District Ward

Boundary Review

Richmondshire

District Council

Stage One - Council Size

Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for

(April 2017)

1

Introduction

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body that is responsible for conducting boundary and electoral reviews of principal authorities in England.

Richmondshire District Council does not currently meet the criteria for electoral inequality ie. 30% of wards having a variance greater than +/- 10% of the average electorate per Member, however this threshold is likely to be reached in the very near future. As a result the Council decided in July 2016 to request the LGBCE to undertake an electoral review. This request was accepted and the review was included in their programme.

The electoral review will examine whether the boundaries of wards within the local authority area need to be altered to ensure fair representation at the local government elections. In Richmondshire it has been identified that six of the twenty four wards have imbalances.

The table below sets out the current imbalances in the District. No (%)

Number of wards (>10%) 5 Number of wards (>20%) 0 Number of wards (>30%) 1 The Wards with the above variances are: (%)

Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton 11% Hipswell 12% Hornby Castle 29% -14% Scotton -12% -11% The main reasons for the electoral inequality arises from new housing developments, under registration of service personnel and population changes, the detail of which will be explained in the following sections.

North Council is not within the LGBCE programme for review and the County Council have indicated they will not be requesting a review of the County Divisions. As such, best practice dictates that any review of district wards must fit within existing County Divisions.

This submission document is, essentially, the first of two parts to the 2019 Boundary Review. As required by the process put in place by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, this first submission document is in respect of proposals for the size of the Council. A second document in respect of proposals on ward numbers, boundaries and names, will be submitted in due course and in accordance with the timetable set out by the Commission. Following submission of the second document,

2

consultation will take place on the LGBCE draft recommendations on which the Council will make comments.

In considering Council size the Commission considers the following four parts:

1. Governance and decision making – what is the right number of councillors to take decisions and manage the business in an effective way?

2. Scrutiny functions – what is the right number of councillors to administer Richmondshire’s scrutiny responsibilities in a convenient and effective way?

3. Representational role of councillors – what is the right number of councillors to represent and provide leadership to local communities in Richmondshire?

4. The future – what governance changes are being considered and how to these impact on the number of councillors needed in the future?

The review will only be considering the size of the Council and internal ward boundaries. It specially excludes all forms of outer boundaries (District and parliamentary).

It will also not deal with community governance reviews ( boundary reviews) – of which there are none currently being undertaken in Richmondshire.

Richmondshire Profile

Richmondshire District is in the north west of It is predominately rural with a total area of 1,319km2 (509 miles2) making it one of the geographically largest districts in the country. Three fifths of the District lies within the National Park.

The District borders and the to the north, to the west and the Districts of , and Hambleton to the south and east. It rises from the Vale of Mowbray lowlands in the east, through the Pennine fringe into Swaledale and in the northern Yorkshire Dales. As shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Richmondshire in context

The geography of the dales makes for strong east west links and defines a clear settlement pattern. The town of Richmond and the of Colburn, Hipswell, and Scotton including (main military site) forms the District centre in the east. and

3

Hawes provide important services and employment opportunities in the more sparsely populated west. A large number of smaller settlements are linked to each of these service centres, with connections following the distinctive landscape.

Population

The latest 2015 mid-year population estimate (MYE) for Richmondshire is 52,520, an 11.6% increase since 2001. This rate of growth is higher than the County (5.6%) and England (10.8%).

Two thirds of this population live in the seven largest settlements, with estimated populations of Hipswell, Scotton and Colburn (including Catterick Garrison) 16,180, Richmond 8,410, Catterick Village (including Marne Barracks) 3,155, Leyburn 2,550 and Brompton on Swale 1,880. Just 12% of the population lives in the National Park, making this one of the sparsest districts in England with a population density of approximately 40 people/km2 (103 people/mile2).

Richmondshire is home to a large number of military personnel and their dependents at the Catterick Garrison main site and Marne Barracks at Catterick Village. At around 10,500, the military population forms about a fifth of the District’s total population. This confers a very distinctive population profile on the district, which skews the younger age and gender structure of the population. Unlike the demographic changes of the local population, it changes by national defence policy and the passage of personnel through their military careers. This means that the age and gender structure of military personnel and their dependents population remains more or less constant over time.

Figure 2 below, shows the ageing of the population between 2001 and 2011 Censuses. It also shows the growth of the military age groups in this time too. Despite the presence of a large military population, the population age structure tends to be older than regional and national profiles. The retirement age population accounts for 17.5% of the District total, but this simple proportion will be affected by the military population. The age profile is expected to continue to be age driven by the large ‘baby boom’ generation.

