Appendix P Review of Community Governance in the Un-parished Area of Crook carried out by Durham County Council
Draft Recommendations
On 26 October 2011, the County Council approved terms of reference for the conduct of a Community Governance Review in the unparished area of Crook (Map D identifies the area under review). The terms of reference were published on 1 November and included the terms of the petition which has been received from residents requesting the establishment of a Crook Town Council. The petition was compliant with the legislation.
The Review
The Council carried out this review under the Local Government Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (‘the Act’). It was known to the Council that there was a wish in the area by some residents to have the review with a view to establishing parish council arrangements. The review was however delayed whilst the Council was waiting for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommendations in relation to electoral arrangements for County Durham, following Local Government Reorganisation in 2009. The review was commenced before final recommendations were published by the Boundary Commission in order to enable the Council to put in place electoral arrangements for any parish council established by the review in time for the County Council elections in May 2013.
Following resolution of the Council on 26 October, the terms of reference were published on 1 November 2011.
Under the terms of reference, the Council was to consider whether:
• A new Crook Parish Council should be created for the area identified within the petition and illustrated on an attached Map D.
• More than one parish council should be created in the unparished area of Crook.
• The merging of part of the unparished area with an existing Parish Council.
• Any other alternative forms of community governance should be created.
Following the publication of the terms of reference, consultation took place with electors and stakeholders in the area including local businesses, schools and colleges, community associations, local County Councillors, tenants and residents associations, voluntary groups and societies. Neighbouring parish councils were also consulted.
In addition to this the Council:
• Provided an electronic leaflet and questionnaire and other information on its website and other social networking sites.
• Produced an information leaflet and questionnaire sent to all households in the review area.
• Published an article in the autumn/winter edition of the Council’s Residents Magazine ‘Durham County News’.
• Published relevant statutory notices within the local media.
The consultation period (stage 1 consultations) ended on 31 December 2011.
Town and Villages descriptions
Crook is a market town situated about 10 miles (16km) south-west of Durham. It lies a couple of miles north of the River Wear, on the A690 from Durham.
Billy Row is a village situated a short distance to the north of Crook.
Sunniside is a small rural village to the east of Town Law and north of Crook. Sunniside is one of the highest villages within the County of Durham, at 1,000 feet (300m) above sea level.
Stanley Crook is a village situated to the north of Crook and Billy Row. The area is rural, surrounded by open farm land and woodland.
Billy Row, Sunniside and Stanley are part of the Hill Top Villages Association.
Hunwick is a semi-rural village, dating from Saxon times. Hunwick stands between Bishop Auckland and Crook.
Fir Tree is a village situated 2 miles to the west of Crook, near the River Wear.
Howden le Wear is a village approximately 1 mile south of Crook.
High Grange is a village situated on the A689 between Bishop Auckland and Crook.
North Bitchburn is a village situated to the north west of Bishop Auckland, near Howden-le-Wear.
Helmington Row is a small village situation between Crook and Willington. Submissions Received
There were 860 responses out of 7,340 properties for the full un-parished Crook and surrounding area (as identified on Map D as Crook North, Crook Central and Crook South). 52% of responses requested no change to current arrangements. (See Appendix E). Royal Mail returned 24 envelopes as being undelivered. 55% of residents in Crook Central requested no change – this was the area covered by the petition requesting a Town Council for Crook.
Mindful of the percentage of responses requesting no change it is felt appropriate that no change should be one of the options consulted upon at stage 2.
Having identified Option 1 as no change consideration was given to the second preference identified by respondents.
In respect of Crook North (Crook North being the area identified on Map C as Crook North), the next preference of those who responded (24%) requested a new parish for the Crook North Area. Only 18% expressed the preference of becoming part of another parish. Tow Law Town Council had requested that their boundary be amended to include the hill top villages (Stanley, Sunniside and Billy Row) within Tow Law parish. However, from the results of the stage 1 consultation, it can be noted from responses from the hill top villages that they do not appear to support merging with another parish. It has subsequently been identified that the appropriate alternative option for Crook North is a Crook North Parish.
In respect of Crook Central, the petition area, 55% of responses sought no change. Their second preference was for a new parish for Crook Central.
Roddymoor was part of the area which was the subject of Crook Central petition requesting the establishment of a town council for Crook. However, as a result of the final recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) review, Roddymoor is now in the electoral division of Crook North (previously Crook Central). If Roddymoor is to be included in a Crook Central Parish it will be necessary to ward that area. Warding arrangements are covered later in this report. In respect of Roddymoor, 17 returns were received out of 198 properties. It is proposed that as a second option Roddymoor be included in the Crook Central area as identified on Map F.
