering Wyman’s Brook, Prestbury and Swindon Village as part of the review for the second stage, it would make more sense, and result in better representation and community cohesion if a single parish council covers the whole of Swindon Village ward.  Without this, some important areas of Swindon Village ward will suffer from a lack of local representation as we move towards a unitary authority, including some of the most deprived parts which need significant funding and improvements to ensure they are not left behind.  The council should be doing all it can to make sure those areas are represented and funded through a parish council, by extending it to the full extent of ward, and allocating funding for these areas;

-          the local government review seems like a dilution of democracy and devaluation of communities – it feels like local democracy is being torn apart – and while some wards such as Springbank are strong communities, many residents are time-poor wary of the reviews, and not engaging. Some kind of town council is needed to represent these people;

-          the important word here is ‘community’ – we all represent our communities, and we must continue to put them and their engagement first when considering the way forward.  Swindon Village has a strong parish council which engages with people, brings them together, works hard for the village, and makes things happen. When signs were put up in Windyridge Road, announcing that it was part of Prestbury parish, residents were angry at the lack of consultation, as they felt themselves to be part of Swindon Village.  These voices must be heard;

-          when working on the Joint Core Strategy, it was important for residents of Swindon Village and Uckington to save areas of local green space, and representatives from both communities came together to help make this happen; the idea that Uckington might form part of Swindon Village Parish Council is a good one.  Also the impact of Elms Park will be enormous in this part of town, with many new properties on the Cheltenham side – those residents will need representation, and the parish council is already fighting for this;

-          Members’ comments so far have demonstrated how complicated this issue is and whether residents really understand what is happening.  Fiddler’s Green became part of Benhall and The Reddings ward last year, but no-one is quite sure when the boundaries are.  There is an active residents association in Benhall, an embryonic one in The Reddings, and none at all in Fiddlers Green; Benhall could have its own parish, or combine with The Reddings, or even be part of Up Hatherley parish.  Hopefully Stage 2 consultation will make things clearer; 

-          looking at the Stage 1 responses, there were a lot from Leckhampton, but only five from The Reddings, three from Benhall and none from Fiddler’s Green.  The council and Members need to reach out and do more, make sure people understand how any changes will affect how they are looked after.  Hopefully there will be a better response in Stage 2, with more local meetings to explain this big change and how to get it right;

-          councillors have a big responsibility to explain the process to residents.  Parishes have a natural centre of gravity, which make it easier to reach residents and provide services, and we should be mindful of this and where residents are most likely to receive the best level of service when thinking about where any parish boundaries might go.  Some streets may do better as part of a parish council, others as part of a town council – the onus is on us to decide where the dividing lines should be;

-          the report is welcome, and particularly the suggestion that Benhall and The Reddings should form a parish, although there are other options.  Members need to explain to their residents and communities what will be involved, and the positives of being part of a parish.  There are likely to be some complications, as Benhall and The Reddings are different areas, but they want to work together going forward; 

-          on Appendix A, the boundary between proposed parishes F and C would be better  redrawn co-terminus with the ward boundary between St Peter’s and Lansdown, to avoid  a very thin piece of St Peter’s ward ending up in a different parish to the rest of the ward;

-          we might want to encourage parishes to aspire to  Quality Parish Status, which sets a good standard, ensuring the parish is well run and public money well spent.

Summing up, the Leader made the following points:

-          it was nice to bring a report to Council about community, as taking care of and being part of their communities is what most councillors want to do.  Whatever we do next as we move into the next stage of whatever local government becomes, we need to make sure that  all areas and communities have some level of local responsibility, accountability and representation;

-          a lot has been said about fairness and deprivation, and we must be mindful of all areas when considering the way forward.  As discovered by the Member who found setting up a neighbourhood forum impossible, there are areas where people care but the majority of them are not retired, not high earners, and don’t have the time or capacity to engage – this is one of the big reasons for doing a review;

-          the subject of remuneration has been raised, and at the Gloucestershire Association of Town and Parish Councils AGM earlier this year, many people said that this would make a difference – some form of recognition, maybe an allowance of £2-4k, in recognition of the hard work and many hours parish councillors put in to doing an efficient job;

-          it is true that a parish needs a centre of gravity, a community centre where events take place, but this must be relevant and welcoming to the whole parish, not just one element of it.

She thanked Members for their comments, hoped for a positive vote, and looked forward to working with the working group on the next stage of the consultation.

Before the vote, Councillor Horwood apologised for not having declared earlier that he is a Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish councillor.  Councillors Smith and Bamford are also parish councillors.

Members approved unanimously the following recommendations: 

Council is recommended to review the full consultation response report (Appendix 3) and consider if the following recommendations should be taken forward for further consultation, including by way of a further survey and additional options such as focus groups:

1.    To complete a full review of the boundaries of Swindon Village Parish and Prestbury Parish, including Wyman’s Brook to establish which Parish it should sit in;

2.    To complete a full review of the unparished area between Prestbury and Charlton Kings to understand if it should be incorporated into one of the already established councils;

3.    To complete a full review of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish, to understand whether the existing parish should be extended and/or separated into two parishes; 

4.    To consider setting up a new Parish for Benhall and The Reddings;

5.    To directly ask the public, in stage 2 of the Community Governance Review, if they would like to see a Town Council in Cheltenham. This consultation question would provide an overview of what a Town Council could be responsible for and provide some options as to its boundaries.