Agenda item

Report No: DRW/SE/14/002

(Councillor Farmer declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Bury St Edmunds Town Council during the consideration of this item.)

The Legal Services Manager introduced this report which sought to provide a comprehensive set of options regarding a Community Governance Review in the borough. The last review had been conducted in 2010-2011 when minor changes had been made and there had been a proposal to create a new parish at Moreton Hall although this had not been taken further by the Working Party at the time.

Councillor Beckwith had submitted a Motion on Notice to the Council meeting on 30 June 2014 which had been referred for further consideration to this Working Party. Haverhill Town Council had also asked the council to look at parish boundaries in reference to growth in and around Haverhill under Vision 2031, and a number of requests had been received from parish councils affected by growth.

This report asked the Working Party to recommend to Council that a review be undertaken, that a budget be allocated to conduct such a review with the Working Party indicating their preferences for the method of consultation, and that an indicative timetable be approved.

Although the purpose of a review would be to consider the areas that had already put forward, there would be opportunity for interested parties to propose other areas for consideration. The Working Party would then consider all proposals and set the scope for the review.

Members of the Working Party considered a number of options for the method of consultation and unanimously agreed that the review should be web-based and widely publicised, with appropriate organisations and representatives being targeted; responses would be made online and collated electronically. Individual letters would not be sent to every household.

In response to member questions, it was clarified that officer recommendation (d) was linked to the advice in paragraph 2.10.3 of the report which indicated that changes to parish arrangements could not be made in time for the 2015 elections and “would be most likely to be brought in for the 2019 elections.”  However, the Legal Services Manager clarified that, while the normal practice was indeed to link implementation to usual date of elections (on the four yearly cycle), the report should have made it clear that, under the regulations, there may also be scope for the Borough Council to consider whether there was justification for implementing changes at an earlier date, with a shorter than normal first period of office for any parish councillors elected under them (since elections would also then be needed in 2019 as well). This could incur the cost of stand-alone elections for the Borough Council where a new parish council was being created. Noting this clarification, the Working Party felt that this would be a matter that the Borough Council should address at a later stage of any review, when it was clearer what changes, if any, were required. Accordingly, it was felt that recommendation (d) was not relevant at the current time.

The Recommendations were taken separately:

Councillor Farmer moved the recommendation which was seconded and approved.

RECOMMENDED

(1)   The Council undertakes a Community Governance Review; and for that purpose:

a.   Council confirms that initial consideration and targeted consultation with Borough Councillors, parish and town councils, the County Council, neighbouring councils, Members of Parliament and other community organisations 9e.g. residents’ associations) be undertaken to inform the preparation of Terms of Reference for the Review, taking into account the requests already received and the advice contained in Report COU/SE/14/001 about future growth areas.

Councillor Mrs Levack moved the recommendation which was seconded and approved.

RECOMMENDED

b.   Council requests this Working Party to consider the outcome of that consultation and report back to Council at its scheduled meeting in June/July 2015.

Councillor Chung moved the recommendation which was seconded and approved.

RECOMMENDED

c.   Council allocates a budget for the review (this sum to be determined and identified to full Council once the Working Party’s preferences for consultation are known). Council agrees the review timetable set out in Appendix A recognising that it will commence in 2015 and will not conclude before the May 2015 election.