In respect of North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear, the first preference was for no change. The second was to be part of any Crook Parish. It is proposed that the first option for consultation in this area at stage 2 be no change and the second to be part of a Crook Central parish. Thus, it is proposed that Crook Central include the areas of Crook, Helmington Row, Roddymoor, North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear and this be the second option for consultation in this area.
In respect of Hunwick 59% of responses requested no change. The second preference was for a Crook South parish. Taking into account the second preference expressed by North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear to be part of a Crook Central parish, it is proposed that Hunwick be consulted on two options - No Change and a parish for Hunwick.
Consideration has been given as to whether households in Crook North, South and Central (as identified on Map D) should be offered a third option of one parish covering the whole of these three areas. However, taking into account the comments received during the stage 1 consultations this proposal was not supported by Crook North or Hunwick and it could be considered undemocratic to impose one parish for the whole un-parished area, should the outcome of the second consultation be affected by the high density of residents in Crook Central compared to Crook North and Hunwick. Likewise, it could be considered undemocratic if Hunwick or Crook North were seen to influence the decision as to whether or not a parish council should be created for Crook Central.
Consideration has been given to the impact on community cohesion when deciding whether or not to set up a parish. Setting up parishes and parish councils clearly offers the opportunity to strengthen community engagement and participation, and generate a positive impact on community cohesion.
The Council recognises that communities have expert knowledge about their own circumstances and that actions at the local level contribute to achieving integration and cohesion, with local authorities well placed to identify any pressures. Community governance arrangements should reflect, and be sufficiently representative of, people living across the whole community and not just a discrete cross-section or small part of it.
The Council should be able to decline to set up such community governance arrangements where they judge that to do so would not be in the interests of either the local community or surrounding communities, and where the effect is likely to damage community cohesion. With this in mind it is felt that consulting the three areas on two options each is the most appropriate way forward. Consulting on a third option for one parish for the whole un-parished area, for which there was little support, would reduce clarity and be unduly complex to those being consulted.
Mindful of respondents second preferences, the grouping of Roddymoor, Howden le Wear, North Bitchburn, Fir Tree and High Grange with Crook may be explained in that Crook is the main provider of mixed retail outlets, doctors, dentists, chemists, schools, industrial units, council offices, library, market, nursery schools and garage services for the area. Regular bus services link these villages with Crook.
In the grouping of these villages the Council believes that the wishes of local inhabitants should be a primary consideration in this review.
An issue has arisen in relation to the electoral division boundary effective from 2013 which would isolate one property “the Kennels” between 2 parish boundaries. The result is “the Kennels” will be between the 2 parish boundaries of Wolsingham parish and the Crook Central parish, should the latter be created. Should the results of the second stage of consultations propose a Crook Parish (Map F) then discussions take place with Wolsingham Parish Council in respect of land referred to as “the Kennels”. The remainder of this report assumes that this course of action is supported.
Discussions have also taken place with local County Councillors for this area and they supported the proposals for consultation at stage 2.
Further representations received
Attached at Appendix H is the statistical representation received in respect of Crook.
As previously stated, Tow Law Town Council had requested that the hill top villages be included within Tow Law parish. However, following consultation, it can be noted from responses from the hill top villages that they do not appear to support merging with an existing parish council.
A letter of support for a Crook Town Council has been received from the local MP for North West Durham.
Electorate Forecasts
The Council has used the Register of Electors of February 2011 in providing the electorate figures for the un-parished Crook and surrounding area. Consideration has also been given to the change in the number / distribution of the electors which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends. Polling District electorate forecasts for the un- parished Crook and surrounding area up to and including 2017 are attached at Appendix A.
Proposals and Recommendations for Crook
Having considered these projections it can be established that population levels would sustain:
• A Crook North parish (Crook north as identified on Map E)
• Crook Central – including Crook, Helmington Row, Roddymoor, Fir Tree, North Bitchburn, Howden le Wear and High Grange as identified on Map F.
• A Hunwick parish as identified on Map G.
Consideration has been given as to whether parishes of the size proposed would produce an effective parish Council i.e. they have the capacity to deliver better services and to represent the community’s interests. Issues to consider here include whether their size would raise a precept that would enable them to actively and effectively promote the well-being of their residents and to contribute to the real provision of services in their areas in an effective and efficient manner.
