Submission regarding the number of Councillors for the Northumberland Unitary Council

By Cllr Ed Brown (Haydon Parish Councillor and Tynedale District Councillor) Table of Contents

Background ...... Structure of County ...... Appendix 1 – NCC draft response dated 11 Sept 2009...... Appendix 2 – Scrutiny proposal papers...... Appendix 3 – Committees and meetings...... Appendix 4 – Travelling times ...... Background In November 2004 residents in Northumberland took part in referendum about the structure of Local Government. As part of this referendum they were asked whether they wanted one unitary authority or two unitary authorities. The majority voted for two unitary authorities. Following the Referendum the Government stated that it accepted the outcome but later enforced the implementation of a single unitary authority. The public were not consulted by the government on whether or not they wished to have a single unitary council. However every local poll conducted by newspapers showed universal opposition to the single unitary authority. When announcing the decision the Secretary of State acknowledged that the public were against the establishment of the single unitary authority but said that the majority of stakeholders were in favour of a single unitary authority.

Following the announcement Northumberland County Council began consultations with residents and Parish Councils on the implementation of Belonging Communities – a key part of the approved bid. The strength of opposition to Belonging Communities, the imposed boundaries, and the total lack of democratic accountability led to the idea of 27 Belonging Communities being abandoned as unworkable. At present there is no structure in place below the approved 3 area levels. However there is a commitment from Northumberland County Council to work form the “bottom up” to establish a new locality framework led by the parish and Town Councils within Northumberland.

This background is important in examining the future structure of the Unitary Council as the lack of engagement with the Unitary Council due to the lack of accountability and the way the new Unitary has been imposed against the wishes of the electorate and without consultation with existing democratic bodies such as Parish Councils. Many Parish Councils are keen to take on additional responsibilities together with funds and resources delegated from the Unitary Council. However, Parish Councillors are part-time, unpaid community representatives who dedicate several hours a week to Parish business. They are not in a position to take over the role of District Councillors.

Since the elections in May 2008 there has been little progress in developing the Unitary Authority political and managerial structures. This means that any submission made is made against a background of uncertainty and confusion. The main document used for this submission is the official submission made by Northumberland County Council (appendix 1) although I understand from NCC Democratic Services that this was modified following the meeting on the 11 September 2008 to state that 79 councillors are required. At the time of writing this modified version has not been made available to the public.

In addition to the main document in Appendix 1 the original Unitary authority bid documents, the Unitary Authority Blueprint, Minutes of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC), Minutes of the Joint Implementation Team (JIT) and The Development of Overview and Scrutiny in Local Government - September 2002 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been used in an attempt to provide some analysis of the number of councillors needed. It is hoped that by providing some analysis rather than commentary this will enable a more robust debate about the number of councillors required.

This submission approaches the number of councillors required from the position of the roles and responsibilities of the councillors, the time required to fulfil those roles and responsibilities, and therefore the number of councillors required. It then goes on to look at the voters required per councillor and possible adjustments to be made across the county. It can be seen that based on these calculations that 94 councillors is recommended and it is hoped that by putting forward this suggested number it will stimulate debate and a factual based analysis of what is required as opposed to the proposal from Northumberland County Council that does not appear to be based on defined roles and responsibilities.

Structure of the new Authority Unfortunately the overall structure of the new Authority is not clearly defined and the two prime documents for a discussion of the structure of the new Authority are the submission by NCC to the Boundary Committee (appendix 1), and the minutes of the various JOSC and JIT meetings including the 1 April 2008 meeting on Scrutiny arrangements (appendix 2). What is of particular importance here is the extensive debates that were held regarding whether 3 or 5 areas committees would be implemented and the role of the area committees in Scrutiny arrangements. The outcome of these discussions was that 3 area committees would be implemented as contained in the original bid with scrutiny powers devolved to those area committees. The 1 April 2008 meeting proposed the roles and responsibilities of the County and Area Scrutiny Boards and these appear to have been carried forward in the proposal made to the commission where it is stated that “each committee will operate area based scrutiny of service delivery”. The submission also goes on to define the additional committees such as planning and regulatory committees.

Taking the submission (appendix 1), the proposed Scrutiny arrangements (appendix 2), and the confirmed commitment of all parties demonstrated in the minutes of the JOSC and JIT to include scrutiny at area level together with devolving power to localities wherever practical the overall political structure of the council – although not specifically define in one place is clear.

The structure of the New Unitary will be a Chair and Vice-chair of the council who will chair meetings and take on the majority of ceremonious roles across the whole county. There will be a leader and deputy-leader of the council together with 6 or 8 portfolio executive members (a total of 8-10). Each of the Executive portfolio members will have a deputy who takes an active participatory role in the Executive process supporting and substituting for the Portfolio holder where required. Since the current executive is 8 members (Leader, deputy and six portfolio holders) and it is expected the workload will increase significantly with added District services it would seem reasonable to accept a 10 person Executive (Leader, Deputy plus 8 Portfolio Holders). This leads to a total of 18 elected members (including 8 deputy portfolio holders) actively involved with management of the Council. Those involved as Executive members and deputies are unable to serve of Overview & Scrutiny committees. The Chair and vice-chair of the council could serve on Overview & Scrutiny committees.

There will be full-council meetings and a variety of other committees and sub-committees (see appendix 3) and a range of appointments to outside bodies (see appendix 1 & 5).

It is difficult to comment on the appointments to outside bodies as these are still being reviewed by the New Authority and the only details I have available are the details for Tynedale outside bodies and those for the County as provided in appendix 1. Tynedale District Council currently appoints to 46 outside bodies (see appendix 5). Of these outside bodies 23 (marked) are bodies where members are also appointed by Northumberland County Council. It is reasonable to expect these duplicates will disappear or be greatly reduced. Eight 8) are bodies associated with NCC and all are likely to disappear. The remaining 15 bodies (23 member places) are likely to continue to require representation to protect the long term interests of taxpayers. It is unclear at what level these outside bodies will report into the council but for this exercise it is sufficient to know that they exist and the numbers of such bodies are greater than those specified in appendix 1. A full analysis of these bodies across all council is already underway to establish what rationalisation can be undertaken. However it is clear that given the financial and officer support given to many of these organisations that it would be sensible for appointments to continue to the majority of these bodies to protect taxpayers interests.

In summary this leaves us with: Chair and Vice-chair of Council – both likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties. Leader of the Council – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Deputy-leader of the Council – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Ten (10) Executive members – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Ten deputy Executive members – not likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties but unavailable for Overview & Scrutiny roles What is part-time? Guidance on the role of a councillor is that it should be a part-time role available to all. The composition of the councils within Northumberland does not reflect this desire at present. One of the drawbacks is there is no specific definition of what is meant by part-time beyond stating that it should be a role it is possible to complete while working full-time for a business. Some businesses allow staff time off work to participate in council duties but there are few large companies in Northumberland and many people are self-employed or employed by small and micro companies who are unable to allow time off work for council duties.

However examination of recent surveys and research indicates that part-time is regarded as less than two days work – i.e. about 15 hours. This would seem extreme if a company is expected to allow a member of staff two days a week off work – every week. However the impact reduces if it is considered that some of the councillor’s time will be expended in the evenings and at weekends.

Within Northumberland the present guidance is that a Northumberland County Councillor would be expected to work about 20 hours per week and a District Councillor about 10 hours per week. This appears to be in-line with national trends but is higher than the time indicated by the term part-time. However we can take as a starting point the existing accepted workload of 20 hours per week for a County Councillor as being the maximum to be expected from mainstream Unitary Councillors on the new authority.

How does this compare? This figure of a maximum of 20 hours reflects the current Northumberland County Council expectation. However the Unitary bid and the submission at appendix 1 talk of an enhanced role for mainstream councillors in the active engagement with their communities and this is also reflected in the latest White Paper of local government. It is expected that the role of a mainstream councillor will involved increase local contact and a more active role in developing plans, engaging with citizens and enhancing local participation. As stated, but not defined, in appendix 1 this will increase the workload of a mainstream councillor.

At present in Tynedale (the area I am familiar with) there are 52 District Councillors and 13 County Councillors. Each District councillor is expected to carry out 10 hours per week, each County Councillor 20 per week. A recent survey (July/August 2008) carried out by Tynedale Council found that the hours worked for a District councillor ranged from 7 hours per week to 38 hours per week. When mapped the majority of responses were in the region of 12-15 hours per week or a 20-50% over the expected hours. The number survey forms returns by County Councillors meant there were too few to make a significant comparison. However those that were returned indicated the hours they worked were currently exceeding the 20 hour guideline.

A simplistic view would be to say that for each County Councillor there are four District Councillors making a total 60 hours per week. At a guideline of 20 hours this would mean increasing the number of Unitary councillors threefold. If this was done there would still be a significant reduction on the number of councillors required.

However this simplistic view is not valid as the returned forms by District Councillors indicated an overlap with County Councillor duties. For example handling highways matters and schools issues which should be the provenance of county Councillors. This overlap appeared to be about one third of the District Councillor time ad about 10% of the County Councillors time. By extrapolation this would mean around 350 hours in Tynedale was unique to District business while 234 hours was unique to County business. This equates to approximately 45 hours per week indicating approximately double the number of councillors required in simplistic terms. This is interesting as a baseline, especially considering the increase in duties expected of new councillors.

The workload of committee meetings and external bodies will require each member to be a member of several committees. Some will meet infrequently and others such as the adoption committee (one member) will meet every fortnight.

It is recommended and acknowledged (see appendix 1) that membership for Overview & Scrutiny should be limited to two O&S bodies at county level. It would be beneficial to also limit the membership of both O&S and committees at the Area level. By examining the annual number of meetings for each Overview & Scrutiny meeting it can be projected that on average 2 hours each week will be needed for O&S meetings. (51 meetings per year).

A similar calculation can be carried out for the Area Committees resulting in approximately 2.5 hours per week needed for O&S and committee meetings and a further 0.5 for the Area Committee (all members) meetings. Overall this equates to about 3 hours per week for Area meetings.

