Agenda item

A report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee - to be introduced by the vice-chair of the committee, Councillor Klara Sudbury who will ask Councillor Barbara Driver as the elected member of the scrutiny task group to introduce their report.

Councillor Klara Sudbury, introduced the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the scrutiny task group - Community Governance Review, as the vice-chair of that committee.  She commended Helen Down, Strategy and Engagement Officer for her excellent work as a support officer to this scrutiny task group and she also thanked the representatives of the parish councils who had been co-optees on the task group.

She wished to put on record how much she valued parish councils and the vital role they played in representing their communities. She felt that parish council boundaries must represent genuine community boundaries and it was important for all residents to have their say about whether they wish to become part of a parished area. She referred members to the comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny committee when they considered the report which were set out in appendix 4. They had concluded that it was appropriate to make an alternative recommendation to defer the review as set out in their report. It was her personal view that the budget set aside for the consultation was insufficient and any review must be comprehensive and fair.

She invited Councillor Driver, as the only elected member on the task group, to add any comments.

Councillor Driver confirmed that she had been present at every meeting of the task group and commended the officers for their support in what had been some difficult meetings.  In her view, the review needed to be started again and done properly following a structured approach and with consistency of attendees. 

The Leader, as the member responsible for parish council liaison, highlighted the starting point for this review had been a report to Council in December 2011 from the Cabinet Member Corporate Services.  Council had agreed to set up a cross party member working group which had subsequently become a scrutiny working group under the new arrangements. He noted that there had been no Cabinet involvement in the review. His understanding was that the review should have been an early opportunity to tidy up any loose ends but it appeared to have grown well beyond this. His personal view was that parishing the whole of Cheltenham made no sense as parish councils are only effective because of their association with former village areas and this does not apply to the central areas of the town. Under the circumstances, he was supportive of the overview and scrutiny recommendations to defer the review as he did not think it could be dealt with effectively before 2014.

In the debate that followed members made the following comments;

• there could be a unitary debate as early as 2017 and this could challenge the current three tier democratic structure in parished areas and parish councils could become an anachronism.
• even if there is no unitary debate, future Borough council boundaries could be affected by the results of the Joint Core Strategy work and current and further housing development, which would in turn affect parish council boundaries.
• whilst there are some residents who support the work of their parish council there may be others in parished areas who challenge the precept and the value they get from it - consequently there should be a full consultation.
• Local wards surveys carried out in wards seemed to indicate a general trend to retain the status quo, i.e remain in a parished area and no desire to become one if not already. 
• Parish councils currently have unfettered tax raising powers and that should be brought into the consultation.
• What had started off as a review of minor changes to boundaries had grown out of control and the resulting proposals for increases in residents in some of the parishes were totally out of order. There were also some real anomalies contained in the proposals and the proposal to include the old GCHQ site at Oakley but exclude the Sainsbury’s development was cited as an example. 
• Any future consultation with residents would need to be supported by appropriate information on the costs and benefits of being in a parish council area. Without this the cost of a full consultation, in the order of £15 to £20,000, would be a waste of time.
• Democracy was not served by a household survey and all members of the electorate should have the opportunity to respond to any consultation.
• With strong differences between the parish councils it would not be feasible to refer the matter back to the task group and expect to reach agreement for a completion date of 2014.
• The excellent work done by some of the parish councils was noted.

In her summing up, Councillor Sudbury commented that it had been a useful debate. Clearly when the review was restarted it needed to be structured and an elected member should be appointed as chair.  The review would provide an opportunity to carry out a more comprehensive review that looked into the shape of communities across the whole borough.  If the Cabinet Member wished to be involved in the review then they would be welcome to attend meetings of the task group.

Upon a vote the recommendations were agreed unanimously:

Resolved that

i)                    the review of Community Governance should be deferred to a later date when any recommendations can be implemented ahead of the 2018 parish council elections

ii)                  the scope of the review should be reviewed at that time taking into account the views expressed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 26 November 2012.