North Somerset Labour Group

Response to Council Size Consultation

Local Government Boundary Commission for England

1. Foreward

In accordance with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s consultation on Council Size for North Somerset Council, the North Somerset Labour Group of Councillors offer this response, which we hope addresses the primary considerations the Commission evaluates in determining the Council’s future number of elected members.

2. Current and historic Council size

North Somerset Council was created in 1996 as the successor unitary authority to Woodspring District Council and part of Avon County Council. There were fifty- nine councillors at inception, increasing to sixty-one from 1999 after the last boundary review, reflecting population growth in the North Worle area of Weston- super-Mare.

Woodspring DC was represented by between fifty-seven to fifty-nine District Councillors from its inception in 1974, covering the same coterminous area as the present unitary Council. The present North Somerset area elected thirteen County Councillors to Avon CC, from its inception in 1974 to abolition in 1996, representing single-member divisions.

Prior to local government re-organisation in 1974, North Somerset comprised all or part of four second-tier local authorities, within the County of Somerset. These were Weston-super-Mare Borough Council, Axbridge Rural District Council, Clevedon Urban District Council and Long Ashton Rural District Council.

Weston-super-Mare Borough Council comprised the wards of West, Ashcombe, Central, Ellenborough, Uphill, South, East, Milton & Worle, electing up to twenty- one Borough Council members. Very little residential development then existed around Worle (which had its own Parish Council until ‘incorporation’ in 1937). The Weston-super-Mare town boundary was extended across the railway line in 1993 in advance of the development of the large housing estates of Locking Castle, areas of which are still in final construction. Two additional seats were created in the North Worle area in the last ward boundary review in 1997-8.

Two large areas of housing are now planned within and around Weston-super- Mare. ‘Winterstoke village’, to be developed on the airfield, will further increase the already ‘oversized’ electorate of Weston East Ward. ‘Locking Parklands’, within the current Hutton & Locking Ward, will hugely increase the population of the Parish of Locking and has already prompted calls for the creation of a separate parish.

2. Portishead has similarly seen much expansion over recent years, prompting the addition of an extra ‘Portishead East’ ward in the last review. Further development around the east of the town is planned.

The four towns within North Somerset, Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, Portishead and Nailsea each have their own Town Councils, electing members for the twenty-three local town council wards in Weston-super-Mare and between five to seven wards each in the other three towns.

3. Current Council Governance Arrangements

Executive model. Leader plus five other Executive members from ruling Group.

Directorates are Adult Social Services & Housing, Children & Young People’s Services, Development & Environment, Finance & Resources and Corporate Services.

Full Council meets on average six to eight times a year, comprising all sixty-one elected members.

Five scrutiny panels, plus Audit Committee, Planning & Regulatory Committee (plus three Area Committees) and Licensing Committee.

There are currently three Area Committees, primarily dealing with local planning applications. These are all subordinate to the Planning & Regulatory Committee. Elected members serve on the appropriate Area Committee according to their ward location. The South Area Committee we feel is too large, comprising thirty members. Central Area meanwhile, comprises just eight.

Our proposed overall reduction of ten members retains sufficient councillor capacity to run the current Cabinet, scrutiny and regulatory arrangements of the Council. It would also retain sufficient capacity to support any future governance model that the Council may wish to adopt, such as any variation on the cabinet / scrutiny model or a committee model.

4. Scrutiny Functions

There are currently five scrutiny panels, each comprising nineteen elected members. These panels namely Health Overview, Adult Services & Housing, Strategic Planning & Economic Development, Community & Corporate Organisation, Children & Young People.

3. We would recommend a reduction in the number of members on each panel. Having virtually a third of the whole Council on each of the scrutiny panels is felt to be unnecessary and often leads to topics and items ‘losing focus’ during the course of the meetings.

Panel Chairs are appointed directly by the Executive, rather than allowing committee / panel members to choose.

A modest reduction in Council size would not adversely affect the working of scrutiny and would fit with a suggested smaller scrutiny panel size.

In addition, many panels set-up occasional ad-hoc Working Parties, looking at various aspects of Council work. These rarely comprise more than half a dozen members and again would not be affected by a fairly small overall reduction in Council size.

Elected members have the power to call-in Executive decisions, though even with majority backing from a scrutiny panel, call-ins can only at most be referred back to the relevant Executive member for reconsideration.