The calculation for other committees is more complicated due to the wide variance on membership so to simplify matters a simplified approach in line with the above has been adopted to create an average weekly requirement of 6 hours for the meetings.

The time commitment required for outside bodies is more difficult again to calculate as there are 242 outside listed in appendix 1 and 5. This would imply 5 meeting every week or a time commitment of 10 hours each week.

In addition to the time commitment for attending each meeting it is to be expected the preparation for a meeting would take roughly the same length of time as the meeting itself in terms of reading background papers, research, and a councillors fully appraising themselves of the matters to be discussed.

In summary the above means that six or seven hours of meeting per week can be expected (approximately three meetings) although this will not occur in an even fashion and there will be busier and quieter weeks. This together with background reading would equate to 12-14 hours per week needed for meetings.

Another way of looking at the requirement is that there are 242 outside bodies. If each elected member serves on 3 outside bodies then a total of 80 councillors would be required, if each elected member serves on two outside bodies then 121 councillors would be required. This assumes only one councillor per outside body which is clearly not the case but simplifies the calculations.

The other element in the calculation is the number of hours a councillor will be expected to dedicate constituency business. According to the note for the progress note presented to the 4 September Joint Transition Forum the Electoral Review working group estimated that a Unitary councillor would have to dedicate up to 20 hours per week on constituency duties. The survey of councillor in Tynedale indicates an alternative figure of approximately 14 hours.

In summary these calculations show that the hours required should be between 26 and 34 hours per week given the work outlined. Given the theoretical maximum number of hours a councillor should work this would equate to between 1.3 and 1.7 times the maximum. Extrapolating from the current number of councillor this would equate to between 87 and 114 councillor being required for the new authority. However based on the survey of councillors and the calculated requirements for committees and outside bodies a ratio of 1:1.4 seems a reasonable compromise giving a total of 94 councillors and an elector ratio of approximately 1:2612 in 2008 and 1:2707 in 2013

At this stage no consideration is given to where these 94 councillors should be allocated or how the county could be divided in to divisions. However it is acknowledged that the three areas agreed by the Council would benefit from being aligned with County Divisions and that the three areas may need to be adjusted to align with county divisions.

It is preferred that each division is a single member division.

For the easy administration of locality agreements in the future it is also strongly recommended that no parish is split and that only whole parishes are contained within Divisions unless there is a case of more than one division falling within a parish or town council area. This is to ease the administration of the council, areas, and localities.

Also important at the next stage is a consideration on the size, distribution and accessibility of Divisions. While electoral equality is an important issue there is a strong argument for adjusting this in respect of Northumberland. An examination of the maps in Appendix 1 will show that there is great disparity between the urban South East (and other urban areas such as Hexham and Prudhoe) and the rural hinterland. While the facts and figure regarding the three areas demonstrate the disparity in population a better way of viewing this is to see that the 30 Division of the South East would fit into the existing Bellingham Area six times. Walking times across Divisions in the South East are quicker that car journey times in many of the rural divisions.

The rural divisions are also greatly hampered by poor road networks and are some of the most deprived areas in Britain for access to services such as libraries, schools, shops, transport, post offices, etc. In a recent paper on problems facing rural education (Delivering 14-19 Reforms in Rural Areas – Final Report) the DCSF highlighted that Northumberland was the most sparse county in the country and that the area covered by Haydon Bridge High School (Bellingham, Haydon and Hadrian, Haltwhistle and half of both Humshaugh and South Tyne divisions – the majority of the proposed West Northumberland Area) was the most sparse school area in Britain and an area that stretches from the equivalent of St Albans to Crawley and from Heathrow to Dagenham!

This area, together with the North of Northumberland Area, has huge divisions that are remote from County Hall requiring a huge investment in time for councillors. Getting around their divisions is often difficult and travel to County Hall in Morpeth can take an hour or more in one direction. A brief summary is given for current councillors in appendix 4 but greater consideration is needed in later stages of this process of how this inequitable situation can be addressed. It is suggested that the electoral divisions in the rural areas have fewer voter than in the urban areas to address the issues raised here. This is mentioned at this time as it also supports the proposal of 94 councillors.

Appendix 1

Unitary Authority Electoral Review of Northumberland Submission by Northumberland County Council

Contents Page No.

1. Introduction 2

2. Proposed Governance Arrangements 4

3. Electoral Representation 9

4. Proposed Electoral Arrangements 10

Appendices

1. List of Council Meetings 14

2. List of Outside Bodies 24

3. Area Characteristics 29

4. Principles for Locality Working 32

5. Electorate Forecasts 34

County Council, 11 September 2008 1 Unitary Authority Electoral Review of Northumberland

1. Introduction

1.1 This proposal presents the County Council’s case for council size of the new unitary Northumberland Council. In making its case the Council understands that any changes will not take affect until the next scheduled local elections in 2013 and until that time it will operate with 67 members, this being the council size of Northumberland County Council.

1.2 In its submission for unitary status the then Labour controlled County Council expressed the view that the new council should comprise 67 members subject to review by the Boundary Committee. In advance of the 2008 elections however, amid concerns that 67 councillors would be insufficient to provide effective governance, the County Council requested the Government to authorise a ‘doubling up’ of councillors for the period 2008-2013 pending electoral review. The Government did not agree to this request.

1.3 Elections held in May 2008 returned a hung council comprising 26 Liberal Democrat, 19 Conservative, 17 Labour and 5 Independent councillors. The newly elected council does not consider ‘doubling up’ to be an appropriate response to the current electoral review and has developed its case from an analysis of key factors which influence council size. Particular attention has been paid to the implications of integrating county and district council functions for:

• The unitary council’s political governance arrangements at both corporate and area level; here the imperative is to ensure there are sufficient members to provide for effective strategic leadership and efficient decision-making and scrutiny

• The role of members both as constituency councillors, representing their electorate, and in delivering the Council’s wider agenda for locality working and localism.

1.4 To progress this work a cross party members’ working group was established to consider available evidence and advise on an appropriate council size. The Group achieved broad consensus on a number of issues:

• Members are in favour of limiting the increase in the number of councillors to a minimum to provide for effective and efficient governance; a significant increase which could not be justified in terms of servicing political management structures and additional workloads could lead to public criticism of the Council; members feel obliged to ensure political structures are streamlined in line with their approach to management structures for the new council.

• Members also favour single member divisions as this facilitates better direct democratic accountability.

• An increase in council size is essential to ensure area arrangements work effectively.

• It is anticipated that by 2013 the electorate will increase overall by approximately 10,000 electors.

• The Council must review member support arrangements particularly in respect of their frontline role; this will increase the capacity of members to respond to constituency matters. Improvements should consider support at area level through locality officers, arrangements for handling complaints/enquiries, members ICT and developing support networks (parish councils, community organisations).

County Council, 11 September 2008 2 • The Member Working Group established from previous research and personal experience that a unitary councillor will have to commit at least 20 hours a week on constituency duties. The Group was clear that this would increase with electorate size, the geographic size of the division; distance from County Hall and in areas with higher levels of deprivation.

• In both urban and rural areas there are concerns over a potential democratic deficit. In the rural area this is accentuated by the geographic size and population sparsity of many divisions. Members accept, however, that electoral equality must be a prime consideration in any review.

• The Council size should reflect current thinking that councillors should be drawn from the widest possible sections of the population. So some roles will be effectively “full-time” whilst the structure should equally accommodate those in employment. The current 67 councillor profile shows 50% are retired/not employed and 50% have some form of employment, including a significant number of “self-employed”. The Council structure and commitment required from individual councillors, should encourage representation from the widest possible community.

• The establishment of town councils in south-east Northumberland will go some way towards addressing concerns over a democratic deficit in this area. Through its commitment to devolution, the Council is committed to working closely with town and parish councils and enhancing their role in the Council’s decision making process.

• An effective ‘frontline’ unitary councillor can reasonably be expected to respond to an electorate of 3,000 – 3,250 in terms of the workload this size of constituency will generate.

1.5 In summary it is considered there is a strong case to increase council size. Members felt however, that it was equally important to streamline political structures and provide effective support for members particularly at constituency level. The geography of the county also creates conflicting issues for members. In the rural areas sparsity of population and sheer size of constituencies are major issues. In the urban areas, however, members have to contend with higher levels of social and economic deprivation which can make significant demands on members’ time.

1.6 Taking these issues into account the County Council’s view is that the council size for the new unitary council should be in the range of 79 - 85 members.

The Member Group noted that this matter has been considered by some of the Districts/Boroughs within the County and that there is a divergence of views as to the suggested number of Councillors.

County Council, 11 September 2008 3 2. Proposed Governance Arrangements

2.1 Our proposed governance arrangements for the unitary council reflect a commitment to devolve decision-making and service delivery to the most effective level. Equally we aim to give priority to engaging with local communities and empowering them to have real influence over decisions which affect them. These principles underpin how the council will operate and have significant implications for members in terms of their role and ways of working.

2.2 The unitary council will operate at 3 levels:

• At county-wide level setting corporate direction and managing the delivery of key strategic services.

• At area level where local members will be responsible for planning and regulatory services and scrutiny of all local services and community issues. Over time, the Area Committee function will develop in a variety of ways.

• At community level working with town and parish councils and community organisations promoting leading engagement with local communities and fostering a culture of participation and empowerment.

2.3 The following diagram illustrates our proposed political governance arrangements

Political Governance Arrangements

Northumberland Planning and

Strategic Partnership Licensing Committees Council

Ad hoc Central

Committees Scrutiny Executive Delegating and Panels Committees

Delegating Informing Area Planning and Licensing Sub Area Committees Committees Area Partnerships

Delegating Informing

Parish Councils Community and Neighbourhood Fora

County Council, 11 September 2008 4 2.4 Under these proposals we envisage the following key central arrangements:

1) Full Council will meet a minimum of 5 times a year and will be responsible for providing overall strategic direction for the Council principally through the policy and budget framework.

