Meeting documents

1. THE ISSUE

1.1 To consider all representations received in response to the Council's consultation as part of a community governance review in the areas of Midsomer Norton, Radstock and Westfield and to formulate draft recommendations to the Council as the outcome of the review, with clear reasons for those recommendations.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 To consider and determine the outcome of the Community Governance Review in the form of draft recommendations to the full Council. (see broad model resolution at Appendix 4)

3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The Council has a reserve set aside as part of its 2009/10 budget. Within that reserve, a sum of up to £50,000 is available to support the review process. It is not anticipated that the full sum will be spent.

3.2 The Norton Radstock Town Council precept (i.e. the amount it requires Bath & North East Somerset to collect on its behalf to support its budget plans) for 2009/10 was £625,690. The breakdown of that figure can be found in the Town Council's own Newsletter, referred to as a background paper to this report.

3.3 It has been stressed throughout the consultation period that it is not possible to provide comprehensive financial implications for each possible outcome for the future. This is because, for those options involving the creation of new parish councils, it will be for those newly elected parish councillors to decide which services the new councils provide, how many staff they employ, the type of councils they wish to be and consequently the size of their budget and precept.

3.4 There is a potential impact on this Council if it inherits any residual assets or liabilities of the current Norton Radstock Town Council. This would only be the case should the whole or part of the Norton Radstock area be unparished. The level of that inherited liability will depend on whether any new parish councils are created and the extent to which they inherit the assets and liabilities relating to their area.

4. CORPORATE PRIORITIES

4.1 The core purpose of a community governance review (as defined in Government guidance) is to consider how best to provide efficient and convenient local government that satisfies the identity and interests of the community it serves. This has been emphasised in the review consultation paper and is paramount to the Working Group's considerations. Effective local governance is relevant to the delivery of all the Council's corporate priorities.

4.2 It is a statutory requirement on the Council to conduct a review on receipt of a valid community governance petition.

5. BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW

5.1 Community Petitions - A community governance review in the areas of Midsomer Norton, Radstock and Westfield began in August, 2009 with the publication of its terms of reference. The review was triggered by the receipt of 2 x community petitions - one recommending that a separate parish council be created for Midsomer Norton and a second recommending a separate parish council for Westfield. At an advanced stage in the review process, a third petition was received calling for a separate parish council for Radstock. This request was invalid as the number of validated eligible signatories (235) was less than the required amount of 413. Nevertheless the existence of the petition and the validated signatories provides evidence of the wishes of that section of the community.

5.2 Overall timescale - The Council has 12 months in which to complete the review, including consequential recommendations to the Electoral Commission, beginning with the publication of the review's terms of reference.

5.3 Devolved Power to the Council - Under the provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, 2007, it is now the responsibility of a principal council (such as Bath & North East Somerset) to conduct community governance reviews. Such a review must be undertaken if the Council receives a community petition signed by the requisite number of local electors. In this case two of the three petitions have been validated as satisfying their relevant numerical criterion.

5.4 The review has been conducted fully in accordance with Government guidance issued to local authorities when the power to conduct such reviews was devolved from the Secretary of State. The review process has complied with statutory provisions.

5.5 Review area - The two petitions made recommendations specifically relating to the areas of Midsomer Norton and Westfield. The present Norton Radstock Town Council administers both of these areas as well as Radstock. As it would not be feasible to consider the petition recommendations in isolation from their impact on Radstock, the community governance review embraces the whole of the Norton Radstock Town Council administrative area. The Council determined that it was not appropriate at this time to exercise its discretion to launch a community governance review of the whole of the Bath & North East Somerset area.

5.6 There has been extensive consultation with local communities and organisations in the review area, as described in section 10 of this report.

6. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE - REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS

6.1 In undertaking a community governance review, a principal council must make recommendations as to:

a) whether a new parish council or any new parishes should be constituted;

b) whether existing parishes should or should not be abolished or whether the area of existing parishes should be altered;

c) what the electoral arrangements for new or existing parishes which are to have parish councils, should be;

d) what community governance arrangements might be established as alternatives to parish councils (see Appendix 1); and

e) the relevant matters listed at para 6.13. below

6.2 Statutory Criteria for Community Governance - In deciding what recommendations to make, the principal council must have regard to the need to secure community governance that reflects the following:

