Agenda item

Report from the Executive Director of Corporate Services.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1. Approves the commencement of a Boroughwide Community Governance Review.

2. Approves the Terms of Reference of the review as set out in Appendix 1.

3. Approves the timetable for review as set out in Appendix 2.

4. Approves that should any Community Governance Reviews be triggered by petition during the Boroughwide review, Cabinet agrees to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to amend the Terms of Reference as appropriate.

5. Note that a draft recommendations report will be brought for approval following the first round of consultation.

6. Note that a final recommendations report will be brought for approval following the second round of consultation. Cabinet will be asked to approve the final recommendations and recommend the report to Council.

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, Councillor Alam OBE, advised that the report sought approval to recommend a Community Governance Review to Cabinet. It was noted that the Council had a statutory duty to undertake such reviews approximately every 10-15 years, with the last review completed in 2008. It was explained that the review process required consultation with local residents and other interested parties, including parish councils, elected members and MPs. An initial consultation on current arrangements and potential changes would be undertaken, followed by a further consultation on draft recommendations, prior to Cabinet considering final proposals for submission to Full Council.

Members were advised by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Phillip Horsfield, that the Community Governance Review was an administrative process, with the formal political decision?making at its conclusion. It was noted that the criteria for the review were prescribed by legislation and set out in the agreed terms of reference. Subject to consideration by the Board and approval by Cabinet, the review would take account of representations received from residents and other stakeholders. The draft recommendations would then be prepared for consideration, which would be subject to further consultation process before final proposals were presented for Council determination.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries.

Councillor Blackham noted that the presentation focused on outlining the process but provided limited detail on the criteria to be applied when evaluating parish councils and parish boundaries. He asked for further clarification on the assessment criteria, including how National Association of Local Councils (NALC) requirements and recommendations were considered, and whether the ratio of electors to councillors was a key factor.

In response the Monitoring Officer, Phillip Horsfield explained that boundary considerations included elector?to?councillor ratios and overall workability but also depended on the nature of each area and how residents identified with it. It was noted that there were no fixed minimum or maximum sizes for parishes, as circumstances varied between large towns and small villages. This area?specific approach was given as the reason why criteria were not defined rigidly at this stage, with consultation and feedback from local ward members and parish councils highlighted as essential. It was further emphasised that resident identification with an area was a key consideration, and that failing to take this into account often caused difficulties in boundary reviews.

In a follow up question, Councillor Blackham requested that, given the level of judgement involved due to significant differences across the borough in settlement size and representation, proposals should return to the committee for consideration before being submitted to Cabinet. It was agreed that this could be accommodated if the committee wished, enabling members to review and comment on the judgements applied prior to Cabinet consideration.

In response it was explained that there were no expectation of a wholesale review or widespread changes to all parishes in the borough, based on current indications from engagement with parish councils and previous discussions. It was noted that not all parishes would necessarily be affected; however, if strong representations were to be received from all parishes, this position would be reconsidered. Any such revised position would be presented to members for consideration.

It was noted by Councillor Brent, that respondents to the consultation might raise a wide range of issues beyond the specific questions asked, reflecting differing motivations and concerns. While consultation was supported as a means of gaining a better understanding of parishioner views, concern was expressed about the timing and sensitivity of issues relating to the parish precept, particularly given emerging public dissatisfaction. It was suggested that, if the precept was to be addressed, questions should be framed positively, and caution was urged to avoid prompting debate on matters where clear or constructive responses might not be possible.

The Monitoring Officer explained that the parish precept was not a boundary matter and that decisions on the precept were the responsibility of parish councils. It was stated that dissatisfaction with such decisions should be addressed through the electoral process rather than by altering administrative arrangements. It was further noted that this distinction would be made clear. Councillor Brent acknowledged this position but expressed concern that the public might not widely understand it.

Councillor Yasseen sought clarification on the variation in councillor?to?elector ratios across parish areas, citing examples where one parish had a significantly lower ratio compared to another. Clarification was sought on why such differences existed between parishes. In response to this, it was explained that there was no fixed councillor?to?elector ratio and that representation was based more on community identity than purely numerical thresholds. It was noted that factors such as population change and growth were considered, but variations between parishes were expected. Emphasis was placed on whether parish arrangements were effective in representing their communities and enabling decision?making, rather than on individual decisions or mathematical calculations. It was confirmed that numerical ratios would be taken into account but would not be the deciding factor.

In a second question, Councillor Yasseen queried the use of a uniform 1.25% population growth assumption and asked how this figure was derived, drawing comparisons with similar assumptions used in education planning that had previously proved inaccurate. Concern was expressed that applying a standard growth rate could create uneven impacts across areas. Councillor Yasseen asked whether this approach might lead to similar issues and whether more localised demographic data should be considered through the consultation and review process.