A different style of Council meeting is envisaged. It will be the main place for the frontline councillors’ strategic and policy setting role and debate on key issues will be encouraged. The focus will be on:

• Discussions and setting policy

• Holding the Executive to account

Ratification of decisions will continue to be a function of Council but will be given less emphasis under revised arrangements. Opportunities will be provided to enable the public and partners to engage in Council meetings. Meetings will also be held outside of County Hall in appropriate venues across the county.

In view of the political composition of the authority, full council is likely to take a leading role in resolving conflict and determining priorities.

2) At present, an Executive of 8 members, including the Leader and Deputy Leader, is responsible for implementing council policy and achieving key objectives. The Executive meets monthly and takes collective responsibility for key policy decisions. Individual executive members currently have exclusive delegated powers in relation to their area of responsibility. The post of Secretary to the Executive has been to facilitate the co-ordination of executive business and liaise with scrutiny committees. This has provided for very effective facilitation of decision making.

It is expected that Executive members will be full time councillors. Some initial consideration has been given to increasing the size of the Executive to 10 members (the maximum possible). It is hoped that new arrangements from 01/04/09 incorporating the “New-Style Leader” principles will bring about further innovation and improvements. This is to be the subject of further discussion between the political parties.

3) There will be 4 central scrutiny committees; 3 will be aligned to the organisational structure of the Council (People, Place, Performance) and additionally there will be a separate scrutiny committee for Health. Each will have 12 unitary councillors in their membership together with other co-opted members as required. Scrutiny committees will meet monthly but will also commission member task groups to investigate issues and develop policy. Scrutiny Chairs and Vice Chairs (Chairman’s Group) will meet monthly to co- ordinate and agree scrutiny agendas and work programmes. There is an expectation that scrutiny committees will liaise closely with the Executive and also provide a clear link with area based scrutiny.

4) A planning committee comprising 16 members will be responsible for the Local Development Framework and Strategic planning applications including minerals. It will meet monthly. Area planning sub-committees will handle local development control matters.

County Council, 11 September 2008 5 5) A Licensing Committee comprising 15 members and essentially responsible for setting a co-ordinated framework for licensing scrutiny. Licensing applications will be handled at area level by Area Licensing Panels with members drawn from the central committee. Membership of the Licensing Committee will have regard to a geographic spread of members to ensure as far as possible, panels are made up of locally elected councillors. A heavy workload for the panels is anticipated based on district council experience of this work.

6) A Housing Board of 8 members responsible for policy development and co- ordination and strategic housing matters.

2.5 A complete listing of central committees, together with unscheduled (ad hoc) panels and consultative committees is set out in Appendix 1. This demonstrates that with a council size of 67 all non-executive councillors will be required to be members of 2 or 3 central committees the majority of which will meet on a monthly basis.

2.6 Additionally all members have a responsibility to serve outside bodies. Those currently supported by the County Council are set out in Appendix 2. This will lead to additional commitments for Councillors as the Council will wish to ensure that members do play an active role in serving on outside bodies. In addition, the 6 Districts have a range of outside bodies on which members serve. A rationalisation process is to be undertaken but that there will be an increased workload overall.

2.7 At area level we propose the establishment of 3 areas for the purpose of political governance and service delivery. Table 1 and Map 1 show which electoral divisions fall into each area. Appendix 3 provides background information on each area.

2.8 At area level we envisage the following roles for members:

1. Deliver effective planning, development control and regulatory services and potentially further local services in due course.

2. Influence corporate policies, strategies and service and capital plans as they affect the area through effective scrutiny, challenge and review of all local services and community issues.

3. Develop effective liaison and communications with town and parish councils.

4. Ensure effective partnership working – Providing a ‘bridge’ between the council, other organisations and local communities within a very diverse and dispersed county.

5. Support the development of ‘locality working’ below area level

6. Coordinate monitor and review delivery of an ‘Area Implementation Plan’; including LAA targets

7. Ensure public accountability for decisions and actions at area level by providing a framework for informed participation by communities

2.9 At area level we are proposing the establishment of the following committees:

• An area committee will meet at least bi-monthly and comprise all members elected to represent the area. Each Committee will operate area based scrutiny of service delivery and contribute to the development of corporate policy. The Committee will also be a vehicle for community engagement particularly through the involvement of parish councils in the committee’s activities.

County Council, 11 September 2008 6 • An area planning sub-committee(1) meeting fortnightly and comprising a minimum of 10 members (where councillor numbers permit this should be increased). The sub-committee will be responsible for all non-strategic planning applications. In 2005/06 district councils handled in the region of 3500 planning applications and it is anticipated that in total the proposed sub- committees will be expected to handle a similar level of applications. The Council is fully committed to delegation but it is unlikely that there is much scope for further delegation in this area.

• An area licensing panel to handle licensing applications. Panels will meet monthly and comprise 5 members drawn from the central Licensing Committee. As far as possible panels will include members elected to represent the area covered by the Panel. As a general principle, the Working Group believe that a member should not serve on a Planning Committee if he or she is a member of a Licensing Committee (or vice versa).

Table 2 illustrates the potential workload implications for members of these proposals.

2.10 On the basis of 3 areas agreed for devolved working the distribution of 67 members is as follows:

North – 19 members West – 17 members South-east – 31 members

Whilst it is considered there are sufficient members in the south-east area to service proposed area arrangements, member capacity in the north and west will be stretched. Here planning sub-committees are a particular concern. The Member Working Group recommends a minimum of 10 members for Planning Sub- Committees, but 12 is the preferred number (to accommodate conflicts of interest) and should not include executive members. In the north and west, therefore, at least half of all members would be required to sit on the sub-committee. Notwithstanding officer delegation this will have major implications for the workload of members in these areas. The Member Working Group suggests a minimum of 10 members for Planning Sub-Committees.

Further pressure on members will be generated by Area Licensing Panels and again the impact on member capacity will be most acute in the north and west.

2.11 Effective locality and neighbourhood working underpinned the County Council’s case for unitary status. We stressed our commitment to strengthen community engagement and empowerment as a means of both ensuring the authority was not seen as being too remote and of enabling local communities to influence local service delivery. Whilst the new Council has challenged the detail of proposals set out in the original submission for unitary status, it remains committed to the underlying concepts. To confirm its continuing support the Council has agreed a set of principles for locality working which are attached as Appendix 4.

2.12 We recognised enhanced locality arrangements would have major implications for members in terms of how they interact with their local communities and the increased time commitment this would demand. Subsequently the Council has instigated work to identify the expectations of members at locality level. This work is still in preparation but following notes provide an indication of our thinking and approach. At locality level there will be an expectation of all members to:

• Be seen as a high profile “local Leader” and skilled advocate that understands the locality they represent and has the ability and skills base to influence change to the benefit of the community

(1) Until the unitary Local Development Scheme is in place, there will be 6 planning sub- committees operating on district boundaries and working to existing local development schemes.

County Council, 11 September 2008 7 • Develop a range of communication methods to impart information and to enable better accessibility to the local Councillor and the Unitary Authority they represent.

• Identify opportunities to be able to communicate effectively with different sectors in particular under-represented and often labelled “hard to reach” groups.

• Communicate information effectively, consult with communities on public opinion but ensure there is realism in the communications to avoid raising expectations.

• Represent the new council at the community level, scrutinise the delivery of services and help to ensure that the new council’s priorities reflect community needs and aspirations.

• Carry out sufficient research to be able to make informed decisions and to challenge proposals whilst carrying out a more proactive role in engaging with local communities.

• Possess a diverse range of communication skills, including mediation and persuasion to be able to participate in, and listen to all sides of community “debate” and be able to balance the local needs against wider community interests.

• Be able to engage with and work with parish councils, local groups, strategic partnerships and volunteers to make local changes happen in a collaborative way.

2.13 Unitary councillors will be required to pay particular attention to establish close working arrangements with town and parish councils. The rural areas of the county are extensively parished and county and district members work closely with town and parish councils in their area. Furthermore steps are now being taken to establish parish councils in Blyth Valley and Wansbeck. In Wansbeck, the district council has completed a consultation exercise to ask local people for views about the boundaries of the parishes and parish wards for the new parish councils which together will cover all parts of Wansbeck. Either 5 or 6 parish councils depending on whether Ashington becomes a single parish or is split east/west. The Statutory Order will be made by the SoS, under the transitional provisions relating to parish reviews under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Blyth Valley Borough Council agreed in April to conduct a Community Governance review under the LGPIH Act 2007, with a view to creating 3 parish councils covering all parts of the district area. The aim is to create the parish councils on 1 April 2009. Town and parish councils are seen as having a major role in the council’s approach to democratic engagement with the unitary councillor providing a key link to the council at corporate and area level. In the rural areas the shear number of parish councils in some divisions will require a significant time input from members to ensure effective interaction.

2.14 In November 2005 the County Council’s Independent Members Remuneration Panel estimated that non-executive members needed to devote a minimum of 20 hours a week to their non-executive role. This is supported by the National Census of Local Authority Councillors 2006 which suggests an average of 21.6 hours a week. Several members have participated in a further review recently and all state that their current workload is in excess of the minimum. As unitary councillors, however, there is no doubt that this time commitment will increase when they take on the responsibilities previously undertaken by 239 district councillors.

2.15 As part of local government reorganisation the council will undertake an extensive review of member support arrangements. It is, nevertheless, inevitable that member workloads and required time commitment in both rural and urban areas will increase significantly.

County Council, 11 September 2008 8 3. Electoral Representation

3.1 Currently the electoral average across the County Council is 3,665 and is forecast to increase to 3,799 in 2013. These averages, however, mask some significant variations between divisions as the following summary shows:

Percentage Variance No. of Divisions No. of May 2008 Divisions 2013 -20.1% and below 0 0 -10.1% to -20.0% 8 8 -5.1% to -10.0% 16 18 0% to -5.0% 11 14 0.1% to 5.0% 11 8 5.0% to 10.0% 10 5 10.1% to 20.0% 9 12 20.1% and above 2 2 Total 67 67

3.2 Appendix 5 provides a detailed divisional breakdown of current and forecast electorates and estimated variance from county averages.