Figure 2: Richmondshire Population Ageing 2001 - 2011

The military presence in Richmondshire causes major problems for population estimation and projection. Migration rates caused by institutional military movements of personnel and dependents and births to military families cannot be easily separated from normal

4

demographic change. For example, the overall increase in population from 2001 to 2015 is largely a result of military change.

The latest ONS Mid 2014 based population projections indicate a decline in the local population by 1,319 over the 25-year projection period (2014–2039), a reduction of -2.5%. This projection includes the maintenance of a static armed forces population of approximately 6,000 personnel. This particular projection is contrary to all preceding projections and all North Yorkshire Districts. The reason for this is that military moves in support of the Army Basing Plan between 2012/13 and 2016/17 have seen large numbers of personnel and dependents leave the Garrison and then replaced with new units. The migration assumptions of the mid 2014 projections build the military outmigration into its projections, effectively replicating this short term change over the whole plan period.

Local population projections (Edge Analytics December 2016) revise the mid 2014 SNPP assumptions to address the changes caused by the migration of military families. This revised projection suggests that the local population will grow modestly at an average rate of 210 people or 90 households per year, if its assumptions are fulfilled. There is a marked difference between the areas inside and outside of the National Park. The population in the National Park is projected to decrease because of its older population.

The MOD recently announced that it anticipates a further 5,000 military personnel including their dependents will be located to Catterick Garrison by 2021. These numbers have not been factored in to the population estimates for the District or for specific wards. The Council and MOD are having initial discussions to decide where and how the personnel and their dependents will be accommodated.

Housing

There are about 23,450 (2016) dwellings in the plan area, of which just over 85% are owner occupied or privately rented, which is higher than regional and national levels. The mix of tenures in the plan area includes nearly 1,750 military homes or 10% of total dwelling stock. There is a much lower proportion of social rented housing (11%) compared to regional and national levels. The vacancy rate, including holiday homes and second homes, is 7.7%. This falls to 2.1% when only market properties are included (Empty and Underused Property Research, 2009).

Table 1 summarises current and expected housing development under the Council’s adopted Local Plan 2012 – 2028 Core Strategy. Nearly two-thirds of development (1,900 homes) is directed towards the Wards of Hipswell, Scotton and Colburn, where large sites are available. Remaining development is expected to take place in proportion to settlement size, apart from Richmond, which is heavily constrained.

5

Table 1 : Local Plan Development 2012 – 2028

Development Central Lower North Upper Total Sub Areas Richmondshire Wensleydale Richmondshire Dales 3 Year Total 182 75 30 21 308 Target for 2,410 365 285 - 3,060 Plan Period Remaining 2,228 290 255 - 2,752 Target The Development Sub Areas contain the Wards as follows: Central Richmondshire Sub Area Wards – Richmond Central, Richmond West, Richmond East, Brompton on Swale and Scorton, Hipswell, Scotton, Colburn, Catterick, Hornby Castle North Richmondshire Sub Area Wards – Reeth & , , Newsham & Eppleby, , Barton, Croft, Middleton Tyas Lower Wensleydale Sub Area Wards – , Leyburn, , Lower Wensleydale In addition, provision is made for up to 500 Service Family homes (SFA), at the Catterick Garrison main military site.

Previous Review

The last review of electoral arrangements took place in 1999 prior to the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000 and the implementation of fourth option arrangements, which brought significant changes to the way in which the Council operated.

Review Process

The Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 acted as the review working group to consider the numbers of Councillors required to ensure appropriate levels of governance, scrutiny and community leadership from 2019. The Committee is politically balanced with all groups on the Council represented and met to consider the evidence and made a recommendation for consideration by Full Council on 25 April 2017. The Committee was supported by Michael Dowson, Democratic Services Manager and Sarah Holbird, Democratic Services Officer.

Proposal

Richmondshire District Council currently has 34 elected Members in 24 Wards. The proposal is to reduce the Council size to 24 Members from the local government elections due in 2019.

The Council considers that this number will ensure appropriate levels of governance, scrutiny and community leadership for the Council.

In coming to this conclusion the Council took into consideration a number of factors:

All Member Survey

In 2016 a survey was carried out as part of an Independent Remuneration Panel Review of Members Allowances. 17 responses were received in total (50% return rate), however not all the respondents answered all questions.

6

This survey asked Members to indicate the amount of time (hours) per month they estimated they spent on different Council related activities.

(a) Attending formal meetings of the Council (eg. Corporate Board, Committees, Task Meetings) No. of hours per month No. of Cllrs doing hours Up to 5 hours 3 (19%) 6 – 10 hours 5 (31%) 11 – 15 hours 3 (19%) 16 – 20 hours 5 (31%) The average number of hours spent by each Councillor attending meetings was 12 hours per month.

