This Report will be made public on 14 February 2013

Report Number GP/12/04

To: General Purposes Committee Date: 26 February 2013 Status: Non-Executive decision Head of Service: Peter Wignall, Administration

SUBJECT: HAWKINGE COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW

SUMMARY: This report sets out the final proposals for the Community Governance Review of Hawkinge Parish Council and the surrounding area.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The General Purposes Committee is asked to agree final recommendations to be made to Council on 21 March 2013.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To receive and note report GP/12/04. 2. To agree: • Whether the new parish of Acrise is created including those properties in Coach Road, School Road, Pine Cote on Hoad Road and Ridge Row. • To determine, if a new parish of Acrise is created, whether it should be a parish meeting or have a parish council with five elected councillors. • Whether a new parish is created covering the previous parishes of Hawkinge and Swingfield (excluding, depending on decisions made on the extent of Acrise, those properties in Coach Road, School Road, Pine Cote on Hoad Road and Ridge Row). • If a new parish is created covering Hawkinge and Swingfield then the name should be ‘Hawkinge Town Council’ or ‘Hawkinge and Swingfield Town Council’. 3. That any new parish covering Hawkinge and Swingfield comprises 15 councillors and is warded as follows: • Fernfield ward with 4 councillors • Uphill ward with 3 councillors • Churchill ward with 6 councillors • Densole and Swingfield ward with 2 councillors 4. That any new arrangements will not take effect until the next ordinary elections scheduled for May 2015. 5. That if a new parish area of Hawkinge and Swingfield is created, the Head of Administration be authorised to make the appropriate reorganisation of community governance order under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to bring into effect the council’s decisions and to make such other consequential provisions (including the transfer of assets to any new council) as he shall deem appropriate, 6. To make recommendations to council following consideration of the above.

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 General Purposes Committee met on 14 June 2011 and agreed to undertake a Community Governance Review for the Parish of Hawkinge once the terms of reference were agreed at a subsequent meeting of the committee.

1.2 At the meeting of 17 October 2011, General Purposes Committee agreed the terms of reference namely that the review would:

• Determine whether nine parish councillors are sufficiently representative of the population and; • Whether the parish and electoral boundaries should be amended

1.3 The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government outlines how the Council must conduct such a review.

1.4 The review must be completed within 12 months of the date on which the Council publishes the Terms of Reference for the review which was 18 October 2011. The review is completed when the Council publishes its recommendations.

2. CURRENT SITUATION

2.1 The legislative provisions for the establishment and review of parish councils are largely contained in Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. A key feature of the Act (relevant provisions of which were implemented form 13 February 2008) was to transfer responsibility for making parish orders from the Secretary of State to ‘principal’ councils such as Shepway District Council . 2.2 Guidance on the legislation and the undertaking of community governance reviews was published (jointly by CLG and the Electoral Commission) in April 2008. The following paragraphs are extracted from the guidance:

Paragraph 49: Parish councils continue to have two main roles: community representation and local administration. For both purposes it is desirable that a parish should reflect a distinctive and recognisable community of place, with its own sense of identity. The views of local communities and inhabitants are of central importance

Paragraph 79: The general rule should be that the parish is based on an area which reflects community identity and interest and which is of a size that is viable as an administrative unit of local government. This is generally because of the representative nature of parish councils and the need for them to reflect closely the identity of their communities.

Paragraph 154: In practice, there is a wide variation of council size between parish councils. That variation appears to be influenced by population. Research by the Aston Business School Parish and Town Councils in England (HMSO, 1992), found that the typical parish council representing less than 500 people had between five and eight councillors; those between 501 and 2,500 had six to 12 councillors; and those between 2,501 and 10,000 had nine to 16 councillors. Most parish councils with a population of between 10,001 and 20,000 had between 13 and 27 councillors, while almost all councils representing a population of over 20,000 had between 13 and 31 councillors.

Paragraph 155: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has no reason to believe that this pattern of council size to population has altered significantly since the research was conducted. Although not an exact match, it broadly reflects the council size range set out in the National Association of Local Councils Circular 1126; the Circular suggested that the minimum number of councillors for any parish should be seven and the maximum 25.

Paragraph 156: In considering the issue of council size, the LGBCE is of the view that each area should be considered on its own merits, having regard to its population, geography and the pattern of communities. Nevertheless, having regard to the current powers of parish councils, it should consider the broad pattern of existing council sizes. This pattern appears to have stood the test of time and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have provided for effective and convenient local government.

