Agenda item

Report No: COU/SE/16/009

 

Referral from Democratic Renewal Working Party: 23 May 2016
1.	Community Governance Review
	Chairman of the Working Party: Cllr Patsy Warby

 

 

(Councillors Patrick Chung, Robert Everitt, Wayne Hailstone, Diane Hind, Paul Hopfensperger, Joanna Rayner, Richard Rout, Andrew Speed, Clive Springett, Peter Thompson, Frank Warby and Patsy Warby  declared local non-pecuniary interests as Members of Bury St Edmunds Town Council.  Councillors Tony Brown, John Burns, Jason Crooks, Paula Fox, Betty McLatchy, Ivor McLatchy, David Roach, Barry Robbins and Anthony Williams declared local non-pecuniary interests as Members of Haverhill Town Council.  Councillor Tony Brown declared a local non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Suffolk County Council for Haverhill East and Kedington Division. All of the aforementioned Members remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.)

 

(Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Appendix B: Issue 3 (Vision 2031 Strategic Site 'North East Bury St Edmunds') as her husband owned an area of land located within this strategic site allocation.  Councillor Broughton left the meeting during the consideration of and voting upon this particular Issue.)

 

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/009, which sought approval for several recommendations emanating from the meeting of the Democratic Renewal Working Party held on 23 May 2016, following phase 2 of the consultation on the Community Governance Review (CGR).

 

Councillor Patsy Warby, Chairman of the Democratic Renewal Working Party, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the initial evidence gathering, which had formed the first phase of the review, had taken place between September and November 2015 to inform the Council’s recommendations, and these had been agreed by Council in December 2015.   Phase 2, and the final consultation stage, was the publication of those recommendations, and the consultation had run from February 2016 to April 2016. The Working Party had made recommendations on each Issue, which were summarised in the various appendices attached to the report, as follows:

 

Appendix A:  statutory final recommendations affecting all Issues.  These were generic and were required to be adopted under the CGR legislation.

 

Appendix B:  After two stages of consultation, this appendix contained 10 Issues where there was still no consensus.  The final recommendations of the Working Party were presented, together with a short summary setting out its reasoning.  Members also noted that, in light of consultation evidence, and as detailed in this appendix, the Working Party had recommended that the Council did not adopt two of the final recommendations agreed in December 2015, which were in connection with Issue 14, Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)’ and Issue 19, Elm Farm and associated cottages, Assington Green, Stansfield.

 

Appendix C:  final recommendations in respect of 13 Issues, of which no new and/or significant issues were raised during the phase 2 consultation.

 

Appendix D:  updates on Issues which were determined at the Council meeting in December 2015 (for noting only). This included the impact of the CGR on the Borough and County Council’s electoral arrangements and the timing of any Electoral Review for the Borough Council. 

 

Subject to the Council’s decisions upon whether to implement changes associated with the respective Issues in the review, Members noted the three broad categories of implementation date for the Issues (excluding issues 15, 23 and 26 which were not in the Borough Council’s powers to change), as set out in paragraph 1.1.9 of the report. 

 

Additional matters arising from the CGR also required consideration, the detail of which were provided in Sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the report, and the decisions required on these specific matters were set out in Recommendations (6), (7) and (8).

 

As the Mayor had been made aware prior to the meeting that some Members may wish to separately debate and propose amendments on Issues where there had been no consensus following phase 2 of the consultation, as contained in Appendix B, she requested that Appendix B be divided into individual agenda items to assist the management of the debate. These 10 Issues would therefore be considered separately first and the remaining recommendations contained in Report No: COU/SE/16/009, would then be debated collectively, as usual practice.

 

Due to the significant and technical nature of the proposals, the Mayor then invited Alex Wilson, Director to contribute to the discussions to assist Members with the debate.

 

Each of the 10 Issues contained in Appendix B, were then considered in turn.

 

Issue 3: Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘North East Bury St Edmunds’

 

On the motion of Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger, seconded by Councillor Terry Clements, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the ‘North-East Bury St Edmunds’ Vision 2031 growth site be retained in Great Barton Parish within a newly created parish ward. The electoral arrangements of the Parish be changed as follows:

 

(a)     the growth site be represented by 2 parish councillors elected to a ‘Severalls’ parish ward with a boundary as shown on consultation map C of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009; and

 

(b)     the remaining electors in the Parish be represented by 9 councillors elected to a ‘North’ parish ward.

