Agenda item

Report of the Leader of the Council

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report and set out the background and drivers for the review. The Chief Executive had already spoken to group leaders along with himself, One Legal and the Director of Commissioning. The recommendation before Council was to set up a working group as proposed in the report to take forward the review. He warned against the risk of coming up with a solution before the problems and issues had been properly identified.

It was noted that the target date of risk reference 3 in Appendix 1 of March 2013 was incorrect as the working group had not yet met.

Councillor Garnham, speaking as the leader of the Conservative Group, was pleased to see the report and indicated that his group were in support of option 4 and a move to four yearly elections and a reduction in the number of councillors. He was keen to set up a working group but made a plea that if

Council decided to go down this route, any subsequent report would not get buried.

The Leader agreed that this was an important issue and thought that the review should begin with first principles. The starting point was not a money-saving exercise and the Boundary Commission would not accept this as a valid reason to change. He pointed out that although a unitary authority was not on the agenda for the next two years, it could potentially reappear in the future and this would need to be taken into account. His personal view was that the savings being made through shared services would diminish the arguments for a unitary authority in Gloucestershire.

Councillor Godwin, as Leader of the PAB group, considered that making changes in this area could be long and tortuous, and urged that each political group should ensure the groups views were fed into the working group.

Other members spoke in support of setting up of a working group. The aim should be for a council that the public would see as fit for purpose and providing cost-effective democracy for the town. Some reservations were expressed about the review:

• It was wrong to prejudge the review by favouring a particular option at this time.
• The potential cost savings or four yearly elections needed to be a thoroughly investigated, taking into account the potential to share county and European elections every four years. 
• There would be a significant cost to the review which was outlined in section 6.3/6.4 of the report and therefore there was a question mark about whether this was the right time.
• If the population of Cheltenham increased significantly as predicted, there needed to be sufficient councillors to support them and it would be a mistake for wards to get too large.  Experience in other towns where the number of councillors had been reduced, had led to more work for officers in terms of casework referrals.
• If the reduction in councillors leads to more work for individual councillors, then this could deter younger people from becoming councillors.
• Implementing changes in this area could prove to be a lot more complicated than maintaining the status quo.

Councillor Walklett thanked members for their comments and acknowledged that they would be working to a tight schedule in order to bring back a report to Council on 22nd of July.  He recognized that it was difficult for councillors who were working full-time to fulfil their role particularly where there was a daytime commitment for example Licensing and Planning.

Upon a vote it was (unanimously)

RESOLVED that;

1.                  A cabinet member working group with terms of reference as set out in Appendix 3 be set up.

2.                  The working group be requested to report back to council on 22 July setting out their findings and if appropriate a draft letter to the LGBCE.

3.                  Group Leaders make their nominations to the Director of Commissioning as soon as possible.