3.3 The majority of divisions with above average electorates are within the urban south- east area. There are, however, significant exceptions with a number of rural divisions showing a variance in excess of 10%.

3.4 The Council recognises that issues of geography and population sparsity will invariably impact on electoral averages. It is also conscious, however, that in urban areas higher levels of social and economic deprivation make pressing demands on members’ time. It is of the view, therefore, that divisional electorates in rural and urban areas should not, as far as reasonably possible, vary more than 10 per cent from the electoral average for the county.

3.5 In consideration of what constitutes a realistic time commitment by members and issues which influence this commitment, the Council considers an electoral average of between 3,000 and 3,250 electors per member is a realistic level for the unitary council. This compares to an average new unitary authority’s of 2,573(1). The Working Group notes that this average figure includes Council’s with a significant urban complexion, which is less relevant in Northumberland. The Council favours single member divisions as it believes this clarifies accountability and reduces confusion for electors.

3.6 In recent years there has been an increasing number of councillors who have been dual-hatted, i.e. serving on both county and district councils. The 2008 elections advanced the numbers to a record level, with around 50 of the 67 being dual-hatted until 31 March 2009. Anecdotal evidence gathered from members confirms that the majority of a councillor’s “casework” arises from the services currently provided by district councils, i.e. the services that affect their daily lives.

Whilst the new authority councillors will be working closely with parish and town councillors it is expected that parish councils will pick up a significant proportion of this casework. It is the potential pressure from casework which leads the Council to favour a lower electoral representation figure between 3,000 and 3,250. The Council believes this figure gives an effective balance between having sufficient councillors to carry out the strategic and area roles, whilst making the size of the electorate manageable for all individual councillors.

The Council further believes a reduction to the average of 2,573 would create a council far too large to be effective and leave a significant number of councillors without a significant/legitimate role.

(1) Electoral Commission website based on 2004 survey of council size.

County Council, 11 September 2008 9 4. Proposed Electoral Arrangements

4.1 The County Council is of the view that an average divisional electorate of between 3,000 and 3,250 is an acceptable level of representation taking into account the particular geographic and demographic characteristics of Northumberland.

4.2 On this basis and with a projected total county electorate of 254,514 by 2013, it is proposed that the size of the new unitary council should be between 79 and 85 members representing single member divisions. The Council recognised that the nature of the county is such that significant variation in divisional electorates is inevitable but advise that, as far as is reasonably possible, this should be restricted to 10 per cent from the county average.

4.3 On the basis of current districts we suggest additional council places should be allocated as follows:

District Current Proposed Proposed (79 members) (85 members) Alnwick 7 8 9

Berwick upon Tweed 6 7 8

Blyth Valley 17 20 22

Castle Morpeth 11 13 13

Tynedale 13 15 17

Wansbeck 13 16 16

4.4 Pending a detailed review of boundaries it is not possible to accurately allocate new places to the Council’s proposed ‘Areas’. It is clear, however, that new places will be distributed evenly between the rural and urban areas. With this relatively modest increase the Council is confident that it will have sufficient members to service its corporate and devolved governance arrangements and that members will have adequate capacity to undertake their ‘frontline’ responsibilities.

The Council would wish to see these changes introduced for the next scheduled elections in 2013.

County Council, 11 September 2008 10 Table 1

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

South East West North Ashington Central Bellingham Alnwick Bedlington Central Bywell Amble Bedlington East Corbridge Amble West With Warkworth Bedlington West Haltwhistle Bamburgh Bothal Haydon and Hadrian Berwick East Choppington Hexham Central with Acomb Berwick North College Hexham East Berwick West with Ord Cowpen Hexham West Chevington with Longhorsley Cramlington East Humshaugh Lesbury Cramlington Eastfield Ponteland East Longhoughton Cramlington North Ponteland North Morpeth Kirkhill Cramlington South East Ponteland South with Morpeth North Heddon Cramlington Village Ponteland West Morpeth Stobhill Cramlington West Prudhoe East Norham and Islandshires Croft Prudhoe West Pegswood Hartley South Tynedale Rothbury Haydon Stocksfield and Broomhaugh Shilbottle Hirst Ulgham Holywell Wooler Isabella Kitty Brewster Lynemouth Newbiggin Central and East Newsham Plessey Seaton with Newbiggin West Seghill with Seaton Delaval Sleekburn South Blyth Stakeford Wensleydale

South East West North Total Electorate 2008 115,890 61,968 67,684

Total Electorate 2013 118,282 64,725 71,507

Number of 39 22 24 Councillors with average electorate of 3,000 Number of 37 20 22 Councillors with average electorate of 3,250

County Council, 11 September 2008 11

County Council, 11 September 2008 12

Table 2

Proposed Political Management Arrangements Anticipated Schedule of Area Meetings from April 2009

Meeting Frequency Councillor membership North Area (currently 19 members)

Area Committee 6 (minimum) 19

Area Planning Committee (1) (3) 24 10

Area Licensing Panel 12 5

Area Partnership 6 3

South East Area (currently 31 members)

Area Committee 6 (minimum) 31

Area Planning Committee 24 10

Area Licensing Panel 12 5

Area Partnership 6 3

West Area (currently 17 members)

Area Committee 6 (minimum) 17

Area Planning Committee 24 10

Area Licensing Panel 12 5

Area Partnership 6 3

(1) Government advice is that Executive members should not sit on Planning Committees with the exception of the Executive Member with responsibility for planning matters.

(2) Members will be drawn from the central licensing committee

(3) A Planning Committee of 10 members is regarded as the minimum number to ensure effective working; this will be increased where member numbers permit.

County Council, 11 September 2008 13 APPENDIX 1

Anticipated Schedule of Meetings from April 2009

Meeting Scheduled meetings Councillor per annum Membership

Executive 11 8 (10) Overview and Scrutiny People 11 12 Place 11 12 Performance 11 12 Health 11 12 Chairman's Group 11 9 Planning Committee 11 16 Right of Way 11 15 Licensing Committee 4 15 Standards Committee 4 6 Audit Committee 4 6 Pension Fund Panel 4 5 Housing Board 6 8 Corporate Parenting Committee 4 8 FACT Board 6 4 Adoption Panel 23 1 Fostering Panel 12 1 Governing Body of Netherton Park 4 8 Standing Advisory Council on Religious 4 4 Education Teachers’ Consultative Committee 4 5 Performance Management Working Group 6 9

Staff Committee When required 3 Appointments Committee When required 8 Appeals Committee - Access to Personal When required 3 Files Act 1987 Disputes Panel - Fire and Rescue Services When required 8 Complaints Procedure Review Panel - Adult When required 1 Complaints Complaints Procedure Review Panel - Children When required 3 and Young Person’s Complaints The School Improvement and Monitoring When required 8 Committee Woodhorn Joint Committee When required 3 County Emergency Committee When required 8

County Council, 11 September 2008 14 Committee Functions

Scheduled Committees

Overview and Scrutiny - PEOPLE

School & Family Support

• Early years and childcare • School improvement • Youth service • Adult education • Play • YOT

Child Care & Community Support

• Special educational needs • Inclusion (Ed Psy, disability) • Community Support • Child Health (NCT) • Behaviour Support • Family Support

Safeguarding & Commissioning

• Safeguarding Monitoring • External Commissioning • School Organisation inc. PLF • School Admissions • Schools Formula Funding

Community Safety

• Community Safety • Fire and Rescue • Emergency Planning • Crime and drugs

Adult Care Services

• Adult social services • Health services • Public health (joint appointment with Care Trust) • Disabled adaptations grants

Overview and Scrutiny - PLACE

Street Scene

• Cleaning, refuse collection, recycling and disposal • Facilities Management (Schools, buildings) and Grounds Maintenance • Markets • Public convenience • Highway maintenance • Car Parks • Waste Management • Waste Strategy

County Council, 11 September 2008 15 Regulatory Services

• Trading Standards • Environmental Health • Animal health and Welfare • Planning Strategy • Development Control • Building Control • Environmental crime/street enforcement • Licensing • Street Naming • Land Drainage

Customer & Community Services

• Libraries • Contact Centres/One Stop shops (revenues and benefits interface) • Museums/Arts • Concessionary Travel (administration) • Leisure services and Leisure strategy • Tourism Strategy and TIC’s • Customer Service, Business Transformation, Performance & Improvement (Place)

Strategic Services

• Housing strategy • Housing management • Regeneration • Highways and Transport strategy

Overview and Scrutiny - PERFORMANCE

Policy and Partnerships

• LSP Lead • Support for area and locality working • Policy and Research • Corporate Performance • Communications • Community Engagement • Community Development

Business Management

• HR • Training and Development • Health and Safety • Member support, inc. scrutiny • Committees • Civil Registration • Coroner • Elections and Electoral Registration • Legal

Corporate Support Services

• Finance • Procurement

County Council, 11 September 2008 16 • IT • Revenues and Benefits • Asset Management • Audit and Risk Management

Overview and Scrutiny - HEALTH

(i) To discharge the functions conferred by Section 21(f) of the Local Government Act 2000 of reviewing and scrutinising, in accordance with regulations under Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, matters relating to the planning, provision and operation of health services in Northumberland.

(ii) To scrutinise health services within the Council’s area as part of the wider role in health improvement and to secure the continuous improvement of health services, together with any other services that impact upon health.

(iii) To scrutinise whether services provided that impact on the health of local inhabitants are accessible to all parts of the local community.

(iv) To address issues around health inequalities and to propose ways of reducing such inequalities for the area and its inhabitants.

(v) To take a holistic view of health, in order to promote the social, environmental and economic well-being of local people.

(vi) To develop a constructive and proactive approach to the scrutiny of health services within the Council’s area based on a mutual understanding of priorities between the committee and local NHS bodies.

(vii) To act as a consultee as required by the relevant regulations in respect of those matters on which local NHS bodies must consult the Committee.

