South Northamptonshire Council
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
South Northamptonshire Council The Forum, Moat Ln, Towcester NN12 6AD Telephone: 01327 322322 Fax: 01327 322074 ORS, CllrDX: 16938 Steven Hollowell, FREEPOST (SS1018), PO BOX 530, 6 Nene Rise, Cogenhoe, Swansea Northampton. SA1 1ZL. NN7 1NT Tel: 01604 890346 Email: [email protected] Date: 9th July 2018. Dear Sirs, CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE PATTERN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 1. The Consultation Process 1.1 The above consultation is basically flawed, giving rise to the belief of many Northamptonshire electors that their views are not really valued and that this consultation exercise is no more than that – an exercise, and that Mr P. Rowsell, the unelected civil servant driving this process, will do what he was going to do anyway. 1.2 The consultation is flawed for the following reasons: First, you do not point out that the failings at NCC were not the cause of it not being a unitary council. It was instead, the result of gross negligence. Had NCC been a unitary council and had the same people been running it, exactly the same thing would have happened. 1.3 Second, the seven boroughs and districts commissioned, at great expense, a report from Deloitte immediately prior to Mr Rowsell’s intervention. Why was this report and its recommendations not mentioned in the consultation document? In its conclusion, the Deloitte report includes: “If Central Government’s consideration of options for local government reorganisation is driven by the County Council crisis and conclusions made in the best value inspection report, then a two unitary model (option 3a) is likely to be preferred. Whilst factoring this into the scoring of the options wasn’t part of the brief for this review, it is recommended that both options 4 [3 unitary model] and 3a [2 unitary model] continue to be considered as the situation at the County Council develops.” 1.4 So, what happened after that point to warrant burying the Deloitte report and with it, the option of a 3 unitary model? 1.5 Third, your client Leaders met with Mr Rowsell and immediately caved in to his prescribed model based on 2 unitary authorities. It is clear that he had arrived at this model some time earlier – possibly prior even to dispatching Mr Caller, the Best Value Inspector, to NCC. 1.6 Little or no meaningful account is given to the planned growth of West Northamptonshire. The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy requires an increase in house construction across all parts of West Northamptonshire of 42,620 during the plan period 2011 to 2029 (Policy S3 p. 35). Much of this development, although not welcomed by the majority of the existing population, has now taken place and present government policy suggests that new and higher targets are likely to be imposed before the end of the plan. 2. The Third Way 2.1 The consultation is based on the premise of accepting 2 unitary council models. Invitations for other ideas are expressed but such ideas have to conform to Mr Rowsell’s criteria set out in the schedule to his letter to Northamptonshire chief executives (dated 27th March). 2.2 Some of these requirements for unitary authorities have particular relevance to the current discussion. I list them direct from the schedule as follows: 1(b) A proposal [for unitary government] should command a good deal of local support as assessed in the round 1(c) Where the area … is a credible geography … having a substantial population that at a minimum is substantially in excess of 300,000. 2.3 I do not see, as yet, a ‘good deal of local support’ for a 2-unitary model. 2.4 Regarding the idea of a ‘credible geography’, South Northamptonshire and Daventry District share a number of common geographical features. They are predominantly rural farming areas but with an element of commuter housing feeding the larger population areas – particularly London. They have as their own population centres, the small market towns of Brackley, Daventry and Towcester. Thereafter they have an hierarchy of village centres ranging from the larger, local centres such as Long Buckby down to the smallest hamlets of no more than a dozen or so households. Apart from agriculture, both districts have important industrial hubs centred, in part, on the Formula One racing industry (Silverstone Heritage Park and the Catesby Tunnel project). 2.5 Northampton Borough is a completely different district. It has a much higher population density, a different pattern of industry and is currently pinning its hopes on the new University Campus and the enterprise zone south of the town centre. It is currently undergoing a crisis following the collapse of several of the department stores in the centre which is the subject of a debate throughout the town. 2.6 Thus, as one might imagine, there does not exist, a ‘credible geography’ between the mainly rural areas of South Northamptonshire and Daventry on the one hand and Northampton Borough on the other. 2.7 Moving on to the 300,000 minimum population requirement. This figure has, to some extent, been pulled out of the sky by Mr Rowsell but it has some merit though. There are certainly unitary authorities with smaller populations. The problem with them is that their Council Tax receipts (and retained business rates) are also correspondingly low. A low revenue account restricts such authorities when it comes to enjoying the benefits of the economies of scale. In some cases, staff have to ‘double up’ on responsibilities so, for example, the heritage officer also becomes the ‘tree person’; the rights of way officer also becomes the ‘village green expert’ and so on. Often the relationships between the multiple responsibilities of a single member of staff become even less logical. 2.8 Mr Rowsell’s approach though is limited to trying to maintain a high level of revenue income for an authority by increasing its population size. He does not look at revenue costs and whether instead, they can be reduced significantly. 2.9 This can be achieved though by shared working using an agreement drawn up by all the new councils under s. 113 of the LGA 1972. This is not an unusual measure and is used widely throughout local government. 2.10 In this case, the agreement would see all three unitaries sharing the same CEO – probably based in ‘out of town’ facilities in the Northampton area. Similarly, the entire directorate would be shared between the three councils. That level of sharing might penetrate further down the management tree. 2.11 Some entire services could be shared. The obvious areas being ‘back office’ services including: IT; HR; Procurement; Finance; (including the s. 151 officer); legal services; monitoring officer; etc. It could even extend to Highways should that be decided. This would not only allow all three councils to enjoy economies of scale, but would allow a more ‘joined up approach to, for example, IT, town and country planning and finance. 2.12 The 300,000 minimum population can thus be re-addressed and reduced in line with the reduction in revenue expenditure arising from these more efficient ways of working. 2.13 It is both ridiculous and unnecessary for a county town the size of Northampton to be reduced to having no more than a parish council with even less control over its affairs than some of the smallest villages in the rural areas. Likewise, it would be bizarre to have major decisions regarding Northampton’s education, planning, old people’s care etc being made in part by Councillors who could be from as far away as Kings Sutton, Aynho or Braunston – many of whom do their weekly shopping in Banbury, Bicester or Rugby. 3. Introduction of New Councils 3.1 If we adopt the same process as the last time that there was a local government re- organisation in Northamptonshire, the timetable would now consist of elections for the new council in May 2019. The existing councils would have their life extended by one year so that there is continuity of service (bins still get emptied, potholes get filled, etc). 3.2 The new council would concern itself with appointing a new CEO and senior management team. It would familiarise itself with all that it was about to inherit (including contracts). They would also look at all of the accommodation (including depots) and decide which buildings were needed and which should be sold off. Finally, they would liaise with the old councils and help prepare for the handover of responsibilities. 3.3 Finally, in May 2020, the old councils would all cease to exist and the new authorities would hit the ground running. There would be no need for undemocratic bodies such as ‘shadow councils’. In my opinion, the outlines above should be the way forward and I would urge others to support the 3-unitary model as well. Yours sincerely, Cllr Steven Hollowell (Ind.) Brafield and Yardley ward, South Northamptonshire Council .