Local Government Act 1972
I Hereby Give You Notice that an Ordinary Meeting of the Durham County Council will be held in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Wednesday 21 March 2012 at 10.00 am to transact the following business:-
1. Corporate Parenting Presentation
2. To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2012 (Pages 1 - 10)
3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members
4. Chairman's Announcements
5. Leader's Report
6. Questions from the Public
7. Petitions
• Broomsdene Waste Disposal Site
8. Report from the Cabinet (Pages 11 - 28)
9. Revision to Corporate Management Team - Report of Chief Executive (Pages 29 - 38)
10. Community Governance Reviews (Durham City and Crook) - Draft Recommendations - Report of Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Pages 39 - 380)
11. The Localism Act 2011 - The Amended Standards Regime - Report of Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer (Pages 381 - 404)
12. Electoral Boundary Review - Consultation period in relation to representations published in response to the initial proposals for new Parliamentary Constituencies in Durham - Report of Corporate Director, Resources (Pages 405 - 412)
13. Local Code of Corporate Governance - Report of Corporate Director, Resources (Pages 413 - 434)
14. Motions on Notice
15. Questions from Members
And pursuant to the provisions of the above-named act, I Hereby Summon You to attend the said meeting
Dated this 13th day of March 2012
Colette Longbottom Head of Legal and Democratic Services
To: All Members of the County Council
Agenda Item 2
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL
At a Ordinary Meeting of the County Council held in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Wednesday 22 February 2012 at 10.00 am
Present :
Councillor D Morgan (Chairman)
Councillors L Marshall (Vice-Chairman), B Alderson, J Armstrong, B Arthur, B Avery, J Bailey, A Bainbridge, B Bainbridge, A Barker, A Bell, E Bell, J Bell, R Bell, J Blakey, G Bleasdale, D Bowman, D Boyes, P Brookes, J Brown, B Brunskill, D Burn, C Carr, J Chaplow, P Charlton, J Cordon, A Cox, R Crooks, R Crute, K Davidson, M Dixon, J Docherty, N Foster, D Freeman, P Gittins, B Graham, J Gray, D Hancock, N Harrison, S Henig, M Hodgson, G Holland, K Holroyd, A Hopgood, L Hovvels, S Hugill, J Hunter, E Huntington, G Huntington, O Johnson, P Jopling, A Laing, J Lee, J Lethbridge, R Liddle, D Maddison, C Magee, C Marshall, D Marshall, N Martin, P May, J Moran, E Murphy, B Myers, D Myers, A Napier, A Naylor, M Nicholls, J Nicholson, B Ord, E Paylor, M Plews, C Potts, G Richardson, C Robson, J Rowlandson, A Savory, J Shiell, J Shuttleworth, M Simmons, B Sloan, D J Southwell, W Stelling, B Stephens, D Stoker, P Stradling, P Taylor, T Taylor, O Temple, G Tennant, K Thompson, L Thomson, R Todd, E Tomlinson, J Turnbull, Andy Turner, Allen Turner, C Vasey, C Walker, M Wilkes, J Wilkinson, M Williams, A Willis, J Wilson, R Yorke, B Young, R Young and S Zair
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Barnett, D Brown, M Campbell, D Farry, B Harrison, S Iveson, J Maslin, E Mavin, L O'Donnell, R Ord, M Potts, J Robinson, S Robinson, A Shield, B Wilson, M Wood, C Woods and A Wright
Prior to the formal start of the meeting, the Chairman reported the death of former Easington District Councillor Thomas (Tom) Longstaff who died peacefully in his home on 10 February. Tom represented the Eden Hill Ward on Easington District Council from 1999 to 2008. Members stood for a moment’s silence as a mark of respect to Tom.
1 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2012 were confirmed by the Council and signed as a correct record by the Chairman.
2 Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest from Members in relation to the business on the agenda.
3 Chairman's Announcements
Page 1 There were no Chairman’s announcements to be made.
4 Leader's Report
Councillor Henig provided the Council with an update report which included the following: • The ‘join in’ programme had been launched, which was a London 2012 programme of activities and events for the 20 weeks leading up to Durham hosting the Olympic Torch Relay and for 12 weeks beyond this to the closing ceremony of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. • New recycling bins had been delivered to households in the Chester le Street area and the new system of household waste collection had commenced. It was anticipated that the new household waste collection service would realise savings in excess of £9m over the next 5 years. Positive feedback on the new bins had been received from residents in the Chester le Street area, as well as those in the Derwentside area where the system of household waste collection was already taking place. • The first round of consultation on the Community Governance Review in Crook and Durham City had taken place and had been considered by the Constitution Working Group. The majority of respondents in the Durham City area had favoured a Town or Parish Council, although those from the Newton Hall area expressed a preference for their own Parish Council. Respondents from Crook had preferred that current arrangements remain. It was important that any final decision on the Community Governance Review reflected the views of the public. • Last year, the County Council committed to make savings from the management/back office function in addition to the £3.65m savings in management costs achieved through LGR. Management savings set out in the MTFP were already being achieved, with twice as many management posts being removed than frontline posts. In line with the commitment to reduce management costs at all levels of the organisation the Chief Executive would be presenting a report recommending a revision of the current Corporate Management Team structure to County Council in March.
Councillor Hopgood referred to the recent grading of outstanding for the County Council’s safeguarding and looked after children’s services and congratulated those involved in the services.
Councillor Henig replied that he too was delighted at the grading of outstanding for safeguarding and looked after children’s services and welcomed the comments made by Councillor Hopgood. He congratulated the portfolio holder, Councillor Vasey and all staff involved in these services.