(viii) To make reports and recommendations on matters relating the health services in Northumberland to local NHS bodies and to the County Council.

(ix) To report annually on its work to the County Council and the District Councils. To consider the improvement of the health of residents in Northumberland.

Planning and Regulation Committee

(a) To exercise the development control, listed building and tree preservation order work of the County Council as a planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Acts and other associated planning legislation.

(b) To undertake the regulatory role of the County Council as a highway and traffic authority, including the issuing and making of orders, notices and regulations.

(c) To advise the Executive on consultative planning guidance and development plans issued by Government and other local authorities.

(d) Those functions prescribed by the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 as not being Executive functions, and not allocated elsewhere by the Constitution.

Rights of Way Committee

(a) To exercise the Council’s functions in relation to the survey, definition, maintenance, diversion, stopping up and creation of public rights of way.

County Council, 11 September 2008 17

(b) To exercise the Council’s function as the Registration Authority for common land and village green matters under the Commons Registration Act 1965.

Local County Councillors may attend meetings, but must not speak, or take part, in the decision process.

Licensing Committee

(i) To determine applications for the following licences including the power to impose appropriate conditions on any such licence: • Game Dealers • Gaming Act 1968 • Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 • Taxi Licences (Hackney Carriage and Private Hire) • Street Collections • House to House Collections and any other licences coming under his control

(ii) To immediately suspend or revoke any of the above licences issued by the Council if, in his opinion, sufficient grounds exist for such action, subject to a right of appeal by the licence-holder to the Licensing Committee.

(iii) To determine requests for extensions to hours for regulated entertainment in respect of any individual functions in particular premises which hold a Premises Licence which was converted in whole or in part under the Licensing Act 2003 from a former Public Entertainment Licence, such determination to be made following consultation with the Chairman of the Licensing Committee.

(iv) To exercise the Licensing Officer’s powers with regard to the Council’s licensing functions under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Gambling Act 2005 including the relevant Officer delegations set out in the respective Licensing Policies made by the Council under these Acts and also all the other delegations of the Chief Executive set out in this scheme where appropriate.

(v) To give any approval required under the conditions relating to any licence, etc. coming under his control.

(vi) To investigate any offences that may have been committed in respect of any licensing matter coming under his control and to enforce all related aspects and licence conditions.

(vii) To maintain any statutory register of licences, permissions or consents granted in respect of any licensing matter coming under his control.

Standards Committee

(a) Promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by councillors, co- opted members and church and parent governor representatives.

(b) Assisting the councillors, co-opted members and church and parent governor representatives to observe the Members’ Code of Conduct.

(c) Advising the Council on the adoption or revision of the Members’ Code of Conduct and on any general matters raised by the Standards Board for England.

(d) Monitoring the effectiveness and operation of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

County Council, 11 September 2008 18 (e) Advising, training or arranging to train councillors, co-opted members and church and parent governor representatives on matters relating to the Members’ Code of Conduct.

(f) Granting dispensations to councillors and co-opted members and church and parent governor representatives with prejudicial interests.

(g) To assess and review complaints about members.

(h) To conduct determinations’ hearings.

(i) To grant exemptions for politically restricted posts.

(j) The recruitment of independent members of the Committee and advice to the Council on the appointment of such members.

Audit Committee

(a) To advise on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s corporate governance arrangements and internal control environment.

(b) To monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s External Audit service and respond to its findings, specifically:

• Consider the nature and scope of the external audit of the Council’s services and functions, and the external audit fee and terms of engagement. • Receive and consider external audit reports and Management Letters. • Monitor management’s response to the external auditor’s findings and the implementation of external audit recommendations.

(c) To monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of the Internal Audit service, specifically:

• Approve the terms of reference for Internal Audit. • Receive and consider annual internal audit plan from the Head of Internal Audit. • Monitor progress against the plans through receipt of periodic progress reports and an annual Internal Audit Report. • Receive and consider annual report from the Head of Internal Audit on the adequacy of the internal control environment. • Receive and consider major Internal Audit findings and recommendations. • Monitor management’s response to Internal Audit findings and the implementation of its recommendations. • Evaluate the extent to which Internal Audit complies with best practice, is sufficiently resourced and meets agreed performance targets.

(d) To monitor the effectiveness of Chief Officer’s responsibility for ensuring an adequate internal control environment.

(e) To monitor the arrangements for the identification, monitoring and control of strategic and operational risk within the Council.

(f) To monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of the arrangements in place for combating fraud and corruption.

(g) To provide an annual assurance to the County Council that its systems of governance are operating effectively.

(h) To review and approve the annual statement of accounts.

County Council, 11 September 2008 19 (i) The Head of Internal Audit has the right of independent access to the Committee and its Chair.

(j) The Committee has the right to require the attendance of any Council officers or members in order to respond directly to any issue under consideration.

Pension Fund Panel

To deal with all matters relating to the investment of the Northumberland County Council’s Pension Fund.

To consider applications to be admitted to the Fund from qualifying community organisations.

To consider administering authority matters appertaining to the Fund as a whole.

Housing Board

(i) Develop a sub-regional Housing Strategy for Northumberland.

(ii) Agreeing and submitting bids for Single Housing Investment Programme funding and monitoring performance against the agreed programme.

(iii) Delivery of a Strategic and Local Housing Service Accelerator project.

Corporate Parenting Committee

To discuss reports on the following children’s cases:-

(i) children who have had three or more placements in a year (not an individual report on all such children on each occasion);

(ii) a small number of brief anonymised reports on children/young people who are the subject of Care Orders, placed at home, and who may be on the Child Protection Register; or

(iii) other cases which have raised particular dilemmas or issues of practice which would inform the corporate parenting role.

(iv) reports on the findings of Regulation 33 visits, members rota visits, inspections of residential children’s homes, fostering services and adoption services.

(v) reports on aspects of the lives, achievements, events and views of Looked After Children.

(vi) changes in legislation and guidance in relation to Looked After Children.

To report to the Executive on a quarterly basis, as appropriate.

FACT Board

The purpose of the Board is to improve the well-being of children and young people in Northumberland.

Adoption Panel

To make recommendations to the Adoption Agency on whether or not:

(a) adoption is in the best interests of the child, and if so, whether further legal applications are necessary;

County Council, 11 September 2008 20

(b) a prospective adopter is suitable to be an adoptive parent;

(c) a prospective adopter is suitable to be an adoptive parent for a particular child, and

(d) whether or not an adoption allowance should be payable in a particular case in accordance with the Adoption Allowance Regulations 1991.

Fostering Panel

To make recommendations to the Fostering Agency on whether or not:

(a) fostering is in the best interests of the child, and if so, whether further legal applications are necessary;

(b) a prospective foster carer is suitable to be an foster carer;

(c) a prospective foster carer is suitable to be a foster carer for a particular child

Governing Body of Netherton Park

To exercise the functions of the Responsible Body of the Home.

Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education

To advise the Authority upon such matters connected with religious worship in County schools, and the religious education to be given in accordance with an agreed

syllabus as the Authority may refer to the Council or as the Council may see fit. (Circular 3/89).

Teachers’ Consultative Committee

To consider matters relating to the employment of teachers.

Performance Management Working Group

• To maintain an overview of the County Council’s performance management arrangements; • To receive reports on performance of directorates and portfolio holders in achieving the County Council’s ambitions in relation to the Annual Executive statement, Local Public Service Agreement, Local Area Agreement, Comprehensive Performance Assessment and progress against the County Council’s key priorities; • To identify performance gaps and advise the Chairmen’s Group on issues which should be brought to the Executive’s attention; and • To provide a basis for Members to contribute effectively to the County Council’s medium term planning and budget setting process.

County Council, 11 September 2008 21 Non-scheduled Committees

Staff Committee

(1) To determine all staff appeals, with the exception of fire fighters, teachers and support staff in schools with delegated budgets, in accordance with the procedures contained in the following policy statements adopted by the Council:

(a) Capability, Disciplinary, Redundancy, Ill Health and Other Reasons;

(b) Grievance.

(2) To assess and determine:

(a) applications received from employees for early retirement;

(b) where necessary, applications regarding the disposal of lump sum death benefits, and

(c) ex-gratia payments where the relevant Director is unable to determine the claim on behalf of the member of staff concerned.

(3) To act in disciplinary cases involving Chief Officers with a further Panel of three different councillors acting as an appeal committee in such cases.

Appointments Committee

To determine appointments of Chief Officers and appropriate deputies.

Group Leaders are authorised to determine the size and composition of the Committee, having regard to the post(s) being filled.

With the agreement of the Group Leaders, a Deputy Chief Officer appointment may be determined by a Chief Officer.

Appeals

To hear and determine appeals from persons aggrieved by the outcome of their statutory request for access to:-

(a) personal information about them contained in the Council’s records, or;

(b) such personal information about another person contained in the Council’s records where they are entitled to make such a request on behalf of that other person.

Disputes Panel - Fire and Rescue Services

To hear disputes, as required, in accordance with the provisions in the Scheme of Conditions of Service of Local Authorities Fire Brigades.

Complaints Procedure Review Panel

To review the Social Services Department's decision regarding a complaint made.

County Council, 11 September 2008 22 The School Improvement and Monitoring Committee

(i) To receive feedback on the Ofsted inspection of schools.

(ii) To oversee the support work of the County Council and the progress of schools on the Schools Intervention and Support Programme in the following categories :-

(a) schools in special measures; (b) schools issued with an improvement notice; (c) LA identified schools;

and, where appropriate, to appoint additional Governors to a School Governing Body, where the school is in one of the categories mentioned above.

(iii) To receive an annual report about the number of schools that have been on the School Intervention and Support Programme, the reason(s) for their inclusion, the support given by the County Council and the success of this support.

(iv) To receive an annual report on the performance of schools.

Where a member of the committee has a direct conflict of interest in that he/she is a governor of a school falling into one of the categories mentioned above and the school is the subject of consideration by the committee, or is a governor of a neighbouring school, then he/she shall be replaced by another member of his/her political group for the duration of the committee’s deliberations in relation to that school. The replacement member will be a full voting member in respect of matters relating to that school.