(a) the identities and interests of the community in the review area

Relevant factors which the Working Group might consider include:

o cohesiveness;

o a capacity for the community to fulfil its own potential and to overcome its own difficulties,

o responsiveness to local economic, social and cultural trends,

o a sense of "place" with a positive feeling for people and local distinctiveness,

o a distinctive and recognisable community of interest

o a sense of identity,

o a strong sense of civic pride and civic values,

o strong and accountable local government and leadership,

o geography- urban, rural or a mix of both

o demography including incidence of deprivation

(b) effective and convenient local government

Relevant factors which the Working Group might consider include:

o an ability for the local authority to deliver quality services economically and efficiently,

o giving service users an effective voice in decisions that affect them,

o access to local services in one place,

o capacity for a parish council to develop wider initiatives such as Quality Parish status, giving it greater powers including partnership with the principal council

6.3 Appendix 1 gives Members a summary analysis of possible outcomes and some general information about the area.

6.4 Assets and Liabilities - Within Appendix 1 is an illustration (not exhaustive) of the assets and liabilities that might transfer to any new councils under each option. The Norton Radstock Town Council has provided core information about debt liabilities and property holdings. This has been included within Appendix 1.

6.5 For some land holdings, the Town Council acts as Trustee on behalf of various Miners' Trusts. The Trustees manage these sites as they see fit in the interests of the beneficiaries overseen by the Charity Commissioners. In the event of a successor Council being created, it will step into the shoes of the Town Council and become Trustee subject to all the same restrictions on its powers that charity law confers.

6.6. The Working Group will wish to be satisfied as to any impact a change in governance arrangements might have on the future of these areas of land.

6.7 The Working Group should note that the Regulations require that property, rights and liabilities will be transferred to any new parishes in which they are located. Parish financial balances, as they stand immediately before the date of any Order giving effect to the Council's decisions, should be transferred to any new parishes in an appropriate proportion based on population on the day immediately before the Order date.

6.8 For some assets, e.g. vehicles and equipment, it has not been possible at this stage to state what detailed apportionment might apply. Should change involving new parish councils be agreed, further detailed work will be needed to identify the legal and financial status of all relevant assets, resources and liabilities.

6.9 Representations and Petitions - The review findings must take account of any representations received in the form of local opinion and should be supported by evidence that demonstrates compliance with the criteria set out above.

6.10 The review must give careful consideration to the recommendations contained in all the petitions and also to the impact those recommendations might have on other areas if adopted. In this particular case, the impact of the petitions recommendations on the future of the Norton Radstock Town Council and its administrative area must be given careful consideration. It is open to the review to conclude differently from that recommended in the petitions. Consideration may also be given to the result of the parish poll (see section 7 below).

6.11 Electoral wards - Bath & North East Somerset electoral wards cannot be altered by the Council in a community governance review - they are the responsibility of the Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee for England. The Council can however make recommendations to the Commission as to what related alterations should be made to the boundaries of B&NES wards.

6.12 Decision timescale - In accordance with the statutory review process, the Working Group needs to consider at this meeting what recommendations it intends to make to the full Council on the future governance arrangements for the review area. Those recommendations will be published and there will be a further opportunity for local people to comment on what is proposed, prior to the Council meeting on 22^nd July, 2010 which will determine the matter.

6.13 Core considerations - In essence, the Working Group is asked to consider, in the context of the criteria at paragraph 6.2 :

(a) whether there is sufficient and robust evidence to support the creation of a parish council for Midsomer Norton?

(b) whether there is sufficient and robust evidence to support the creation of a parish council for Westfield?

(c) whether there is sufficient and robust evidence to support the creation of a parish council for Radstock?

(d) if "yes" to any or all of the above, what alternative arrangements, if any, should be made for parish level governance in the remainder of the area administered by the Norton Radstock Town Council (i.e. Westfield and Radstock; Midsomer Norton and Radstock; or Midsomer Norton and Westfield)?

(e) if "no" to all of the above, whether there is sufficient and robust evidence to demonstrate that the present governance arrangements (i.e. Norton Radstock Town Council) should continue or be adapted (e.g. an increase in the number of Midsomer Norton councillors)?

(f) In all cases, whether there are alternatives to setting up parish councils that can satisfy the community governance criteria (e.g. effective community associations).