The Council recognises that, in rural areas, a strong sense of community can prevail over an extensive but otherwise sparsely populated area. Parishes in these areas may have limited capacity to facilitate service provision and effective local government. Even so, arrangements in these areas, when they accord with the wishes of the inhabitants of the parish, will at least represent convenient local government. This has been considered when more rural villages (i.e. High Grange, North Bitchburn) have expressed a second preference of being linked with Crook under one parish council.
Whether there should be a Parish Council
Under the Act , the Review must recommend that the Parish should have a Council given that there are more than 1,000 local government electors.
The electors/properties for the three proposed parishes are set out below: Crook North – 1390 electors – 822 properties Crook Central – 9929 electors – 5941 properties Hunwick – 1057 electors – 606 properties
The breakdown into polling districts is attached at Appendix I.
Under this option, for the un-parished area of Crook and surrounding villages (Map D), the Council would propose the formation of 3 parish councils. If a Parish Council is formed, then, following elections, there will be one or more democratically elected Parish Council in the area whose powers and duties are set out in Appendix J.
Under the Localism Act 2011, “eligible” Parish Councils may also have the general power of competence which has been given to other local authorities by the Act. This is a power to do anything that individuals generally may do, although with some restrictions set out in the legislation. What makes a parish council eligible will depend upon whether it meets conditions yet to be set out in an Order from the Secretary of State.
The present structure of parishes and their electoral arrangements
Consideration has been given to the present parish structure in the County, including parishes, parish wards, ward representation, overall representation, ratios of electors to councillors and rural/urban designation.
Mindful that the Council is required by law to consider other forms of community governance as alternatives to parish councils, consideration has been given to other arrangements for community representation or community engagement which already exist in the area, including the Area Action Partnerships, tenants associations, community associations, resident association. A list of these bodies is attached at Appendix M.
The Council is mindful of such other forms of community governance in its consideration of whether parish governance is most appropriate in unparished Crook and the surrounding area. It also notes that what sets parish councils apart from other kinds of governance is the fact that they are a democratically elected tier of local government with directly elected representatives, independent of other council tiers and budgets, and possessing specific powers for which they are democratically accountable.
Other forms of Community Governance Considered
Other forms of community governance consulted upon during the stage 1 consultations included:
• Area/community forums
• Community associations
• Neighbourhood Management
Consideration has been given to the pattern of community representation and community engagement already operating in the area.
In respect of the whole un-parished area of Crook (Crook North, South and Central as identified on Map D) only 3% expressed an interest in other forms of community governance.
Boundaries
The Council in drawing up its proposals has tried to ensure that the boundaries between parishes reflect the ‘no-man’s land’ between communities represented by areas of low population or pronounced physical barriers.
The consideration of demographic trends and influences on them, such as new development, has resulted in the realignment of the southern boundary of any Crook Central parish to allow for further housing development
Names and styles of parishes
With regard to the names of parishes, the Council will always endeavour to reflect existing local or historic place-names.
Should parishes be created it is suggested that the names be as follows:
• Hill Top Villages Parish Council
• Crook Parish Council (once established the parish council can resolve to become a town council).
• Hunwick Parish Council
Warding arrangements of the parish councils
Consideration has been given to the following:
• Whether the number, or distribution of the electorate for the parish would make a single election of councillor impracticable or inconvenient.
• Whether it is desirable that any area or areas of the parish should be separately represented on the council
• Whether governance is effective and convenient i.e. whether the cost of separate ward elections in some cases would represent an ineffective use of the parish’s limited resources.
In respect of the size and boundaries of wards, consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors for the parish
• Any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors which is likely to occur in the 5 years beginning with the day when the review ends.
• The desirability of fixing boundaries which are, and will remain easily identifiable.
• Any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundaries.
Consideration has also been given to the advice of the Local Government Boundary Commission:
• No unwarded parish should be divided by county division boundaries and no parish should be split by such a boundary.
• The number of councillors should be proportional to electoral sizes across parish wards (each persons vote should be of equal weight so far as possible)
Mindful of the size of any Crook North parish it is not considered appropriate or necessary to apply warding arrangements. Although Sunniside, Billy Row and Stanley are distinct villages, the overall electorate would not make a single election of councillors impracticable and inconvenient. This will be a smaller parish with 1390 electors and the cost of separate ward elections may represent an ineffective use of the parish’s limited resources. The villages are collectively known locally as the Hill Top Villages with a Hill Top Villages Association.
