|
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON
WEDNESDAY 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 AT 7.00 P.M. AT THE TOWN HALL, 9
DEVON SQUARE, NEWTON ABBOT PRESENT Councillor D Corney-Walker (Mayor) Presiding
Councillor D Howe (Deputy Mayor) Councillors Mrs J Avery
Mrs C Bunday
H L J Cole
C Davieson
Mrs A Fry
M Hocking
Mrs G Leeper
R Leeper
K. Lewis
Mrs L J Lowes
Mrs S. Maddicott
C. Parker
K. Purchase
A. Vizor
Mrs D. Watts
In attendance: Mr John Smith – Chief Executive’s Office, Devon County Council
160. APOLOGIES An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor K Smith. 161. INTERESTS None. 162. PROPOSALS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW IN DEVON The Mayor introduced Mr John Smith of Devon County Council who had been
invited to the meeting to provide the Council with details of the County
Council’s response to the Boundary Committee’s draft proposals for local
government reorganisation in Devon. Mr Smith made a presentation to the meeting, with the aid of slides, detailing
the County Council’s response to the Boundary Committee’s (BC) draft
proposals. As an introduction, Mr Smith explained that neither the County nor
District Councils in Devon had made bids to the BC. The review had arisen
from a proposal put forward on behalf of Exeter City Council. He explained
that an overriding aim of the review was to devolve more services locally, to
create a stronger role for the parish and town councils in Devon and to make
financial savings. Mr Smith then presented the County Council’s proposals under the following
headings:- > Process – the 5 key criteria; the option for Status Quo; the two
proposals – a single unitary council and an option for a rural unitary and
a unitary for Exeter/Exmouth; > Progress so far – Devon County Council’s consultation events (x 100)
and affordability test; > Feedback – in summary - frustration expressed that no Status Quo
option; no support for Exeter/Exmouth options outside of Exeter;
complexity of the process; differing views from the large towns and
villages to the smaller councils; > Community Boards – parish profiling created 28/29 areas;
differences in scale (Exeter 100,000 pop. Newton Abbot 25,000 pop);
need to engage locally via Community Forums; ‘One size does not fit
all’ requiring local design; > Structure of Community Boards – effectively a local decision
making committee of a unitary authority (UA); voting status for elected
representatives only; other non-agencies present to aid discussion;
need to be supported administratively and have capacity; > Role of Community Boards – development of area action plans;
delegated budgets; determine spend (average of £200,000 allocated
per board); take delegated decisions; mainstream service related
budgets; holding the UA to account (and a parish/town council where
services delegated); planning – key role in developing the local
development framework for an area; > Development of Community Boards – co-design of boards; test
sites; > Map of Community Profiles – differing sizes of localities; > Newton Abbot issues – Scale: with surrounding parishes could
represent a population of approximately 70,000; > Strengthened Role for Parish Town Councils – direct service
delivery; direct relationship with UA; parish and town councils first tier
of local representation; democratic deficit; services which could be
devolved/delegated; > Planning – three Spatial and Economic Boards; determination of
significant planning applications; carryout statutory planning functions;
delegation to parish & town councils; local committee do determine
planning applications and licensing; > What Next? – representations to BC by 26th September; BC refer
views to Secretary of State by 31st December; four weeks for S of S
to review and announce decision 11-14th February 2009. Members were then invited to ask questions of Mr Smith, which included the
followings issues: > Budget of £200,000 to each Community Board, averaged?
> Membership of the Community Boards, all parishes or pro rata?
> Opting-out of ‘clustering’ by some parish/town councils; At the conclusion of questions and answers the Mayor thanked Mr Smith for
his attendance and presentation whereupon Mr Smith left the meeting. 163. PROPOSALS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW IN DEVON Further to minute 73/07/08, the Council gave consideration to
recommendations by the Strategic Working Party (previously circulated)
agreed at its meeting held on 9th September 208 for submission to the
Boundary Committee for England regarding its draft proposals for local
government reorganisation in Devon. The Chairman of the Working Party, Councillor Mrs D Watts, explained in
detail the deliberations of the Working Party. The Council was informed that
the Working Party had decided to approach its response by responding
specifically to the questions asked by the Boundary Committee of parish and
town councils. Councillor Watts explained that the process was a complex one
with many issues to be addressed. In particular reference was made to the
proposed Community Boards, their roles and structure. In that context the
Working Party had suggested a ‘grouping’ of the seven parishes that had
cooperated on the Community Plan, with the addition of Teigngrace. Such a
grouping was considered to more reflective of the area and more practical
than the 21 suggested by the County Council.