(b) Other activities including travelling, general advice from Officers, Seminars, briefings, other meetings and spokesperson work

Other Activities 12 70 % 10 60 % 50 % 8 40 % 6 30 % 4 20 % 2 10 % 0 0 % Up to 5 hours 6 ‐ 10 hours 11 ‐ 15 hours 20+ hours

No. of Members % of Members

The average number of hours spent by each Councillor on other activities (including travelling, general advice from Officers, Seminars, briefings, other meetings and spokesperson work) was 6 hours per month.

Governance and decision making arrangements

The Council has chosen to operate fourth option arrangements. Since the last review in 1999 It has streamlined decision making with extensive delegation to Officers (see below). There have also been a number of changes to how the Council operates since the last review, these are shown in detail in Appendix 1 but in summary show that the Council has moved from 19 Committees and Working Groups in 1999 to 9 in 2017. The Council’s governance arrangements continue to evolve under the fourth option model to promote more efficient and streamlined decision making in a challenging economic environment. Similarly the Localism Act 2011 has streamlined the operation of the Council’s standards regime and we now operate without a Standards Committee with that function forming part of the remit of the Audit & Governance Committee. Taking these impacts fully into account, we do not need as many Councillors to manage our business. The time spent in decision making at meetings has been significantly reduced for the vast majority of Members. Full Council takes only those decisions it is required by law to do so, and those of significance in terms of policy, budget and implication for the District. Corporate Board,

7

the main policy committee is responsible for the strategic management of the Authority within the budget and policy framework agreed by Full Council. Corporate Board which currently comprises 11 Councillors meets up to nine times a year to take other decisions. Whilst no Member of Corporate Board has individual decision making powers, Corporate Board does appoint six spokespeople, with two spokespeople championing each of the Council’s three service areas:

Resources/Internal Council Strategy & Regulatory including: Planning, Economy, Community Engagement, Regulatory Services Operational including: Operational Services, Landlord Services and Rural Issues

The current Committee structure is:

Committee No. of Members No. of meetings Full Council 34 Members 5 per year Corporate Board 11 Members Up to 9 per year Audit, Governance & 11 Members Up to 4 per year Standards Committee Planning Committee 11 Members Up to 12 per year Licensing Committee 11 Members 4 per year Licensing Hearing 3 Members As and when required SubCommittee Overview & Scrutiny 12 Members 4 per year with additional Committee 1 Task Group meetings Overview & Scrutiny 12 Members 4 per year with additional Committee 2 Task Group meetings Appeals Committee 7 Members None scheduled, as and when required Local Plan Working Group 11 Members 4 per year

The other Committee responsibilities are:

• Audit, Governance & Standards Committee – specific responsibility for approving the Council’s statement of accounts, budget monitoring, risk management, internal and external audit reports etc and to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors and consider alleged breaches of the code. • Planning Committee – dealing with the consideration of planning applications not dealt with under delegated authority. • Licensing Committee – to undertake the Council’s functions as a licensing authority and to determine applications through a sub-committee. • Overview & Scrutiny Committee – specific responsibility for overseeing and scrutinising all external and service functions of the Council; undertaking reviews of the function and performance of external organisations and partnership organisations; assisting the Council and Corporate Board in the development of its budget and policy framework.

8

Under the preferred option of 24 Members an unchanged Committee structure would have memberships as follows: No. of Cllrs

Committee % of Council 34 (Current) 24 Corporate Board 32.35% 11 8 Planning 32.35% 11 8 O&S 1 35.29% 12 8 O&S 2 35.29% 12 8 Audit, Governance & 32.45% 11 8 Standards Licensing 11 10*

Appeals 20.59% 7 5 Total Cttee Places 75 55 Average Cttee places per Member 2.20 2.29 *Licensing Legislation requires that Licensing Committees have a minimum of 10 Members.

An average of 2.2 committee places per Member is shown, which would increase to 2.29 with 24 Members and demonstrates that the existing governance arrangements could be accommodated without creating any significant burden on a reduced membership.

We have also taken into account advances in the use of technology. Communication since the last review has moved from being largely paper based to almost wholly through electronic channels. All Councillors are able to view agendas, reports and minutes online.

Scheme of Delegation

The Council operates a comprehensive Scheme of Delegation to Officers which has significantly reduced the requirement for items to be considered by Committees.

An example of how this change has effected Committees, can be seen in the role of the Council’s Planning Committee, and consequently the role of individual Planning Committee Members and also other Ward Members.

Prior to the introduction of delegated decision making on planning applications which was introduced in the late 1990’s, Planning Committee meetings would commonly finish at 10.00 or 11.00 pm. There would be around 90 to 100 applications of all types considered at each monthly meeting.