It was explained that population growth assumptions were based on statistics from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and reviewed as part of a local process over a 10–15-year cycle. It was noted that growth data could lag behind new developments, but this allowed time for residents to identify with the parish or council they felt best represented their area. It was stated that this would be addressed through the consultation, including engagement with residents of new developments. Regular reviews were highlighted as a way of managing timing differences, and it was confirmed that planning officers would be involved in the review process to ensure alignment with the adopted local plan.

Councillor Allen asked what would happen to any accumulated parish precept if a parish council were to be abolished as a result of the review, and whether funds would be returned to residents or absorbed elsewhere. The Monitoring Officer stated that there was no current proposal to abolish any parish council, although members could consider this. Based on previous experience, it was understood that any remaining funds would transfer to the principal authority, as returning them directly to residents was generally impractical. It was noted that this position would be confirmed to ensure accuracy.

In a further question Councillor Allen queried whether the reorganisation of community governance order would be shared with NALC as a matter of courtesy. It was confirmed that this could be done.

Councillor Monk asked whether there were plans to engage young people as part of the consultation, particularly in light of recent changes to the voting age. It was confirmed that liaison with children’s services would take place to support youth engagement, and that a communications plan was being developed to ensure all demographic groups were reached. It was also noted that a further report on the voting age changes would be brought forward once timings were clearer, and that members would be briefed on arrangements being made through elections services and the wider council to ensure eligible voters were informed and supported.

Councillor McKiernan asked whether potential future changes to parish council powers would be considered as part of the consultation and raised concerns about the capacity of the parish council liaison officer to support the process. In response, it was confirmed that responsibility for the consultation would not rest with a single officer, with the elections team leading the work in close collaboration with neighbourhoods’ officers and relevant Cabinet portfolio holders to ensure effective engagement with parish and town councils. It was further stated that potential future changes to parish council powers would not be factored into the current review, as any such changes were uncertain and unlikely to align with the timescale of this process.

Councillor Thorp sought clarification that, following consultation, parish boundaries could be amended where parts of an area no longer identified with a parish or where areas strongly identified with a neighbouring parish. A further question was raised about how disputes would be resolved where views were divided.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that boundary changes were possible but would need to be justified by geography and consultation responses. Decisions would be based on an area’s practical ability to function as a parish and its identification with the wider locality, rather than dissatisfaction with representation or voting outcomes. Disputes would be determined by the council, taking into account officer recommendations, consultation feedback and geographic considerations, noting that it was rare for these factors not to lead to a clear recommendation.

The Chair asked if assurances could be provided to ensure that the consultation would be meaningful. In response the Monitoring Officer confirmed this assurance, explaining that the outcomes would be reported transparently to the committee, cabinet and council. It was emphasised that the process would be open to challenge, subject to scrutiny, and robust, with members able to hold officers to account where necessary.

Councillor A Carter asked whether the review would consider the number of councillors on parish councils, noting that high numbers often led to vacancies, co?options and uncontested elections. It was suggested that fewer councillors could result in more effective parish councils and more robust elections. In a further question clarification was also sought on whether the review would allow for the abolition of existing parish councils or the removal of areas from a parish, and conversely whether currently unparished areas could be included within a parish boundary if consultation supported this.

The Monitoring Officer responded that the review could consider changes to the number of parish councillors, including reductions, increases or no change, depending on what was effective for each area. It was noted that fewer councillors did not necessarily result in more contested elections, and that evidence on election outcomes would be presented to members to support informed decision?making.

It was confirmed that the abolition of a parish council was possible but would be considered only as a last resort and would require strong supporting evidence and consultation support. It was also confirmed that the review could consider incorporating currently unparished areas into parishes, subject to consultation with affected residents, with any proposals brought forward for Council consideration at the conclusion of the review.

The Chair asked whether the abolition of a parish council would require a petition supported by a specified proportion of local residents before it could be considered. The response provided confirmed that legislation provided a mechanism for residents to trigger consideration of boundary changes or abolition through a petition, based on a defined proportion of the electorate. It was emphasised that abolition would require a significant and sustained level of local support, normally demonstrated over an extended period. It was noted that only in exceptional circumstances, such as prolonged inactivity and a complete absence of engagement, might abolition be considered without such petitioning, in line with statutory guidance.

Councillor Tinsley asked whether the reference to petitions triggering a community governance review was effectively part of, or a precursor to, the consultation process. In response the Monitoring Officer explained that petitions meeting the required thresholds could be incorporated into the current review rather than requiring a separate, standalone review. This approach was intended to ensure flexibility and efficiency, allowing any qualifying petitions arising during the process to be considered within the scope of the ongoing review.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations to Cabinet.

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

·       It was agreed that the final Community Governance Review report would be presented to OSMB as part of its pre-decision scrutiny work ahead of its consideration by Cabinet.