Paragraph 158: Parish warding should be considered as part of a community governance review. Parish warding is the division of a parish into wards for the purpose of electing councillors. This includes the number and boundaries of any wards, the number of councillors to be elected for any ward and the names of wards.

Paragraph 159: In considering whether or not a parish should be divided into wards, the 2007 Act requires that consideration be given to whether:

a) The number, or distribution of the local government electors for the parish would make a single election of councillors impracticable or inconvenient; and

b) It is desirable that any area or areas of the parish should be separately represented

2.3 Hawkinge Parish Council was created prior to 1923 and comprised of 5 councillors. By 1961 the local population had risen to 1428 and the number of councillors was raised to 7, rising again to 9 in 1968, which it remains at today. In 2010 the local population had risen to 9000 and in 2011, 5393 local government electors were registered in the parish area. This growth will continue as new housing development takes place.

2.4 An additional consequence of the rapid population growth of the parish is an increasing burden of administering electoral arrangements. Currently the parish has one ward and all electors are required to use a single polling station which is not only unwieldy in terms of staffing, but also requires electors from the more northerly part of the parish to travel further. 2.5 One issue upon which the Council has discretion is to decide whether there are grounds for enlarging the area, which is the subject of the review. For example, if the Council believes an area, which should form part of the new parish, has been omitted, the Council can include it. However the Council cannot reduce the area specified by the petitioners.

2.6 It must also be noted that the Council’s functions and responsibilities in relation to the conduct of Community Governance Reviews cannot be exercised by the Council’s Executive (i.e. Cabinet); this means that decisions must be taken by full Council, or by a Committee or Officer of the Council on its behalf.

2.7 A Parish Council may also be created where there are more then 150 electors and the review may therefore consider whether or not the parish should have a council.

2.8 If two or more of the parishes indicated a willingness to merge, then the Committee could consider recommending the creation of a new parish council to replace the existing structure of a parish meeting.

3. INITIAL CONSULTATION

3.1 At the General Purposes meeting of the 17 October 2011, General Purposes Committee instructed an initial consultation to be undertaken by officers from Democratic Services. Under this instruction, officers have conducted a soft sounding consultation exercise with the whole electorate in Acrise [148 electors], Paddlesworth [28 electors] and Swingfield [1,029 electors] and a 10% sample of the Hawkinge electorate [567 electors].

3.2 The results of the consultation conducted from 10 January to 8 February 2012 inclusive are as follows:

Retain Identity of parish name Not Paddlesworth parish area 20 important No opinion Important Response 71.4% 0 0 20 No to merge with Hawkinge 95.0% 0.00% 0.0% 100.0% Yes to merge with Hawkinge 5.0%

No to merge North Downs East 90.0% Yes to merge North Downs East 10.0%

Retain Identity of parish name Not Acrise parish area 80 important No opinion Important Response 54.1% 3 0 77 No to merge with Hawkinge 95.0% 3.75% 0.0% 96.3% Yes to merge with Hawkinge 5.0%

No to merge North Downs East 93.8% Yes to merge North Downs East 6.3%

Retain Identity of parish name Not Swingfield parish area 464 important No opinion Important Response 45.1% 63 27 374 No to merge with Hawkinge 47.8% 13.58% 5.8% 80.6% Yes to merge with Hawkinge 52.2%

No to merge North Downs East 52.8% Yes to merge North Downs East 47.2%

Retain Identity of parish name Not Hawkinge parish area 141 important No opinion Important Response 32.0% 8 2 122 No to merge with Swingfield 42.6% 5.67% 1.4% 86.5% Yes to merge with Swingfield 57.4%

No to merge North Downs East 34.8% Yes to merge North Downs East 65.2%

3.3 There was some criticism from respondents to the survey that electors in Acrise, Paddlesworth and Swingfield were not offered the opportunity to indicate a preference for merging with each other. Several comments were made on the survey form that this would be a preference as opposed to merging with Hawkinge Town Council.

3.4 There was no indicated desire for a merger of the four parishes of Acrise, Paddlesworth and Swingfield.

3.5 In light of this, it is was agreed at the General Purposes Committee meeting of 21 February 2012 to further consult Swingfield, Acrise and Paddlesworth parishes for their opinion on whether a merger of all or two of the aforementioned parishes should be considered.