Delegated decision making on a significant number of planning applications meant that the number of applications which the Committee then needed to determine was drastically reduced so that by 2003 Members were considering around 12 to 15 of the more significant or controversial applications each month with around 85% of small scale planning decisions being delegated. Planning Committee meetings would finish at about 9.00 pm.

Two subsequent amendments to the Scheme of Delegation in the Council’s Constitution over the next few years further increased the number of matters that could be dealt with by Officers. By 2008 around 10 of the more significant or controversial proposals were being

9

considered by Planning Committee each month with meetings finishing at about 8.00 pm. Officers were dealing with around 90% of small scale planning proposals at that time. By 2015 the Planning Committee was dealing with around 5 or 6 complex cases each month and Officers were dealing with at least 95% of delegated matters.

More recently, further delegated decision making has meant that the Planning Committee may be dealing with at most only 3 or 4 applications each month. Members have always had access (now electronic) to every planning application received and are invited to comment on any proposal which would otherwise be delegated. Very few Members submit comments on applications and this enables up to 98% or 99% of decisions to be delegated to Officers.

Scrutiny

In response to the Local Government Act 2000, the Council created an Overview & Scrutiny Co-ordination Panel which was supported by two Overview & Scrutiny Committees to undertake the Scrutiny function. Since 2000, the Overview and Scrutiny function has been refined. The functions of the current two Overview & Scrutiny Committees to which no changes are proposed, are set out below: Committee Terms of Reference Overview & Scrutiny 1 To consider cross-functional issues relating to the Committee 1 Council’s internal services and such other functions 2 To consider relevant issues as highlighted by any of the Council’s Spokespersons Overview & Scrutiny 1 To consider cross-functional issues relating to external Committee 2 matters and partnerships providing other public services 2 To consider relevant issues as highlighted by any of the Council’s Spokespersons 3 To act as the Council’s Crime and Disorder Committee The general role of each Scrutiny Committee is to:

(a) review and/or scrutinise decisions made or actions taken in connection with the discharge of the Council’s functions;

(b) make reports and/or recommendations to the full Council and/or the Corporate Board in connection with the discharge of any functions;

(c) consider any matter affecting the area or its inhabitants;

(d) exercise the right to “call in”, for reconsideration, decisions made but not yet implemented by the Corporate Board in accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure rules;

(e) consider matters referred to them by Corporate Board; and

(f) contribute to the monitoring of The Council Plan, performance and Key Performance Indicators.

The current two Overview & Scrutiny Committees are supported by Task and Finish Groups to undertake reviews and assist with policy development. The nature and scope of the Task and Finish Groups varies with all reporting back to their main Overview &

10

Scrutiny Committee. Task and Finish Groups are informal meetings of the Overview & Scrutiny Committees which are often undertaken by a small group of Members from the main Committee, this informal way of working will continue under a reduced membership and will not be adversely affected.

As referred to above Overview & Scrutiny Committee 2 acts as the Council’s Crime and Disorder Committee and must meet at least once a year to undertake this role.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committees set their own work plan and review the plan at each meeting to maintain the fluid and responsive nature of scrutiny. Each Committee and their respective task groups are supported by a Democratic Services Officer with other Officers being requested to attend meetings/task group meetings as required to deal with specific issues.

In relation to Scrutiny, although the scheduled meetings remain static there has been no requirement to call additional meetings to deal with for example, call in requests which previously were quite excess in number.

As a fourth option authority all Committees are proportionally balanced politically and no individual Member has delegated decision making power, therefore the Council has chosen to adopt a scrutiny process as a matter of choice.

A reduction in the number of Members on the Committees would have no impact on its capacity to fulfill the scrutiny function. No changes to the frequency of meetings are proposed and agenda sizes are expected to remain the same.

The Council also now has an Audit, Governance and Standards Committee which provides independent reassurance to the Council on the adequacy of the risk management framework and the internal control environment, in addition to overseeing the financial reporting and annual governance processes. It also overseas Internal and External audit helping to ensure efficient and effective assurance arrangements are in place.

Since the introduction of the Localism Act 2011 the Standards element has changed substantially as we no longer operate a standalone Standards Committee. In addition to the scheduled meetings, Standards also met as a Hearing Panel to consider allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct against either District or Parish Members. These Hearing Panels met on average 8 times a year.

The Standards functions are now dealt with through either Audit, Governance and Standards Committee or by delegated decision making to the Monitoring Office and Independent Persons. The majority of allegations received to date do not require meetings as the initial assessment is undertaken by the Monitoring/Deputy Monitoring Officer and Independent Persons.

Representatives on Outside Bodies

Richmondshire District Councillors sit on a wide range or external bodies as part of the Council’s partnership working arrangements. There are currently 35 Member appointments made to 29 Outside Bodies. These 35 appointments are currently filled by 18 Members, with a number of Members appointed to more than one Outside Body.