Woodhorn Joint Committee

To oversee the Woodhorn Project.

County Emergency Committee

To function under emergency legislation and to deal with such matters concerning the County Council’s emergency planning functions as may be referred to them by the Council.

County Council, 11 September 2008 23 APPENDIX 2 NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE BODIES (May 2008)

Organisation Places CATEGORY A (FEEDBACK TO EXECUTIVE) Age Concern 2 Association of North East Councils 6

Executive Committee 1 Community Action Northumberland 6 County Councils Network 4 Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd 1 Interim Regional Transport Board 1 Local Government Association – Group Leaders 3 Local Government Association- Leaders 1 Local Government Association – Fire Forum 1* Local Government Association – Rural Commission 2 Local Government Association – Urban Commission 1 + (one officer) Local Government Information Unit Management Committee 1 National Association of Councillors 1 National Park Authority 6 n.b. reps should reflect political composition of the Council whilst ideally representing areas within the National Park. North East Assembly (must be derived from ANEC representatives) 2 North East Regional Employers’ Organisation 3 Northumberland Strategic Partnership Board 2 Northumberland Care Trust 3 non-Executive Directors From 2007/08 NCC will make three nominations to the Care Trust but final selection will rest with the Trust following candidate interviews. Northumberland Area Community Safety Strategy 1 Northumbria Police Authority 1 until 31 March 2011 - Joint Appointments Committee (required only to meet if a vacancy arises on the Police Authority) South East Northumberland/North Tyneside Regeneration Initiative 1

County Council, 11 September 2008 24

CATEGORY B (FEEDBACK TO EXECUTIVE MEMBER) Arts Council of England, North East Local Authority Forum 2 Arts Council, North East Regional Council Board 1 Askew Educational Foundation 1 Catchment Flood Management Plan Sub Committee 1 Counties Furniture Group 1 Cycling England – Member Champion for Cycling 1 ENRGI (East Northumberland Regeneration Initiative) 1 Environment Agency Regional Flood Defence Committee Until 31 May 2009 (4 years) Groundwork Northumberland 1 Inter Authority Liaison Group on Low Flying Military Aircraft 1 Interim Regional Transport Board 1 Local Government Association 4 N.C.H. Action for Children (Monksfield Project) Committee 3 N.T.C. Touring Theatre Company 1 Newcastle Airport JCC 1 Newcastle International Airport Local Authority Holding 2 + 2 Alternate members Newcastle International Airport Limited – Alternate Director 1 Newcastle Royal Grammar School 1 June 2006 – 31 May 2009 North East Museums Library and Archives Council 1 North East Museums Libraries and Arts Committee Board 1 North East Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committee 1 North East Fire and Rescue Regional Management Board 4 Executive Members + 4 Substitute Executive Members North East Fire Control Company 2 Executive Members and 2 Substitute Members North Eastern Purchasing Organisation 3 + 3 Deputies Northern Council of Education Committees 3 North East Sport 5 Northumberland Adult Placement Scheme 1 for 3 years Northumberland Sport 1 North Pennines AONB Partnership 1 Northumberland Coast AONB Partnership 2 Northumberland College Board 2 Northumberland County Blind Association 1 Northumberland Playing Fields Association 1 Northumberland Joint Waste Management Strategy Members Steering 2 Group Northumberland Rural Development Programme Committee 1 Northumberland National Park and Countryside Local Access Forum 1 Northumberland Schools Admission Forum 5 North of England Reserve Forces and Cadets Association 1 Programme Monitoring Committee 1

County Council, 11 September 2008 25 School Governors Sub-Committee 4 Percy Hedley School 1 NPIL Community Advisory Committee 1 local Pupil Referral Unit Management Committee 1 Queens Hall Arts Trust 1 Schools Forum 3 (and 3 Deputies) Sea Fisheries Committee 9 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2009 Sherburn Hospital Governing Body 1 from 28 August 2006 until 28 August 2010 South-East Northumberland Enterprise Trust 1

County Council, 11 September 2008 26

CATEGORY C (FEEDBACK TO AREA COMMITTEES) Area Committee for Alnwick Alnwick Community Development Trust 1 (Alnwick ward Councillor) Alnwick Playhouse Trust 1 Alnwick North Community Association 2 Amble Development Trust 1 Amble Partnership Board 1 District Council Planning Committees: Alnwick 1 District Sports Councils: Alnwick 1 Nunnykirk Hall School 1 Northumbria Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership: Alnwick 1 Area Committee for Berwick Berwick-upon-Tweed Conservation Area Advisory Group 1 District Council Planning Committees: Berwick 1 Glendale Gateway Trust 1 Lindisfarne Nature Reserve 1 North Sunderland/Seahouses Development Trust Man. Committee 1 Northumbria Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership: Berwick 1 Area Committee for Blyth Blyth Valley Citizens’ Advice Bureau 1 Blyth Valley Council for Voluntary Services 2 Cramlington Voluntary Youth Project 2 District Council Planning Committees: Blyth Valley Development Control 1 Panel Northumbria Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership: Blyth 1 Area Committee for Castle Morpeth District Council Planning Committees: Castle Morpeth Planning and 1 Control Greater Morpeth Development Trust 1 Longhirst Hall Educational Trust 1 Morpeth Initiative Management Committee 1 Northumbria Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership: Morpeth 1 Area Committee for Tynedale District Sports Councils: Tynedale 1 District Council Planning Committees: Tynedale 1 Haltwhistle Partnership Limited 1 Hexham Community Partnership 1 Historic Hexham Trust 1 Kielder Partnership 1 Prudhoe Community Arts Trust 1 Prudhoe Community Partnership 1 Northumbria Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership: Tynedale 1 Tyne Valley Community Rail Partnership 1

County Council, 11 September 2008 27

Area Committee for Wansbeck Choppington Education Foundation 1 (County Cllr for Choppington) + Chair of Governors and one Parent Governor Coalfield Communities Campaign 1 District Council Planning Committees: Wansbeck Regulatory Committee 1 Newbiggin CAP 1 Northumbria Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership: Wansbeck 1 Wansbeck Initiative 1

NB. In addition to the above, the Borough/District Councils have numerous local bodies/organisations that members are appointed to that are specific to that area. The approximate numbers of additional bodies/organisations in each district are shown below:

Alnwick Berwick Blyth Castle Tynedale Wansbeck Valley Morpeth 19 17 22 33 10 26

County Council, 11 September 2008 28

APPENDIX 3 Area Characteristics

North Northumberland Area

The North Area has a population of 87,950 (Mid 2006 estimate) and covers a region of 240,685ha., giving a population density of 0.4 people per hectare. Compared with Northumberland, the North Area has a lower proportion of children (16%), a lower proportion of people of working age (59%) and a higher proportion of people of retirement age and over (25%). Total population has risen by 1.7% from the Census in 2001 to 2006. In 2001, 99.3% of the population were classified as white.

In 2006, there were 32,150 employee jobs located in the North Area; 86% of these were in the service sector, 0.5% were agricultural, 7.5% manufacturing and 5% in the construction industry. A total of around 900 residents were claiming Job Seekers Allowance in 2008.

There are three main towns in the North Area; Alnwick with a population of 7,100 (2001 Census) was formerly a largely rural and agrarian community but is now classed as a commuter area with growth in both housing and economy; Berwick (pop – 11,665, 2001 Census) is the most northerly town in England, being the largest settlement for 40 miles in any direction. Employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing and associated manufacturing is 4 times the national average, and there is a substantial growth in tourism: Morpeth (pop – 13,834) is the most southerly of the main towns in this area, the administrative centre for the county council and one of Northumberland’s major market towns.

County Council, 11 September 2008 29 South East Northumberland Area

The South East Northumberland Area covers 15,084 ha., has a population of 146,822 (2006) and a density of 9.7 persons per hectare. The population has only increased by 0.2% since the 2001 Census which is lower than the Northumberland rate of 0.7%. The South East Area has a higher percentage of children (19%), a higher percentage of working age (62%) and a lower percentage of retired people (19%) than the county of Northumberland. In 2001, 99% of the population were classified as white.

In 2006, there were 38,930 employee jobs located in this area; 76% of these in the service sector, 17% in manufacturing, 6% in construction and less than 1% in agriculture. A total of around 3,200 residents were claiming Job Seekers Allowance in 2008.

The main towns in this area include Cramlington, Blyth, and Ashington. Cramlington, with a population of about 39,000 was classed as a ‘new town’ when development started in the 1960’s and has grown steadily since. Blyth has a population of about 36,000, and was seriously affected when its principal industries went into decline, although it has undergone much regeneration since the early 1990s. Ashington (pop – 27,000) was well known for its coal mining industry, which has gone into decline in recent years. Many residents now commute to Newcastle or are employed on one of the new employment sites within the town.

County Council, 11 September 2008 30 West Northumberland Area

West Northumberland Area covers 246,757 ha., has a total population of 75,098 (Mid 2006 Estimates) and a population density of 0.3 persons per ha., the lowest of the three areas. Compared to Northumberland, there is the same proportion of children (18%), a lower percentage of those of working age (59%) and a higher percentage (23%) of retired persons. In 2001, 98.8% of residents were classed as white.

In 2006, there were 27,389 employee jobs in the area with 478 persons claiming job seekers allowance (2008). Of these jobs, 82% were in the service sector, approximately 9% in construction, 8% in manufacturing and less than 1% in agriculture. The largest towns in the area are Hexham (population 11,100), Prudhoe (11,500) and Haltwhistle (3,595) which claims to be the exact geographic centre of Great Britain.

County Council, 11 September 2008 31 APPENDIX 4

PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW APPROACH TO LOCALITY WORKING

The new Northumberland Council is committed to working and engaging at the locality level.

We recognise that there will inevitably be diversity across the different localities and progress over varying timescales, depending on what structures and mechanisms are already in place in each community.

Communities will be encouraged to develop principles for their own place. In addition, we have identified a common set of principles for a new approach to locality working.