4. SECOND CONSULTATION

4.1 The second phase of consultation of households took place in April and May 2012 and the results are as follows:

Paddlesworth parish area DON'T Response 82.1% YES NO KNOW 1. The parish of Paddlesworth consider merging with Acrise only 8.7% 78.3% 4.3% and seek parish council status 2. The parish of Paddlesworth consider merging with Acrise only 30.4% 65.2% 4.3% and continue as a parish meeting 3. The parish of Paddlesworth should consider merging with the 0.0% 91.3% 8.7% parish of Swingfield only 4. The parish of Paddlesworth should consider merging with the 0.0% 91.3% 8.7% parishes of both Acrise and Swingfield

Acrise parish area DON'T Response 61.1% YES NO KNOW

1. The parish of Acrise should seek 50.0% 47.7% 2.3% parish council status

2. The parish of Acrise should consider merging with the parish of 18.2% 79.5% 2.3% Paddlesworth only 3. The parish of Acrise should consider merging with the parish of 0.0% 97.7% 2.3% Swingfield only 4. The parish of Acrise should consider merging with the parishes 2.3% 95.5% 2.3% of both Paddlesworth and Swingfield

Swingfield parish area DON'T Response 41.5% YES NO KNOW 1. The parish of Swingfield should consider merging with the parish of 23.7% 42.7% 33.6% Acrise only 2. The parish of Swingfield should consider merging with the parish of 8.5% 54.5% 37.0% Paddlesworth only 3. The parish of Swingfield should consider merging with the parishes 61.1% 27.0% 11.8% of both Acrise and Paddlesworth

4.2 Based on the responses received to the initial consultation, and in the absence of any willingness to merge two or more of the parishes of Acrise, Paddlesworth and Swingfield, General Purposes Committee met on 26 July 2012 and resolved no further action be taken in respect of merging the parishes of Paddlesworth, Acrise and Paddlesworth.

4.3 A meeting of the parishes of Paddlesworth, Acrise, Swingfield and Hawkinge with the District Ward Councillors and General Purposes Vice- Chair was held on 7 June 2012 to discuss the findings of the consultation and to report back meetings of each parish. Representatives of Acrise were minded to support the continuation of a Parish Meeting but agreed to be open to further discussion about the benefits of having a Parish Council and to consider any border issues. Hawkinge and Swingfield agreed to have a merged council and to work co-operatively over the intervening period as to how they could work together almost in a shadow organisational environment with the current administrations and councillors. There was general support for the new arrangements to take effect from the date of the ordinary elections in 2015 and the Committee resolved that any new parish elections would only take effect at the ordinary elections scheduled for 2015.

4.4 At the meeting of 26 July, the Committee resolved to consult further on the agreed name for the new merged parish area of Hawkinge and Swingfield but that the name should include the descriptive term “Town Council”.

4.5 Swingfield Parish Council met on 31 July 2012 and resolved to request that the name of the new council be “Hawkinge and Swingfield Town Council”. A random sample of electors were written to but no other representations have been received. The Committee agreed at the meeting of 8 October 2012, that that the name of the new parish be included in the final referendum of all local government electors in the area.

5. THIRD CONSULTATION

5.1 The Committee resolved to conduct a doorstep consultation of the areas in School Road, Coach Road, Pine Cote and Ridge Row that currently fall within Swingfield Parish Council area to ascertain the respective wishes of residents as to whether they would wish to be included in a new parish area which included the existing Acrise Parish.

5.2 The consultation took place during the week of 6 August 2012 and the results were as follows:

Properties Canvassed: 59 with 63% of residential properties responding Join Acrise: 36 (61%) Stay in Swingfield: 1 (2%)

5.3 Further information by residents during the consultation was that many are currently involved with community events and activities or attend the local Acrise Church and that they feel they are a distinct community from the central urban conurbation of Hawkinge. In the event that a future recommendation creates a new Acrise parish which includes their community, many requested that the signage for Acrise parish is moved prior to any creation of the new parish area.

5.4 Based on the responses received from the third consultation, it was agreed by the Committee at the meeting of 8 October 2012 that the properties within Coach Road, Ridge Row, School Road and Pine Cote be brought into the proposed new parish area of Acrise.

5.5 The new parish area of Acrise, based on electorate figures as at 1 July 2012, would have 132 properties and 267 electors. The Committee agreed that that a further consultation of local government electors is held to further ascertain whether they would wish to be considered to have parish meeting or parish council status, the latter having 5 councillors.

6. FINAL CONSULTATION

6.1 The results of the final consultative ballot of all local government electors in Hawkinge, Swingfield, Densole and Acrise closes on Monday 25 February and is being conducted by the independent election scrutineers, Electoral Reform Services, using a ballot conducted by post, telephone and internet.