11

There are also two Outside Bodies on which Richmondshire are represented by other North Yorkshire District Authorities. Some appointments to Outside Bodies are designated to specific Member roles and are appointed to automatically with all other appointments made at Annual Council. The length of term of appointments varies with some appointments made for the term of the Council and others yearly appointments. The number of meetings held by each Outside Body in the course of a year varies considerably and there is no formal process in place for Members to report back on their work on Outside Bodies. However, Spokespeople do produce an annual report which will include details of attendance at Outside Bodies that they sit on as part of their role.

The number of Outside Bodies has reduced dramatically since the last review in 1999, when 53 Outside Bodies were appointed to. The list of current Outside Bodies is attached at Appendix 2. Based on the current number of Members appointed to Outside Bodies the Council would still have sufficient capacity with a reduced membership of 24 to make all appointments.

The 2016 survey of our Members asked respondents to indicate the amount of time (hours) per month serving as a representative on outside bodies, as shown in the chart below:

Outside Body Representation 6 45 % 40 % 5 35 % 4 30 % 25 % 3 20 % 2 15 % 10 % 1 5 % 0 0 % 0 hrs Up to 5 hrs 6 ‐ 10 hours 11 ‐ 15 hours

No. of Members % of Members"

The average number of hours spent by each Councillor serving as a representative on outside bodies is 4 hours per month.

Community Representation

Councillors can opt to carry out their representational role within communities in any way which suits them and the majority of Members are active in their communities. Generally this consists of attending meetings of Parish Councils and responding to casework from residents. The involvement of District Members with Parish Councils varies. 18 District Council Members are also Parish Councillors, with 3 Members also being County Councillors.

The Council has a number of formal channels of communication with Parishes and regularly communicates via Newsletters and email. Although District Councillors may be copied into these communications they are not expected to deliver information, seek

12

feedback or report back to the District Council. There is no requirement for District Members to attend Parish Council meetings but clearly a good relationship between District Members and Parish Representatives is a positive. The current Parish workload is variable depending on how many Parish Councils are covered by a District Ward. It is difficult to factor in estimated workloads as it can never be made even. It should be noted that County Councillors serve greater geographical areas and seem to cope with greater parish responsibilities than current District Members. Appendix 3 shows that County Council Division, District Wards and the Parish Councils/Meetings covered by each.

The effect of a reduction in District Council Members may depend on the warding arrangements. In the rural areas it will increase the number of parishes in a District Member’s Ward. How it specifically affects a Member will depend on his/her approach to parish liaison and how the spread of Parish Councils actually falls. This will need to be determined on an individual basis.

Parish Councils tend to meet on similar evenings at the same time of the month. Members currently adopt a number of different approaches to managing parish liaison, from attending meetings in their capacity as a Parish Councillor (where appropriate), or via a rolling programme of attendance or ad hoc attendance for important local issues. They also sometimes provide written statements on district council issues for dissemination within the parish. This approach is working well and a reduction in the number of Members, although having an impact for some Members on the number parishes covered would continue to work and ensure effective parish liaison when also taking into consideration other means of engagement eg. Area Partnerships (see below).

The 2016 survey of our Members asked them to indicate the amount of time (hours) per month:

(a) Attending individual constituents interest (i.e. letters, telephone calls, surgeries, meetings)

No. of hours No. of Cllrs doing hours Up to 5 hours 5 (29%) 6 – 10 hours 6 (35%) 11 – 15 hours 0 (0%) 16 – 20 hours 3 (18%) 20+ hours 3 (18%)

The average number of hours spent attending individual constituents interests was 13 hours per month.

(b) Representing local community interests (i.e. issues affecting your Ward generally – including time spent serving an organization in your Ward to which you were invited because of being a Ward Councillor)

13

Representing local community interests 8 50 % 7 40 % 6 5 30 % 4 3 20 % 2 10 % 1 0 0 % Up to 5 hrs 6 ‐ 10 hours 11 ‐ 15 hours 16 ‐ 20 hours 20+ hours

No. of Members % of Members

The average number of hours spent by each Councillor representing local community interests was 9 hours per month.

Changes in technology have meant the role of the Councillor has changed with more interaction via email and less face to face contact with residents. Residents enquiries can now be dealt with much more efficiently, with enquiries more and more being diverted away from Councillors as residents either contact the Council directly (be that through social media, email or the Contact Centre) or simply by finding the information themselves through the website.

