Rgpc20121009 Hawkinge Community
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This Report will be made public on 1 October 2012 Report Number GP/12/02 To: General Purposes Committee Date: 9 October 2012 Status: Non-Executive decision Head of Service: Peter Wignall Subject: Hawkinge Community Governance Review Summary: This report sets out the proposed next steps for the Community Governance Review of Hawkinge Parish Council and the surrounding area. Reasons for recommendations: The General Purposes Committee is asked to approve the recommendations set out below to enable officers to proceed with the final consultation exercise of the Community Governance Review to enable the Committee then to make recommendations to Council at the next meeting. Recommendations: 1. To receive and note report GP/12/02. 2. To agree that the number of councillors for the new merged parish council of Hawkinge and Swingfield should have 15 councillors 3. To agree that the new parish council area of Hawkinge and Swingfield should be warded. 4. That the new parish council area of Hawkinge and Swingfield should be warded with three wards of Hawkinge East, Hawkinge West, Densole and Swingfield 5. That officers be requested to draw up appropriate boundary proposals in line with the guidance and legislation based on the decision to ward the new parish council area of Hawkinge and Swingfield and that these be brought back to the next meeting of this committee for consideration. 6. That a final consultation poll of all local government electors, using postal ballot, internet and telephone voting, is held to ascertain views on: • The creation of a new parish council area of Hawkinge and Swingfield • The new name of the newly merged parish council area of Hawkinge and Swingfield as either ‘Hawkinge Town Council’ or Hawkinge and Swingfield Town Council’ • The creation of a new parish area for Acrise • Whether the new parish area of Acrise should be a parish meeting or parish council 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.