6.2 The results of the final consultation will be reported to the committee and the ballot paper, covering letter and supporting FAQ pack which has been sent to all local government electors in the area is attached for information at appendix 1.

6.3 Based on the outcome of the final consultation, the previous consultations and the consideration of Councillor’s comments to General Purposes Committee, the Committee is required to make the following recommendations to Council:

A. Whether to amend the parish of Acrise to include those properties in Coach Road, School Road, Pine Cote on Hoad Road and Ridge Row.

B. If the Committee is minded to recommend amending the parish of Acrise, a decision must also be made whether it should be a parish meeting or parish council with five elected councillors.

C. Whether a new parish is created covering the previous parishes of Hawkinge and Swingfield excluding (subject to a decision on sub – paragraph A above) those properties in Coach Road, School Road, Pine Cote on Hoad Road and Ridge Row.

D. If the Committee is minded to recommend creating a new parish covering Hawkinge and Swingfield, then whether the name should be ‘Hawkinge Town Council’ or ‘Hawkinge and Swingfield Town Council’.

6.4 A plan showing the combined area of Hawkinge and Swingfield, the existing parish of Acrise and the possible additions to Acrise is attached at appendix 2.

6.5 The Committee previously agreed, on the 8 October 2012, a proposal for the new merged council of Hawkinge and Swingfield to have 15 councillors as the optimum number for effective and efficient local government. The decision also reflected existing large parish council member numbers at Lydd with 16, Hythe with 16 and New Romney with 16.

6.6 The Committee also agreed at the same aforementioned meeting that the new parish of Hawkinge and Swingfield, if created, would have a warding pattern of four wards covering Fernfield, Uphill, Churchill and Densole and Swingfield. This can be achieved by drawing a line down Canterbury Road and having Ward 1 (Fernfield) all roads to the East, Ward 2 (Uphill) the area between Canterbury Road and Spitfire Way extending down White Horse Hill and along Alkham Valley Road. Ward 3 (Churchill all roads to the West of Spitfire Way. Ward 4 being Densole and Swingfield.

6.7 Based on projected electorate figures for January 2019 that the Council recently submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, the newly created parish would have approximately 7,207 electors. The suggested warding arrangements are therefore:

• Fernfield ward with 4 councillors and 1,940 electors • Uphill ward with 3 councillors and 1,517 electors • Churchill ward with 6 councillors and 2,864 electors • Densole and Swingfield with 2 councillors and 900 electors

6.8 Electoral Services will draw up the detailed ward maps for submission to Council on 21 March, if the Committee is minded to recommend a new parish area.

6.9 The Committee has also agreed to recommend that changes will not take effect until the next ordinary elections in May 2015. Any decision of Council will be put into effect from Currently Hawkinge and Swingfield have a combined total of 18 councillors and Hawkinge Town Council has made representations for there to be in the region of 12 councillors. The Committee previously decided on the optimum number of councillors for the newly merged Hawkinge and Swingfield Council area.

6.10 The Committee’s recommendation will influence the boundary proposals to be drawn up by Officers for presentation and consideration at the next meeting following the final consultation and will take into account the new electorate figures and projected electorate figures up to and including 2019.

6.11 Recommendations of General Purposes will be made to Council on 21 March 2013 who will then have to consider the outcome of the consultations and reach a decision the recommendations should be ratified or amended.

6.12 The recommendations include delegating to the head of administration powers to make the necessary reorganization of community governance order under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to give legal effect to the council’s decisions and also to make such consequential provisions as are necessary. These include such matters as the transfer of assets, the calling of the first meeting of any new town council etc.

7. LEGAL, FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

7.1 Legal Officer’s Comments (PJW)

It is important, that when conducting the review that the legislative requirements of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act are complied with.

6.2 Finance Officer’s comments (MF)

There are no further anticipated costs over and above the anticipated costs in the financial year for which a budget of £10,000 has been approved to cover these costs.

6.3 Diversity and Equalities Implications (PJW)

It will be important that any consultation undertaken as part of the Review is meaningful and robust to ensure that the views of the whole community are taken into account.

7. Contact officers and background documents

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting:

Dylan Jeffrey Democratic Services Manager Tel: 01303 853283 E-mail: [email protected]

The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report: None

Appendices: Appendix 1 and 1A: Ballot paper covering letter and supporting FAQ pack Appendix 2: Plan showing the combined area of Hawkinge and Swingfield, the existing parish of Acrise and the possible additions to Acrise