Planning & Regulatory, Licensing and Audit Committees comprise fewer members and we suggest no change.

5. Representational Role of Councillors in the Local Community

Appointments to outside bodies are appointed at annual Council meeting.

Many members serve as LEA School governors and have ward member involvement in local ward and town or parish organisations. Many District councilors also serve as Town or Parish Councillors. A number hold regular or occasional ward surgeries. It is widely recognized that members representing wards where deprivation is higher are likely to have greater amounts of case work than those members representing more affluent wards.

An overall reduction of ten Council seats from sixty-one to fifty-one would not make any real difference to members’ representational role. For instance, ward surgeries are often held by individual councillors, even in multi-member wards. Potential workload would not increase provided wards are not configured into large three member areas with huge electorates. Councillor workloads would remain manageable. Electors would continue to be able to receive comprehensive support from, and have good access to, councillors in all areas of the District.

4. Council outside body appointments apply to considerably less than half the current Council, therefore a reduction of ten members would not realistically put any pressure on filling these posts.

Ultimately, the overwhelming view expressed in the community is that we have too many Councillors. A realistic reduction, whilst of course not compromising the work of the Council, would be welcomed.

Furthermore, at a time of large-scale reduction in the Council’s workforce, the public impression that Councillors should not be somehow be ‘immune’ from reductions or seen as ‘untouchable’ should be heeded. A recognisable reduction, whilst not compromising democratic representation to any arguable degree, would be justifiable within a scheduled review of numbers in any case.

6. Financial / Value for Money Impact A reduction in Council size of ten would realize an annual saving to the Authority and North Somerset residents of over £80,000 a year.

7. Summary Recommendation

North Somerset Labour Group puts forward a recommendation for a Council size of fifty-one seats, where possible representing single-member wards (though retaining some multi-member where felt locally more appropriate and/or difficulty in natural sub-division). It is widely believed that the council could easily operate with a reduction to fifty-one members.

The council’s projected electorate for 2018 of 169,771 would provide an estimated councillor-elector ratio of 3,329 for a 51 member council. This ratio could be managed within the current governance structure of the authority, providing effective and convenient local government for the electors of North Somerset, particularly if accompanied by a predominantly single-member warding structure. Having regard to the statutory criteria and for the compelling reasons outlined in this report, the aspirations of the council and of the community it serves are best served by a council size of 51 for North Somerset.

8. Appendix

We suggest the following wards based on local community geography and current town and parish warding arrangements. These more accurately reflect neighbourhoods and communities, in comparison to the often meaningless or composite existing three- 5. member district wards, in many cases:

1. Pill 2. Portishead East 3. Portishead Central 4. Portishead Coast 5. Portishead West 6. Portishead South 7. Portishead Redcliffe Bay 8. Wraxall 9. Gordano 10. Clevedon North 11. Clevedon East 12. Clevedon South 13. Clevedon Yeo 14. Clevedon West 15. Nailsea North (or use Town Council Ward names) 16. Nailsea East ( “ “ ) 17. Nailsea South ( “ “ ) 18. Nailsea West ( “ “ ) 19. & 20. Long Ashton & Winford (2) 21. Backwell 22. The Combe 23. Yatton North 24. Yatton South 25. Wrington & Blagdon 26. Congresbury 27. Churchill 28. Winscombe 29. Kewstoke 30. Banwell 31. Locking 32. Hutton 33. Weston-super-Mare West 34. Weston-super-Mare Ashcombe 35. Weston-super-Mare Worlebury 36. Weston-super-Mare Milton 37. Weston-super-Mare Worle Central (or Old Worle) 38. Weston-super-Mare Worle Ebdon 39. Weston-super-Mare Worle North 40. Weston-super-Mare Worle East 41. Weston-super-Mare Worle South 42. Weston-super-Mare Locking Castle East 6. 43. Weston-super-Mare Locking Castle West 44. Weston-super-Mare Earlham 45. Weston-super-Mare Central 46. Weston-super-Mare Ellenborough 47. Weston-super-Mare Clarence & Broadoak 48. & 49. Weston-super-Mare South (2) (Bournville, Oldmixon & Coronation) 50. Weston-super-Mare Winterstoke & Hutton Moor 51. Weston-super-Mare Uphill

This warding arrangement would provide a good degree of electoral equality across the District.

7.