In 2008, the Council created five Area Partnerships, all with the aim to help improve engagement with communities. By recognising that different parts of the District have different needs and issues, area based working is designed to identify these specific area issues and address priorities at a local level. By doing this, the Council hope to encourage residents to become more involved in decisions which affect them, as well as having a better understanding of what the area's priorities are and how to help deal with them. This approach has provided an opportunity to discuss local concerns and issues, and is one of the main ways in which the Council engage with our communities. District Councillors, Parish Councillors, members of the public and representatives of community groups, local businesses, partners and other agencies in that locality all attend the meetings. The five separate partnership areas are based on the following local service localities:

• Central • Garrison • Lower Wensleydale • North Richmondshire • Upper Dales

Currently the five Area Partnerships are scheduled to meet on a quarterly basis, are chaired by District Councillors (three of the current chairs are also County Councillors) and each has established an identity and focus on specific local issues. All District Councillors are informed of the Area Partnership meetings.

All Parish Councils receive notification and a copy of the agenda for their respective Area Partnership and are welcome to attend all the meetings. The location of the meetings

14

rotates across the area covered to ensure meetings reach all parts of the District. All Area Partnerships are allocated money annually over which they have the full decision making power on how to allocate across their area, supported by District Council Officers.

Establishing the Area Partnerships has proved highly effective as a means of engagement between the District Council and Parish Councils. A reduction in the number of Members would not impact on the workings of Area Partnerships and Members would still have the capacity to support them.

Prior to the introduction of Area Partnerships engagement with Parish Councils and the public took a number of forms. In 1997, Parish Forums were established to cover the Council’s statutory duty to consult with Parish Councils. There were 6 forums in total covering different areas of the District which met quarterly.

In 2005 the number for forums were reduced to two covering the East and West of the District which met six monthly. Arrangements changed again in 2008 when a single State of the District Debate was introduced. However, this proved ineffective at engaging with the community and have been replaced by the current arrangements.

Authority Comparisons and LGBCE Reviews

The current composition of the Council is 34 Councilors covering 24 Wards with 54 Parish and Town Councils and 25 parish meetings.

The proposed council size of 24, set against similar authorities and those rural in nature, is within the range of those councils. A number of these Authorities have recently been reviewed, which have resulted in both increases and reductions but with significantly more electors per councillor than the current ratio at Richmondshire District Council.

Electoral Forecast

In 2023 the electorate is projected to increase to 37,875 in Richmondshire from the current number of 35,908 entries on the electoral role. This projection has been based on the following assumption:

• There will be no significant demographic changes in the period from now until 2023 • The ratio of registered electors to registered properties will remain the same for each parish • Current development rates will continue.

However the recent proposal for Catterick Garrison to receive additional military personnel and their dependents by 2021 may increase the population by approximately 5,000 people. Any increase in the electorate is dependent on the make up of the military personnel and dependents, which is still to be determined. This would include the age, gender, proportion of single/married personnel and the number of dependent children.

Other Council Sizes Considered

In concluding that 24 Members was the optimum number for this Council, the Overview & Scrutiny Committee 1 also considered a number of alternative options as follows:-

• 24 Members = 1496 electors per Member

15

• 26 Members = 1381 electors per Member • 28 Members = 1282 electors per Member • 30 Members = 1197 electors per Member

The table below demonstrates the impact of the various options on the existing committee structure. This shows that each of the Council’s committees could operate effectively with a reduction in the number of Members. The figures are based on the same percentage of the Council making up the Committee numbers. No. of Cllrs

Committee 34 (Current) 30 28 26 24 Corporate Board 11 10 9 8 8 Planning 11 10 9 8 8 O&S 1 12 11 10 9 8 O&S 2 12 11 10 9 8 Audit, Governance & Standards 11 10 9 8 8 Licensing 11 10* 10* 10* 10* Appeals 7 6 6 5 5 Total Cttee Places 75 68 63 57 55 Average Cttee places per 2.20 2.27 2.25 2.19 2.29 Member *Licensing Legislation requires that Licensing Committees have a minimum of 10 Members.

Note: All the above options assume that the next Council will operate with the existing committee structure. No changes to committee structures are currently proposed.

Overview & Scrutiny Committee 1 concurred to recommend that the Council size be reduced from 34 to 24 from 2019.

Why a Council size of 24?

Governance and Decision Making The Council has seen significant changes since its last review in 1999 in how its Members govern and reach decisions. The research and evidence demonstrates that there has been a reduction in the numbers of committees and bodies that Members are required to attend with corresponding reductions in time spent in meetings. This has also been reflected in the numbers of outside bodies to which the Council sends representatives, where there has been a significant reduction. An increase in the delegation of decisions from Members to Officers has also reduced the need for formal and lengthy meetings. Evidence suggests that a new membership of 24, will continue to enable the Council’s governance and decision making to operate effectively and efficiently.