 

Issue 4: Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Moreton Hall’

 

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White proposed the recommendations of the Working Party relating to this particular Issue, as contained in Appendix B, which was duly seconded by Councillor Terry Clements.

 

Councillor Andrew Speed considered that the eventual residents of the new homes intended to be built in this location should be given the opportunity to decide whether they felt part of Rushbrooke with Rougham or Bury St Edmunds (or a new Moreton Hall) Parish.  He subsequently moved an amendment to the substantive motion, which was to add the following third recommendation to Recommendations (1) and (2):

 

(3)     A follow up Community Governance Review be carried out once the majority of properties in the ‘Moreton Hall’ growth site are occupied, and by 2021 at the latest, the terms of reference to be agreed by Council at that time. 

 

This was subsequently seconded by Councillor Peter Thompson and a debate was held on the amendment.

 

Following due consideration, Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, as proposer of the substantive motion, agreed to accept the amendment, which was duly supported by the seconder, Councillor Terry Clements.  No vote was therefore taken on the amendment and it was incorporated into the substantive motion.

 

On the motion of Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, seconded by Councillor Terry Clements, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)     The areas of Bury St Edmunds, Great Barton and Rushbrooke with Rougham Parishes be amended as shown on consultation map D of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009.

 

(2)     The electoral arrangements of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish be amended as follows:

 

(a)     the ‘Moreton Hall’ Vision 2031 growth site (and other existing properties) be represented by 2 parish councillors elected to a ‘North’ parish ward, with a boundary shown on consultation map D; and

 

(b)     the remaining electors in the Parish be represented by 9 councillors elected to a ‘South’ parish ward.

 

(3)     A follow up Community Governance Review be carried out once the majority of properties in the ‘Moreton Hall’ growth site are occupied, and by 2021 at the latest, the terms of reference to be agreed by Council at that time. 

 

Issue 6: Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Suffolk Business Park’

 

On the motion of Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, seconded by Councillor Peter Thompson, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)     The ‘Suffolk Business Park’ Vision 2031 growth site be retained in Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish, as shown on consultation map D of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009; and

 

(2)     the boundary of Bury St Edmunds and Rushbrooke with Rougham Parishes be amended in relation to the business park to follow the southern stretch of Lady Miriam Way.

 

Issue 7: Moreton Hall area of Bury St Edmunds

 

The majority of Members agreed with the Working Party’s conclusions that whilst over 86% of the 194 electors that had responded to the consultation supported the creation of a new parish for Moreton Hall, the low response rate (which represented the views of 3.6% of the December 2015 electorate) meant that there was insufficient evidence of support to justify such a significant change to the current arrangements.

 

On the motion of Councillor Peter Thompson, seconded by Councillor Frank Warby, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Moreton Hall area of Bury St Edmunds remains in Bury St Edmunds Parish, and no new parish be created.

 

Issue 13: Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘North East Haverhill’

 

On the motion of Councillor John Burns, seconded by Councillor Anthony Williams, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the boundary of Haverhill Parish be extended as indicated on consultation map H of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009, to incorporate the Vison 2031 Strategic Site ‘North-East Haverhill’.

 

Issue 14: Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)’

 

Council noted that there remained no consensus on this Issue, but the second phase of the consultation achieved its objective of obtaining more evidence to support the final decision.  Members noted that Withersfield Parish Council and the majority of local respondents (particularly those in affected properties) had disagreed strongly with the original recommendation, which was for ‘Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)’ to be incorporated from Withersfield Parish into Haverhill Parish, and they wished to see no change in the boundary.

 

Councillor Jane Midwood, Ward Member for Withersfield, reiterated the views of Withersfield Parish Council and residents in her ward, that no change should be made to the existing boundary.

 

While some Members that represented Wards in Haverhill did not support this view and considered that Hanchett End was logically part of Haverhill Parish and had been identified in Vision 2031 as being in Haverhill, the majority of Members supported the views of Councillor Midwood and the final recommendation of the Working Party.