Members of the Council then made representations and comments to the
meeting regarding the following issues:- > Options for supporting the Status Quo;
> Newton Abbot Town Council becoming a pilot authority for the
Community Boards;
> Opportunities for parish and town councillors receiving allowances to
reflect their increased role;
> The opportunities available to town and parish councillors to better
represent their localities within a unitary structure;
> Size of a Newton Abbot ‘cluster’;
> Democratic representation;
> Planning and the LDF;
> Enhanced role of parish and town councillors;
> Strategic decision making;
> Democratic deficit.
Councillor Mrs Watts summed-up her presentation of the Working Party’s
recommendations by commending them to the Council. Arising from consideration of the matter it was RESOLVED that the recommendations of the Strategy Working Party,
as amended, be adopted and presented to the Boundary Committee
for England as Newton Abbot Town Council’s response to its Draft
proposal for unitary local government in Devon, as follows:- i. The BC’s view that Exeter needs to be included in a county-
wide authority, particularly in relation to supporting the City’s economic
growth and promote the growth of the county;
* Newton Abbot Town Council agrees - Exeter needs to be
included in any unitary authority as the County Town and for
economic reasons. Therefore, the alternative Unitary, Exeter with
Exmouth, is not supported;
ii. Whether there is a need to extend the membership of the Devon
Strategic Partnership to reflect more fully Exeter’s role in the county.
* Newton Abbot Town Council agrees - the Local Strategic
Partnership needs to be the strategic arm of any unitary council;
iii. The community governance role envisaged for Exeter as part of a
county unitary authority;
* Newton Abbot Town Council is of the view that Exeter should be
granted City Council status as befits its position as the county
town, and its rich history (as has happened in Shrewsbury arising
from Shropshire’s unitary status). This will give equal
governance over its own affairs as applies to all market towns in
Devon and thereby taking responsibility for the level of services it
is capable of delivering and at the same time protecting its civic
status.
iv. Evidence that a county-wide unitary authority has a broad cross-
section of support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and
service users/citizens;
* This is an issue for the Boundary Committee to assess following
receipt of the Third Stage representations. However, many
stakeholders in the County question why this change is
necessary at all. Successes of the current structure could be built
upon; such as joint service delivery. A view shared by Newton
Abbot Town Council. Should a unitary structure for Devon not
meet the 5 key criteria, improved partnership working between
the three tiers of local government should be progressed. The
Council therefore supports the local government structure in
Devon remaining as it currently exists.
v. Considered views from parish and town councils in regard to their
envisaged role in the proposed Community Board arrangements;
* It is Newton Abbot Town Council’s expectation that the Devon
parish and town councils will be partners with any unitary council
in developing local policy and delivering local services,
development of policy could be carried out either directly with
parish and town councils or through a forum held on a regular
basis (e.g. every six months);
* The Town Council recognises there are pressures for change.
There are issues and frustrations for individuals and
organisations alike in having to deal with two and sometimes
three tiers of local government in Devon. This often leads to
delays in progressing initiatives important to citizens. Any
adopted new structure therefore should address this and at the
same time initiate meaningful neighbourhood empowerment; the
acid test being local govt from the bottom up, rather than the top
down!
vi. The roles and responsibilities of the proposed Community Boards,
particularly as they are perceived by parish and town councils and
other groups likely to be involved as Board representatives;
* The County Council proposal suggests only ‘Up to 5 parish/town
council representatives’ and takes no account of population
densities in a town or parish. Neither does it have regard for the
number of councillors or the size of ward they represent. This
will potentially marginalise some parish/town councils, this will
be extremely difficult to work. It requires some parish/town
councils to represent others. Also, it assumes the parish and
town councillors have the capacity to be able to take part in a
considerable number of additional meetings.