Scrutiny Functions Since the introduction of the scrutiny function into the Council’s governance operations, there has been improvement and refinement of the functions to embed within the organisation. The evidence suggests that with a new membership of 24, there will be sufficient Member capacity to continue to operate an effective and functional scrutiny operation to provide challenge within and outside the Council.

16

Representation – Role of Councillors The evidence suggests that whilst Members continue to be active in their Wards and communities, there have been significant changes in how they and their constituents interact with each other. These changes have been driven by advancements in technology and increased easy access to information, enabling ‘self service’ by residents and reducing the frequency of contacts/interactions requiring Member intervention or support.

A reduction in Members to 24 would equate to an average of 1496 electors per Member, which is an increase of 440 electors. Taking into account the changes that have taken place since the last review and a review of comparable rural district councils it is not thought this increase will over-burden Members and that a warding structure based around these figures could be achieved which meets the needs of democracy in the district.

The Future

Whilst there are no specific governance changes being planned by the Council, there is an ongoing drive for increased efficiency and productivity throughout the Authority and across the public sector. The Council’s journey so far has led it to reduce and refine the numbers of bodies that it needs to operate, and for Members to in turn become more efficient in how they use their own time on Council business and their interactions with officers, residents and stakeholders.

Conclusion and Recommendation

As indicated above, the information and evidence that has been gathered, supports the conclusion reached that the Council is currently ‘oversized’ in terms of its political membership and could easily operate and function with a significant reduction in that membership. The optimum new size for the Council’s membership should be 24, a reduction of 10 (or 29%), which will achieve the balances required in providing proper representation for the residents that the Council serve.

It is therefore, recommended that Richmondshire District Council size be reduced from 34 Councillors to 24 Councillors coming into effect in May 2019.

17

Appendix 1 PREVIOUS COMMITTEE STRUCTURES

Committee Structure 1999

• Council • Resources (17 members) - Resources Urgency Sub-Committee - Local Agenda 21 Working Group - Best Value Working Group - Local Plan Working Group - Joint Consultative Forum - Contracting Services Board - Consultation with Local Business Sub-Committee - Emergency Committee - Staff Appeals • Environment 13 members) - Environment Urgency Sub-Committee • Housing (13 members) - Housing Urgency Sub-Committee • Leisure and Economic Development (13 members) - Leisure and Economic Development Urgency Sub-Committee • Planning (13 members) - Planning Urgency Sub-Committee • Standards Committee

Total 20

Committee Structure 2001

• Council • Resources Committee - Resources Urgency Sub-Committee - Foot & Mouth Disease Working Group - Best Value Working Group - Richmondshire Business Forum - Joint Consultative Committee - Contracting Services Board - Local Agenda 21 Working Group - Access, Travel and Transport Group • Planning Committee - Planning Urgency Sub-Committee • Housing Committee - Housing Urgency Sub-Committee - Housing & Postal Advisory Committee Working Party • Economic, Cultural & Leisure Committee - Economic, Cultural & Leisure Urgency Sub-Committee • Environmental Committee

18

Total 18

Committee Structure 2002

• Council • Environment & Planning Committee • Community Committee • Resources Committee • Appeals Committee • Standards Committee • Community & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee • Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee • Overview & Scrutiny Co-ordination Panel

Total 9

Changed to a single policy committee (Strategy Board) in May 2008

Current Committee Structure

• Council • Corporate Board - Local Plan Working Group • Audit, Governance & Standards Committee • Planning Committee • Licensing Committee - Licensing Sub-Committee • Appeals Committee • Overview & Scrutiny Committee 1 • Overview & Scrutiny Committee 2

Total 10

19

Appendix 2 Representatives on Outside Bodies Partnership/Organisation No. of reps Designation No. of meetings (per annum) Catterick Leisure Centre Stakeholder Board 1 Member CB spokesperson for Strategy & Regulatory 2 District Councils Network Assembly 1 Member Leader 4 Hambleton & Richmondshire Citizen’s Advice 1 Member CB spokesperson for Strategy & Regulatory 4 Bureau Trustee Board LEADER 1 Member CB spokesperson for Strategy & Regulatory Variable Local Government Association 1 Member Leader 1 Local Government North Yorkshire and 1 Member Leader 4 Local Government North Yorkshire and York 1 Member CB spokesperson for Strategy & Regulatory Maximum of 4, only Spatial Planning and Transport Board meets when there is business to consider Local Government York, North Yorkshire and 1 Member CB spokesperson for Operational Services 3 - 4 East Riding Housing Board National Park Management Plan Steering 1 Member YDNPA appointees 2 Group North Yorkshire Building Control Partnership 1 Member CB spokesperson for Strategy & Regulatory 3 - 4 Members Board North Yorkshire County Council Health & 1 Member Craven currently represent NY District 5 plus 2 – 3 Wellbeing Board Councils development sessions North Yorkshire County Council Scrutiny of 1 Member Scrutiny Member from External O&S 5 Health Committee Committee North Yorkshire Forum for Older People 1 Member CB spokesperson for Operational Services 4 North Yorkshire Local Transport Body 1 Member CB spokesperson Strategy & Regulatory As required, minimum of 1 & Crime Panel 1 Member Independent Appointment (politically 6 proportionate based on Panel)