 

On the motion of Councillor Peter Thompson, seconded by Councillor Sarah Stamp, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the boundary of Haverhill Parish not be extended as indicated on consultation map H of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009 to incorporate the ‘Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)’ Vision 2031 Strategic Site, and therefore the existing boundary be retained. 

 

Issue 17: Oak Lodge, Mill Road, Hengrave

 

On the motion of Councillor Susan Glossop, seconded by Councillor David Nettleton, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the area shown on consultation map K of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009, be transferred from Culford Parish to Hengrave Parish.

 

Issue 19: Elm Farm and associated cottages, Assington Green, Stansfield

 

Given the lack of consensus/information in phase 1, the Council had used phase 2 to test the appetite for change by consulting again on a definite proposition received from Stansfield Parish Council which believed that the properties in question had closer links with Stansfield than Denston.   There was still no consensus, with the two parishes and affected electors taking strongly varying views on the need for change, and an objection to the original recommendation from a landowner.  

 

The Working Party had considered, therefore, that having tested the matter twice through consultation it did not have enough evidence, in relation to the criteria for CGRs and local opinion, to justify a change to the current parish boundary.

 

Council supported this final recommendation, and on the motion of Councillor Peter Stevens, seconded by Councillor Frank Warby, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the area shown on consultation map M of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009, not be transferred from Denston Parish to Stansfield Parish and therefore the current parish boundaries be retained. 

 

Issue 20: Area between Fornham Lock Bridge and the Sheepwash Bridge, adjacent to the sewage works entrance, Fornham St Martin

 

On the motion of Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger, seconded by Councillor Patsy Warby, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the area shown on consultation map N of Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/16/009,  be transferred from Fornham All Saints Parish to Fornham St Genevieve Parish. 

 

Issue 25: Great and Little Thurlow

 

On the motion of Councillor Frank Warby, seconded by Councillor Clive Springett, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That no change be made to the community governance arrangements for Little Thurlow and Great Thurlow at the current time; however a response covering the matters indicated in the text relating to this Issue, be produced for Little Thurlow Parish Council accordingly.

 

Following consideration of the proposals in Appendix B, Council then considered the remaining recommendations contained in Report No: COU/SE/16/009, which were now required to be amended to the following:

 

(a)     Recommendation (1) be amended to read:  “the remaining proposals of the Working Party, as set out in Appendices A and C to Report No:  COU/SE/16/009, be also adopted as final decisions in relation to this Community Governance Review (CGR).”

 

(b)     Recommendation (3) be changed to read:  “in respect of the above, ….”

 

 

On the motion of Councillor Patsy Warby, seconded by Councillor David Nettleton, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That

 

(1)     the remaining proposals of the Working Party, as set out in Appendices A and C to Report No:  COU/SE/16/009, be also adopted as final decisions in relation to this Community Governance Review (CGR);

 

(2)     the implementation of any agreed changes arising from this review be dealt with in accordance  with the proposals contained in this referral Report No: COU/SE/16/009;

 

(3)     in respect of the above, the Service Manager (Legal) and/or the Elections Manager be authorised to request the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to make any necessary consequential changes to district and county council electoral arrangements and, depending on the response of the Commission, to determine the implementation arrangements for this CGR accordingly;

 

(4)     the Service Manager (Legal) and/or the Elections Manager be authorised to publish the decisions taken as part of this CGR and to make and implement the necessary Order(s), in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and advice of the Boundary Commission;

 

(5)     the latest position in relation to the matters the Council has already determined in December 2015, as set out in Appendix D to Report No: COU/SE/16/009, be noted;

 

(6)     the proposed amendment to the current boundary of the Eastgate and Moreton Hall Wards of the Town and Borough Councils, set out in this referral Report No: COU/SE/16/009 , be examined as part of a future Electoral Review (if not previously implemented through this CGR under review issue 7);

 

(7)     the officers discuss the request of Barrow cum Denham Parish Council to increase its council size with that Parish Council and report back to the Working Party accordingly; and

 

(8)     Councillor Nettleton’s request to look at the Eastgate and Fornham Ward (and associated parish) boundary be examined as part of any future Electoral Review of the Borough and/or County Council if required.