These principles include:

• Serving the collective interests of the community, reflecting the widest possible range of interests

• Encouraging people to participate in shaping the future of their neighbourhood, community, area and county

• Enabling people to influence decision-making at all levels, including advising on / influencing local expenditure of budgets

• Mechanisms to bring together residents, statutory bodies, voluntary and community groups, organisations, businesses and others to share information, concerns, needs and aspirations

• Inclusive and accessible, engaging as many sections of he community as possible, including young people

• Working in partnership, with clarity about the respective roles of the different partners

• Effective two-way communication (with residents, the Council, area structures, partners)

• A settlement-based approach, based on settlements to which local people can easily relate

• A tailored approach to suit different areas, driven by and reflecting local circumstances

• A locally agreed approach, with flexible structures and arrangements to adapt to local circumstances

• Working from what already exists, building on networks/ partnerships which are already in place

• A strong role for democratically elected representatives and bodies

• Commitment and support from the new Council, including advice, administrative support and in-kind support through dedicated ‘Locality Managers’ and support from other officers on specific issues.

• Providing support to the new Council, including feeding back local issues, needs and aspirations and providing recommendations to decision-making committees of the council.

• A phased / transitional approach, where necessary

County Council, 11 September 2008 32 Although the specific arrangements and structures will vary in each locality, we are keen for every locality (‘settlement’) in Northumberland to work towards having something in place that reflects the above principles by 1st April 2009.

County Council, 11 September 2008 33 NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL APPENDIX 5 ELECTORATE - VARIANCE ANALYSIS

DIVISION ELECTORATE VARIANCE % ELECTORATE VARIANCE % (1 May 2008) (Av. 3,665) (Projected - 2013) (Av. 3,799)

Alnwick Alnwick 3209 -456 -12.4% 3438-361 -9.5% Amble 3343 -322 -8.8% 3563-236 -6.2% Amble West with Warkworth 3290 -375 -10.2% 3425 -374 -9.8% Lesbury 4067 402 11.0% 4293494 13.0% Longhoughton 2945 -720 -19.6% 3205-594 -15.6% Rothbury 3957 292 8.0% 4221422 11.1% Shilbottle 3708 43 1.2% 3958159 4.2% Sub-Total 24519 26103

Berwick-upon-Tweed Bamburgh 4213 548 15.0% 4515716 18.8% Berwick East 3788 123 3.4% 3997 198 5.2% Berwick North 3556 -109 -3.0% 3754 -45 -1.2% Berwick West with Ord 3363 -302 -8.2% 3548 -251 -6.6% Norham and Islandshires 3732 67 1.8% 3926 127 3.3% Wooler 3560 -105 -2.9% 386667 1.8% Sub-Total 22212 23606

County Council, 11 September 2008 34

DIVISION ELECTORATE VARIANCE % ELECTORATE VARIANCE % (1 May 2008) (Av. 3,665) (Projected - 2013) (Av. 3,799)

Blyth Valley Blyth Valley Cowpen 3421 -244 -6.7% 3500 -299 -7.9% Blyth Valley Cramlington East 4267 602 16.4% 4300 501 13.2% Blyth Valley Cramlington Eastfield 3932 267 7.3% 3918 119 3.1% Blyth Valley Cramlington North 4206 541 14.8% 4192 393 10.3% Blyth Valley Cramlington South East 3356 -309 -8.4% 3319 -480 -12.6% Blyth Valley Cramlington Village 3759 94 2.6% 3719 -80 -2.1% Blyth Valley Cramlington West 3894 229 6.2% 5300 1501 39.5% Blyth Valley Croft 3574 -91 -2.5% 3620 -179 -4.7% Blyth Valley Hartley 4075 410 11.2% 4095 296 7.8% Blyth Valley Holywell 4165 500 13.6% 4131 332 8.7% Blyth Valley Isabella 3513 -152 -4.1% 3483 -316 -8.3% Blyth Valley Kitty Brewster 3951 286 7.8% 3910 111 2.9% Blyth Valley Newsham 3477 -188 -5.1% 3460 -339 -8.9% Blyth Valley Plessey 3554 -111 -3.0% 3520 -279 -7.3% Blyth Valley Seghill with Seaton Delaval 4189 524 14.3% 4500 701 18.5% Blyth Valley South Blyth 3372 -293 -8.0% 3349 -450 -11.8% Blyth Valley Wensleydale 3360 -305 -8.3% 4324 525 13.8% Sub-Total 64065 66640

County Council, 11 September 2008 35

DIVISION ELECTORATE VARIANCE % ELECTORATE VARIANCE % (1 May 2008) (Av. 3,665) (Projected - 2013) (Av. 3799)

Castle Morpeth Chevington with Longhorsley 3390 -275 -7.5% 3494 -305 -8.0% Lynemouth 3464 -201 -5.5% 3601-198 -5.2% Morpeth Kirkhill 4104 439 12.0% 4338 539 14.2% Morpeth North 3388 -277 -7.6% 3439 -360 -9.5% Morpeth Stobhill 3054 -611 -16.7% 3164 -635 -16.7% Pegswood 2970 -695 -19.0% 3049-750 -19.7% Ponteland East 3674 9 0.2% 3999 200 5.3% Ponteland North 3421 -244 -6.7% 3547 -252 -6.6% Ponteland South with Heddon 3473 -192 -5.2% 3524 -275 -7.2% Ponteland West 3290 -375 -10.2% 3376 -423 -11.1% Ulgham 4047 382 10.4% 4314515 13.6% Sub-Total 38275 39845

Tynedale Bellingham 3366 -299 -8.2% 3561-238 -6.3% Bywell 3562 -103 -2.8% 3686-113 -3.0% Corbridge 3457 -208 -5.7% 3579-220 -5.8% Haltwhistle 3986 321 8.8% 4300501 13.2% Haydon and Hadrian 3538 -127 -3.5% 3708 -91 -2.4% Hexham Central with Acomb 3271 -394 -10.8% 3446 -353 -9.3% Hexham East 3382 -283 -7.7% 3636 -163 -4.3% Hexham West 3503 -162 -4.4% 3663 -136 -3.6% Humshaugh 3814 149 4.1% 3924125 3.3% Prudhoe East 4550 885 24.1% 4733 934 24.6% Prudhoe West 3707 42 1.1% 3793 -6 -0.2% South Tynedale 4027 362 9.9% 4183 384 10.1% Stocksfield and Broomhaugh 3947 282 7.7% 4067 268 7.1% Sub-Total 48110 50279

County Council, 11 September 2008 36

DIVISION ELECTORATE VARIANCE % ELECTORATE VARIANCE % (1 May 2008) (Av. 3,665) (Projected - 2013) (Av. 3,799)

Wansbeck Wansbeck Ashington Central 3802 137 3.7% 3746 -53 -1.4% Wansbeck Bedlington Central 3427 -238 -6.5% 3411 -388 -10.2% Wansbeck Bedlington East 3655 -10 -0.3% 3650 -149 -3.9% Wansbeck Bedlington West 4418 753 20.5% 4404 605 15.9% Wansbeck Bothal 3569 -96 -2.6% 3564 -235 -6.2% Wansbeck Choppington 3721 56 1.5% 3696 -103 -2.7% Wansbeck College 3917 252 6.9% 3924 125 3.3% Wansbeck Haydon 3770 105 2.9% 3744 -55 -1.4% Wansbeck Hirst 3765 100 2.7% 3715 -84 -2.2% Wansbeck Newbiggin Central and East 3756 91 2.5% 3675 -124 -3.3% Wansbeck Seaton with Newbiggin West 3540 -125 -3.4% 3545 -254 -6.7% Wansbeck Sleekburn 3172 -493 -13.5% 3142 -657 -17.3% Wansbeck Stakeford 3849 184 5.0% 3825 26 0.7% Sub-Total 48361 48041

Total Electorate for Northumberland 245542 254514

SUMMARY Percentage Variance No. of Divisions No of Divisions 2013 May-08 -20.1% and below 0 0 -10.1% to -20.0% 8 8 -5.1% to -10.0% 16 18 0% to -5.0% 11 14 0.1% to 5.0% 11 8 5.0% to 10.0% 10 5 10.1% to 20.0% 9 12 20.1% and above 2 2 Total 67 67

County Council, 11 September 2008 37 Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Anticipated Schedule of Meetings from April 2009 (Modifications in Blue)

Meeting Scheduled meetings Councillor per annum Membership

Executive 11 8 (10) Overview and Scrutiny People (see note 1) 18 12 Place 11 12 Performance 11 12 Health 11 12 Overview & Scrutiny Board (see note 2) 11 20 North Area Committee (see note 3) 12 All from Area Area Planning Committee 24 12 Area Licensing & Regulatory Panel (see note 4) 12 6 Area Partnership 6 3 Overview & Scrutiny 12 12 External Overview & Scrutiny 12 12 West Area Committee 12 All from Area Area Planning Committee 24 12 Area Licensing & Regulatory Panel 12 6 Area Partnership 6 3 Overview & Scrutiny 12 12 External Overview & Scrutiny 12 12 South East Area Committee 12 All from Area Area Planning Committee 24 12 Area Licensing & Regulatory Panel 12 6 Area Partnership 6 3 Overview & Scrutiny 12 12 External Overview & Scrutiny 12 12 Area Chairs& Vice-chairs/Exec (see note 5) 4 6 County Planning Committee (see note 6) 11 18 Right of Way 11 15 Licensing & Regulatory Committee (see note 7) 6 18 Standards Committee (see note 8) 12 6 Audit Committee 4 6 Pension Fund Panel (see note 9) 6 5 Housing Board 6 8 Corporate Parenting Committee 4 8 FACT Board 6 4 Adoption Panel 23 1 Fostering Panel 12 1 Governing Body of Netherton Park 4 8 Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education 4 4 Teachers’ Consultative Committee 4 5 Performance Management Working Group 6 9 The School Improvement and Monitoring Committee 12 8 (see note 10)

Strategic Group (see note 11) When required ? Staff Committee (See note 11) When required 3 Appointments Committee When required 8 Appeals Committee - Access to Personal Files Act 1987 When required 3 Disputes Panel - Fire and Rescue Services When required 8 Complaints Procedure Review Panel - Adult Complaints When required 1 Complaints Procedure Review Panel - Children and Young When required 3 Person’s Complaints Woodhorn Joint Committee When required 3 County Emergency Committee When required 8

Notes to the Table The following notes are based on records published on the County and District websites regarding the frequency of meeting and take into account any overlap between County and District meetings where the same topic was discussed at both tiers of council. The calculation used is to tally the total number of meeting as displayed on the websites (NCC’s website unless the function was not carried out by NCC) and then divide this number of meetings into the total number of weeks from the first meeting (usually in 2001) to the present. This gave a weekly frequency of meetings which was then divided into a 52 week year to give the number of meeting per year. This gives a high correlation to the frequency of meeting on the NCC and district council websites. The alternative method of calculation taking into account holidays does not correlate with the existing meeting schedules.