6.14 Giving Effect to Decisions - If, as a result of the above consideration, changed arrangements are agreed by the Council, the Electoral Registration Officer will prepare a "Reorganisation Order" which will give effect to all or some of the following, depending on the agreed governance arrangements for the future:

1. defining the changed arrangements;

2. the name and style of any new parish and the name of a parish council for that parish; (The 2007 Act introduced the alternative styles of "community" "neighbourhood" or "village" which the Council might recommend);

3. stating the election arrangements for any new parish council, including the term of office of the elected parish councillors;

4. setting down the number of parish councillors for any new parish council (legal minimum is 5 - there is no maximum) or the number of councillors for the parish (where no separate parish council);

5. setting down the number of wards (if any) and the ward names together with the number of councillors to be elected to each ward (Warding of parishes is often appropriate where it is felt that particular areas of a parish should be separately represented on a parish council. Names should reflect local or historic place-names. There is no Government guidance on the number of councillors to be elected for a particular parish .The National Association of Local Councils has suggested a min/max range of 7/25);

6. detailing any altered parish boundaries (boundaries between parishes will normally reflect the "no man's land" between communities of identity. These may be areas of low population or pronounced man-made or natural physical barriers);

7. abolishing the existing Town Council;

8. changing the name of an existing parish (names should reflect existing local or historic place-names.)

9. re-arranging the electoral register

10. transferring property, rights and liabilities (see paras 6.4 to 6.8 above);

11. setting of precepts for any new parish councils (Regulations require the Council to anticipate a precept in the Order for any new parishes. Any new parish council must ensure that its budget for the first year does not exceed the precept in the Order);

12. determining transitional arrangements from existing to new governance arrangements (including arrangements concerning staff).

7. PARISH POLL

7.1 At the Annual Town Meeting for Norton Radstock Town Council held on 18^th May, 2010 a Poll was requested by the required number of parishioners on the views of the electorate on the preferred outcome of the community governance review.

7.2 Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1972, such a poll can be demanded before the conclusion of such a meeting by not less than 10 parishioners or by not less than one third of the local government electors present at the meeting, whichever is the less.

7.3 Consequently, a parish poll, by ballot, was held in the Norton Radstock area on Thursday 10th June, 2010. The poll was demanded on the following questions - the results of the poll are shown by current ward and against each question:

Is your preferred option for local government in this area:

No change, keep Norton Radstock as it is ? Yes - 451 No - 439

Complete change, dissolve the Town Council and set up two/three new parish councils to replace it? Yes - 896 No - 206

Hand over all local services to Bath & North East Somerset Council and have no parish council whatsoever? Yes - 83 No - 564

7.4 Members are reminded that the result of a parish poll are not binding and are an indication only of local feeling. The outcome of this poll needs therefore to be balanced with the other views expressed as part of this consultation and in the 3 petitions.

7.5 The turnout was 8.35% overall; by ward Westfield 2.6%, Radstock 4.8%, Midsomer Norton North 10.7% and Midsomer Norton Redfield 14.8%.

8. RISK MANAGEMENT

8.1 A risk assessment related to the issue has been undertaken, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.

8.2 The primary areas of corporate risk to this Council relate to (a) the statutory timescale for completing the review; (b) the financial consequences of abortive review work; (c) effective governance arrangements in the review area and (d) local government image and reputation. All of these have been recorded under the Council's risk management registration practices.

9. EQUALITIES

9.1 One of the core principles that the Working Group should apply in determining whether changed local governance arrangements are appropriate is the ability of those arrangements to deliver cohesive communities that are capable of fulfilling their own potential and overcoming their own difficulties including community conflict, extremism, deprivation and disadvantage.

10. CONSULTATION

10.1 A fundamental part of the community governance review process is consultation and engagement with the communities likely to be affected by the review outcome, and consideration of views received.

10.2 A consultation paper setting out all aspects of the review and the process to be followed was made available on the Council's website and distributed to many local organisations and individuals. A leaflet was sent to every household in the review area announcing the review and directing their attention to the consultation document.

10.3 Three public meetings were held within the review area during March, 2010. The views given at these meetings and the questions raised resulted in a "Frequently Asked Questions" document being prepared subsequently and made available on the Council's website. This too was sent to local organisations.

10.4 Information about the review was also provided via radio broadcasts and local media.

10.5 The Electoral Registration Officer attended a number of local organisation meetings to explain the review and to answer questions.

10.6 The closing date for local people to submit views was 14^th May, 2010. A total of 227 letters have been received by the Council. These are analysed at Appendix 2 to this report. Included within that appendix is a summary of views expressed at community meetings to which the Electoral Registration Officer was invited. At Appendix 3, is the report and recommendations of the Working Party set up by Norton Radstock Town Council to consider the Community Governance Review.

11. ADVICE SOUGHT

11.1 The Council's Section 151 Officer (Divisional Director - Finance) has had the opportunity to input to this report and has cleared it for publication. The Divisional Director (Policy and Partnerships) and Chief Executive have also contributed.