* In a practical sense, parish and town councils will need to partner
(cluster) should a unitary structure be adopted, if only in relation
to contacts for services. However, there will be reluctance on the
part of many small parish councils due to lack of resources.
Transfer of local service delivery must be accompanied by the
necessary resources (including finance) with no increase to
Council tax payers. Parishes must be able to retain the integrity
of their identities.
* If community boards are adopted as the method of providing
neighbourhood empowerment, their structure, organisation and
role will need to reflect local circumstances. As will the
devolvement and delegation of services. Additionally, community
board parish/town council groupings as suggested by the County
Council will need to be reviewed to reflect their relevance to local
circumstances; e.g. Newton Abbot’s proposal should be reduced
from 22 to 7 which will better relate to the town and services
provided (the same as the group which cooperated on the
production of the Newton Abbot and District Community Plan,
with the addition of Teigngrace).
vii. How the County Council’s proposed community governance structures
will be constituted by the new authority in order to ensure clear
accountability for matters such as service delivery?
* The County Council’s proposals assume to introduce an
additional unnecessary level of bureaucracy - Parish/Town/
Community Plans already provide evidenced details of local
needs and aspirations. These should take more prominence and
provide the foundation neighbourhood empowerment. They
could be regularly refreshed and consulted upon as things
change. Quality Parish Councils already have websites and
provide newsletters etc. as an interface with their citizens.
* Local Area Agreements and LSP’s already provide strategic level
input. Community Boards and Community Forums could be
considered as duplication.
* The whole issue of service delivery in the County Council’s
model needs further clarification. The upper-tier services such as
are currently delivered by the County Council together with
housing are clearly for the unitary to provide, however, there
needs to be local delivery of the lower-tier services such as
licensing and planning (* see list of possible services below).
With particular reference to planning (development control), the
County Council proposes 3/4 spatial and economic boards and
area committees. Potential for parish/town councils to deliver the
service is being considered. This service should be dealt with by
the parish/town councils. Artificial levels of bureaucracy are
being created which the public will understand even less than the
current structure. The public are closest to the first tier of local
govt, parish & town councils, and as such will understand local
services being delivered from that level with the upper-tier
services from the unitary council, otherwise the existing
confusion will continue.
* The Boundary Committee, if it does recommend a unitary
structure for Devon is urged to consider also recommending a
reasonable implementation timetable. 2010 is considered to be
too soon and does not give an opportunity to put in place the
necessary governance and time for pilots etc. to be tried and
tested.
* Newton Abbot Town Council, in view of its status as a regional
centre in South Devon, formally requests that it is invited to
become one of the pilot areas for Community Boards.
*List of services which could be delivered by parish/town
councils
Off and on-street car parking
Cleansing/litter
Street scene/furniture etc.
Town-centre management
Grass/verge cutting
Public conveniences
Allotments (already with
parish/town councils)
Parks/gardens/open spaces
Local buildings/land transferred to
p/tc’s to own
Delegated planning/dev control
matters
Delegated licensing matters
Naming of streets/numbering of
houses
Footpaths
Bus shelters
Children’s’ play areas
The Clean Neighbourhoods Act
Tourist information centres
Museums & libraries
Markets
164. STREET FURNITURE – COURTENAY STREET, NEWTON ABBOT Councillor Mrs Anne Fry invited the Council to indicate its support for the
replacement of the street furniture in Courtenay Street to match that proposed
for the new pedestrianised areas in Wolborough Street and Bank Street.
Additionally, should the Council support the proposal to maintain such street
furniture in future and to consider contributing to the cost which had been
estimated to be in the region of £25,000. Members were supportive of the proposal and wished to ensure that the
seating removed from Courtenay Street is utilised elsewhere in the town. In
addition many members raised other areas of the town where additional
seating was needed. Arising from consideration of the matter was RESOLVED (a) that the Town Clerk inform Devon County Council that Newton
Abbot Town Council supported the replacement of the existing
street furniture in Courtenay Street and is prepared to be
responsible for its maintenance; (b) that the Town Clerk liaise with Devon County and Teignbridge
District Councils to identify the level of contribution required and
place the matter before the Strategy Working Party to inform its
budget considerations.
--------------------------------
Chairman
|
© 2008 - Joomla development specialists