Note 1: 18 meetings per annum is the average for the Family and Children’s Services O&S at NCC but does not include all functions of the new People O&S so this new committee may need to meet more frequently. Note 2: The proposals for Scrutiny (appendix 1 & 2) state there will be service scrutiny at Area level and propose an external scrutiny function at Area level. Both recommend that the Chair and Vice- Chair of all Scrutiny bodies should sit on the O&S Board which will meet regularly to co-ordinate the scrutiny process. Note 3: The Area Committees were debated on 3 September 2008 by Full Council and a decision taken to have 3 area committees with delegated powers and scrutiny. Note 4: I have combined Regulatory and Licensing and proposed 6 members for the panel which I am informed has to be a subset of the whole Licensing committee. As with Planning I have taken a pragmatic view since it the original number of members left very little room for absenteeism and maintaining a quorum of at least 3 members. Note 5: In the proposals in appendix 1 &2 it was proposed to rename the chairs Committee to O&S Board and I have added in the Area Chairs/Exec meeting here as it is not accounted for elsewhere. Note 6: I have proposed 18 members of the County Planning Committee for practical purposes. A new Local Development Framework for the county could take several years to develop. In the meantime there will be six local plans and committees, ultimately this will drop to three committees – one for each area. A central committee of 18 allows representation from each committee – initially three from each of the six planning committees and ultimately six from each of the three planning committees. While this may not be ideal it is a pragmatic approach to the issue. Note 7: A similar approach as to planning has been adopted although it is expected that the regulatory and licensing framework will be modified in shorter timescales than planning. Note 8: Given the changing role of the Standards Committee and the additional requirement to make initial assessments of complaints it is expected that this role will require more frequent meeting. This is reflected by an increase in meetings in 2008 over previous years. Note 9: The number of meetings for the pension fund panel has been increased to match the average for meeting over the last few years. Note 10: The recent introduction of National Challenge will see the role of the School Improvement and Monitoring Committee increasing where an authority has a School which falls within the National Challenge. Northumberland has schools listed within the National Challenge. In these circumstances the National Challenge process is supposed to be reviewed at least monthly. Good practice would indicate that even if an Authority did not have schools within the National Challenge remit it would be prudent to monitor the situation closely for the benefit of all pupils. Note 11: The Strategic Group appears to be a new group and meets every 3 weeks (i.e. 18 times a year) there is no documentation available on councillor composition for this group and whether or not it is only part of the transition process. The staffing committee is also currently meeting on a regular basis although this may only be because of Local Government Reorganisation.

Appendix 4

Distance to Morpeth Electoral Division Party Councillor Miles Time Morpeth Kirkhill Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Andrew Tebbutt 0.6 0h 03m Morpeth North Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. David Moore 2.3 0h 06m Morpeth Stobhill Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Ian P. Lindley 1.6 0h 06m Conservative and Independent 5.0 0h 11m Ulgham Group (CIG) Cllr. David J. Towns Pegswood Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. David Woodard 6.9 0h 15m Conservative and Independent 8.4 0h 16m Ponteland North Group (CIG) Cllr. Richard R. Dodd Wansbeck Bedlington East Labour (Lab) Cllr. Valerie Tyler 6.7 0h 16m Wansbeck Bedlington West Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. George Todd 6.5 0h 16m Wansbeck Choppington Labour (Lab) Cllr. David Ledger 6.5 0h 16m Blyth Valley Cramlington South 10.0 0h 17m East Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Thomas (Tom) Brechany Wansbeck Haydon Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Marcia K. Bircham 7.0 0h 17m Wansbeck Hirst Labour (Lab) Cllr. Ken Parry 6.7 0h 17m Conservative and Independent 10.3 0h 18m Ponteland East Group (CIG) Cllr. Mel Armstrong Wansbeck Bedlington Central Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Arthur H. Pegg 7.3 0h 18m Wansbeck College Labour (Lab) Cllr. Jimmy Sawyer 7.1 0h 18m Blyth Valley Cramlington Village Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Alan R. Armstrong 10.9 0h 19m Blyth Valley Cramlington West Labour (Lab) Cllr. Maureen Brown 10.7 0h 19m Wansbeck Ashington Central Labour (Lab) Cllr. Thomas S. (Tom) Wilson 7.5 0h 19m Conservative and Independent 8.6 0h 20m Blyth Valley Cramlington North Group (CIG) Cllr. Wayne Daley Conservative and Independent 11.8 0h 20m Ponteland South with Heddon Group (CIG) Cllr. Peter A. Jackson Wansbeck Bothal Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Simon L. Reed 7.8 0h 20m Wansbeck Stakeford Labour (Lab) Cllr. Julie D. Rowe 7.7 0h 20m Blyth Valley Seghill with 13.1 0h 21m Seaton Delaval Labour (Lab) Cllr. Margaret E. Richards Blyth Valley South Blyth Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Lesley J. Rickerby 8.9 0h 21m Blyth Valley Cowpen Labour (Lab) Cllr. Susan Davey 9.0 0h 22m Blyth Valley Cramlington East Labour (Lab) Cllr. Ian C.F. Swithenbank 9.1 0h 22m Blyth Valley Holywell Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Bobby Nixon 13.7 0h 22m Blyth Valley Kitty Brewster Labour (Lab) Cllr. Grant Davey 9.0 0h 22m Blyth Valley Wensleydale Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Ian M.R. Tompkins 14.5 0h 22m Conservative and Independent Cllr. Hugh Glen Howard (Glen) 11.1 0h 22m Chevington with Longhorsley Group (CIG) Sanderson Wansbeck Seaton with Newbiggin 8.3 0h 22m West Labour (Lab) Cllr. James A. (Jim) Lang 9.1 0h 23m Blyth Valley Cramlington Eastfield Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Barrie Crowther Lynemouth Independent Cllr. Milburn I. Douglas 10.6 0h 23m Conservative and Independent 12.5 0h 23m Shilbottle Group (CIG) Cllr. Trevor N. Thorne Wansbeck Newbiggin Central and 9.2 0h 23m East Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Alan Thompson Conservative and Independent 12.5 0h 24m Ponteland West Group (CIG) Cllr. Veronica Jones Wansbeck Sleekburn Labour (Lab) Cllr. John James (Jeff) Gobin 9.3 0h 24m Blyth Valley Croft Labour (Lab) Cllr. Vince Coils 10.1 0h 25m Blyth Valley Hartley Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Anita C. Romer 15.4 0h 25m Blyth Valley Isabella Labour (Lab) Cllr. Gordon Webb 15.4 0h 25m Blyth Valley Plessey Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Jeff Reid 15.8 0h 25m Blyth Valley Newsham Labour (Lab) Cllr. Deirdre Campbell 10.5 0h 26m Cllr. G. R. (George Robert) 15.3 0h 30m Amble Labour (Lab) Arckless Bywell Independent Cllr. Paul Kelly 23.6 0h 32m Conservative and Independent 16.9 0h 33m Amble West with Warkworth Group (CIG) Cllr. Jeffrey G. (Jeff) Watson Rothbury Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Steven C. Bridgett 17.3 0h 34m Conservative and Independent 20.2 0h 35m Humshaugh Group (CIG) Cllr. Edward Heslop Longhoughton Independent Cllr. John A. Taylor 21.0 0h 35m Conservative and Independent 20.0 0h 36m Alnwick Group (CIG) Cllr. Gordon Castle Prudhoe East Independent Cllr. William Garrett 21.7 0h 36m Prudhoe West Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Neil J. Bradbury 23.8 0h 37m Hexham West Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Derek Kennedy 31.2 0h 39m Conservative and Independent 28.9 0h 40m Corbridge Group (CIG) Cllr. Jean B. Fearon Lesbury Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Roger Styring 22.7 0h 40m Conservative and Independent 32.0 0h 42m Hexham Central with Acomb Group (CIG) Cllr. Terry Robson Conservative and Independent 31.8 0h 42m Hexham East Group (CIG) Cllr. Ingrid C. Whale Conservative and Independent 31.0 0h 42m Stocksfield and Broomhaugh Group (CIG) Cllr. Anne Dale Conservative and Independent 28.9 0h 47m Bellingham Group (CIG) Cllr. John R. Riddle Conservative and Independent 32.5 0h 51m Wooler Group (CIG) Cllr. Anthony H. Murray Conservative and Independent 41.7 0h 54m South Tynedale Group (CIG) Cllr. Colin W. Horncastle Bamburgh Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Patricia A. (Pat) Scott 34.6 0h 56m Conservative and Independent 44.5 0h 56m Haltwhistle Group (CIG) Cllr. Ian Hutchinson Haydon and Hadrian Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. Alan Sharp 46.5 0h 59m Berwick East Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. James E. (Jim) Smith 48.2 1h 10m Berwick North Independent Cllr. Brian Douglas 48.4 1h 10m Berwick West with Ord Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. E.I. (Isobel) Hunter 48.9 1h 11m Norham and Islandshires Liberal Democrat (LD) Cllr. R. J. D. (Dougie) Watkin 52.9 1h 14m Appendix 5