However, as a result of the final recommendations of the LGBCE’s review, Roddymoor is now in the electoral division of Crook North (previously Crook Central). If Roddymoor is to be included in a Crook Central Parish it will be necessary to ward that area.
It is also considered appropriate to ward the area covering High Grange, North Bitchburn, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear to ensure the Councillor spread across the whole area is, as far as possible, consistent. High Grange, Fir Tree and North Bitchburn are small semi-rural villages The larger village of Howden-le-Wear compares to the urban area of Crook Town. Furthermore, the number of electors and the proposed number of councillors would make an election for the whole of Crook parish impractical and inconvenient.
Hunwick has its own identity and given its size no proposals are put forward to ward that parish council should one be created. A single election for the parish would be practicable and convenient.
Electoral Arrangements
Ordinary year of election
It is proposed that the next ordinary election of parish councillors is 2013, and every 4 years thereafter. This cycle coincides with the cycle for Durham County Council Unitary elections; this enables the costs of elections to be shared.
Size of the parish councils
The minimum legal number of parish councillors for each parish council is five. There is no maximum number and no other legislative guidance in this respect.
Subsequently, in respect of the number of electors consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors of the proposed parish
• Any change in that number which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends
• NALC guidance
• Aston Business School research (1992)
• The Councillor to elector ratios that currently exists across existing parish/town councils in County Durham. See Appendix L.
Electoral forecasts are attached at Appendix A.
The NALC guidance indicates that local council business does not usually require a large body of councillors but to ensure business convenience it is considered appropriate to suggest the following as practicable councillor numbers per parish council:
• Hill Top Villages Parish Council – 8 members
• Crook Parish (Town) Council – 16 members
• Hunwick Parish Council – 7 members
In respect of Crook parish, three wards are proposed:
• Roddymoor Ward – 1 Member
• Crook Central Ward – 12 Members
• Crook South Ward – 3 Members
Setting precepts for new parish Councils
Parish Councils have the power to levy a precept. This means that it requests the County Council to collect from each household an additional sum to the Council Tax to help fund the Parish Council. Whilst the County Council may make recommendations for the size of the initial precept and will arrange to and adopt the initial parish precept on behalf of the new parish or parishes, thereafter, the size of the precept will be decided by the Parish Council as an elected body.
The Group is considering what would be an appropriate precept for the new parish councils and these are set out below:
Hill Top Villages Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
Crook Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
Hunwick Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
In subsequent years it will be for the elected Parish Council to set its own precept.
Suggested commencement dates:
• 1 April 2013 for administrative and financial purposes
• 2 May 2013 ordinary elections for the election of a council and every 4 years thereafter.
Proposals and Recommendations for Consultations for Crook
Given the complexities in the responses received, the Council does not propose to consult on one option alone but consultation is taking place as following:-
For residents of the area identified as Crook North on Map E:
1. No change.
2. On the formation of a Hill Top Villages Parish Council.
For residents of the area identified as Crook Central on Map F:
1. No change
2. Crook Parish Council including Crook, Roddymoor, Howden le Wear, Helmington Row, North Bitchburn, Fir tree and High Grange with appropriate warding arrangements.
For residents of Hunwick as identified on Map G.
1. No change
2. A Hunwick Parish Council
Further, should the results of the second stage of consultation propose a Crook Parish Council (Map F) then discussions take place with Wolsingham Parish Council in respect of land referred to as “the Kennels”
In summary, the Council is of the view that the alternative arrangements proposed are viable. They reflect the identities and interests of the community in that area and are effective and convenient.
Timetable for the review
Action Time Dates Span Publication of Terms of 1 November 2011 Reference Invitation of initial submissions Two 1 November 2011 to 31 December months 2011 Analysis/evaluation of Two 1 January 2012 to 21 March 2012 submissions and preparation months of draft proposals Publication of draft proposals 1 April 2012
Consultation on draft Two 1 April 2012 to 30 May 2012 proposals months
Analysis/evaluation of draft 31 July 2012 proposals and preparation of final proposals Publication of final 1 October 2012 recommendations Preparation and publication of Two 1 November 2012 any reorganisation Order months Election date May 2013
In addition to a questionnaire and information leaflet being delivered to every household in the area, further information will be displayed on the Council’s website and sent to residents when requested.
“Drop In” sessions are also to be held in the area where residents can to speak to Officers direct to seek further clarifications on the options available.