20

Parking and Traffic Regulation Outside 1 Member 1 (PATROL) Adjudication Joint Committee Richmondshire Leisure Trust Board 1 Member 12 Richmondshire Sports 5 Members 6

Partnership/Organisation No. of reps Designation No. of meetings (per annum) Richmondshire Volunteer Centre Management 1 Member 6 Committee Rural Action Yorkshire 1 Member 1 Rural Service Network (SPARSE) 1 Member 2 Safer Richmondshire Steering Group 1 Member CB spokesperson for Strategy & Regulatory 2 Swale & Ure Drainage Board 1 Member 3 Swale Home Improvement Agency 1 Member 3 Welcome to Yorkshire 1 Member CB spokesperson for Strategy & Regulatory 1 York and North Yorkshire Waste Partnership 1 Member CB spokesperson for Operational Services No meetings, kept up to date via written communication and 1:1’s York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Local 1 Member Hambleton DC currently represent Craven, 8 Enterprise Partnership Hambleton & Richmondshire York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Local 1 Member Leader 4 Enterprise Partnership Infrastructure Board Yorkshire & Humber (Local Authorities) 1 Member 4 Employers Association Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority 2 Members

21

Appendix 3 Community Representation – Parishes covered by District Wards County Division District Wards Parish Councils/Meetings Upper Dales Addlebrough & Low Abbotside Parish Council Bainbridge Parish Council & District Parish Council Penhill Burton-cum-Walden Parish Council Carlton Highdale Parish Meetings Carlton Town Parish Council Parish Council & High Abbotside Hawes & High Abbotside Parish Council Reeth & Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Parish Council Marrick Parish Council Marske & New Forest Parish Council Reeth Parish Council Swaledale Hudswell & District Parish Council & Ellerton Abbey Parish Council Melbecks Parish Council Muker Parish Council Bolton Castle -cum-Thoresby Parish Council 1 6 17 County Division District Wards Parish Councils/Meetings Richmondshire Barton Barton Parish Council North Newton Morrell Parish Meeting Stapleton & Parish Council

Croft-on-Tees Croft-on-Tees Parish Council Dalton-on-Tees Parish Council Eryholme Parish Council Parish Council Gilling West Aske Parish Meeting Gilling with Hartforth & Sedbury Parish Council Gayles Parish Meeting Kirby Hill Parish Meeting Parish Council Whashton Parish Meeting Melsonby Parish Council & Cliffe Parish Council

22

Melsonby Parish Council Middleton Tyas Middleton Tyas Parish Council Moulton Parish Meeting Skeeby Parish Council

County Division District Wards Parish Councils/Meetings Newsham with Eppleby Caldwell Parish Meeting Carkin and East & West Layton Parish Meeting Eppleby Parish Council Parish Meeting Parish Council Dalton Parish Meeting Newsham Parish Council 1 6 26 County Division District Wards Parish Councils/Meetings Middle Dales Bolton Castle Parish Council with East & West Bolton Parish Meeting Preston-under-Scar Parish Council Parish Council Wensley Parish Meeting Leyburn Parish Council Leyburn Town Council Lower Wensleydale & Parish Council Newton-le-Willows Parish Councils Patrick Brompton Parish Council Parish Meeting Parish Meeting Middleham with Parish Meeting with Parish Meeting Melmerby Parish Meeting Parish Meeting Parish Council Middleham Town Council 1 4 18

County Division District Wards Parish Councils/Meetings Brompton-on-Swale Bolton-on-Swale Parish Meeting Ellerton-on-Swale Parish Council Scorton Parish Council Uckerby Parish Meeting Brompton-on-Swale Parish Council

23

Easby Parish Meeting Catterick Catterick Parish Council Hornby Castle Appleton East & West Parish Meeting Tunstall Parish Council Parish Meeting Hornby Parish Meeting Hunton Parish Council Parish Council

1 3 13 County Division District Wards Parish Councils/Meetings Central Colburn Colburn Town Council Richmondshire Hipswell Hipswell Parish Council St Martins Parish Council Scotton Scotton Parish Council 1 3 4 County Division District Wards Parish Councils/Meetings Richmond Richmond Central Richmond Town Council Richmond East Richmond West 1 3 1

24