5 Questions from the Public
There were no questions from the public.
6 Petitions
Page 2 There were no petitions to receive.
7 Report from the Cabinet
The Council noted a report from the Cabinet which provided information on issues considered by the Cabinet at its meetings on 25 January and 8 February 2012 (for copy see file of Minutes).
Councillor Henig referred to the Cabinet recommendation that all libraries would remain open despite the budget reductions imposed. Consultation on the proposals had commenced and following the consultation a further report for a decision on the future of the library service would be considered by Cabinet in July 2012.
8 Budget 2012/13 - Report under Section 25 of Local Government Act 2003
The Council considered a report from the Corporate Director of Resources which provided information on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of reserves in accordance with the requirements of Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 (for report see file of Minutes).
Moved by Councillor Henig, Seconded by Councillor Napier and
Resolved: That the Council have regard to the report when approving the budget and the level of Council tax for 2012/13.
9 Medium Term Financial Plan 2012/13 - 2015/16 and Revenue and Capital Budget 2012/13
The Council considered a report from Cabinet which detailed budget recommendations for 2012/13 and the Medium Term Financial Plan 2012/13 to 2015/16 (for report see file of Minutes).
In moving adoption of the Cabinet report, Councillor Henig made a statement on the Budget and Precept for 2012/13, summarised as follows:
There continued to be an unprecedented level of cuts in Government funding, with cuts of over £65m in the current financial year. There was a forecast of the need to deliver £159.2m of cash savings for the five year period 2011/12 to 2015/16 and savings of £171.8m when including forecasts for 2016/17. This equated to a 40% net revenue budget reduction compared to the 2010 budget. This was the largest programme of Council savings ever seen, and affected the poorest areas of the Country the hardest. A recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that the spending cuts were larger in the poorer parts of the Country, and more in the north than in the south. 1 in 10 Councils were planning a real increase in budgets, with these in particular being in the south of the Country in more affluent areas. The programme of cuts was indefensible and obscene.
Councillor Henig thanked all staff involved in the process of preparing the budget.
Page 3
In seconding the adoption of the Cabinet report, Councillor Napier added his thanks to all involved in the budget process. Following the Autumn Statement it was clear that financial difficulties would continue beyond 2015/16, with a forecast of £172m worth of cuts between 2010/11 and 2016/17. Despite budget pressures, some areas of growth had been achieved within the Council, and he expressed pride in the Council’s Capital Programme of £360m.
An Amendment was Moved by Councillor Martin and Seconded by Councillor Temple as follows:
Libraries Reduce Town Centre Library opening hours to 40 hours (rather than 36 hours) Make Ferryhill a town centre library at 40 hours per week. For all libraries with opening hours between 31 hours and 39 hours reduce to 30 hours (rather than 20 hours) Annual cost of opening hours adjustments = £187K per year
For the first year of these reductions, establish an ‘Opportunity Community Initiative Fund’ of £50k to enable grants to be made to community groups through a bidding process for them to run extended hours activity on local library premises at £5K for up to 10 libraries. Annual cost for year 1 only = £50k Reduce cut in book fund by £40K Annual cost = £40k
Total annual cost = £277K (year 1) and £227K following years.
NEIGHBOURHOOD WARDENS Reduce saving in front-line wardens, pest control officers, enforcement, and education teams by £500k. Annual Cost = £500k
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Create a £1M fund for three years for training apprentices/students in engineering. The funding will be used to provide: • funding for secondary schools to send students to engineering training centres such as SW Training in Newton Aycliffe to cover transport and training costs. • transport concessions for Durham-based engineering apprentices aged 16- 24. • a contribution towards apprentice training costs for over 19s to cover the current funding gap. Annual cost = £1m
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMUNITY CENTRES Provide additional capital grants from a fund of £850k for community centres on the extended list to bid against where they can demonstrate they are viable and can raise the 30% matched funding.
Page 4 The annual cost for funding the prudential borrowing from 2013/14 = £76k
Capital Improvements to Roads and Highways Provide additional funds of £1m for road and path repairs especially linked to Member LAMA funds to enable the LAMA funds to be used more effectively. The annual cost for funding the prudential borrowing from 2013/14 = £90k
Revenue costs 2012/13 2013/14 Libraries £277K (£50K) Neighbourhoods £500K Economic Development £1,000K Community Centres - £76K Roads - £90K Total £1,777K £116K
Funded by in 2012/13 • Stop publishing County Durham News but retain the service information distribution. Annual Saving = £155k • Higher targets for recycling from the twin bin system. Budget is based on 3% increase initially followed by 1% per year in two subsequent years. Experience elsewhere is that this is an extremely cautious expectation. If the Council was to set a target for 5% initially (still much lower than other councils have experienced). Annual Saving = £280k
• Reduce members’ car mileage to 45p per mile. Mileage only to be claimed for sanctioned meetings – i.e. not for ‘reading days’ Annual Saving = £34k
• Reduce Members Special Responsibility Allowances by 25%. Annual Saving = £73k
• Reduce contingency fund by £1,235K Annual Saving = £1,235k
Funded by in 2013/14
Reduce contingency fund by £116K Annual Saving = £116k
Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP)
Page 5 At this stage the Contingency Fund has been reduced in 2013/14 to balance the additional cost in this year. It is recommended that consideration be given to achieving additional savings in 2013/14 in the following areas: 1. Unitisation of the following functions – Communications, Business Support and Policy, Planning and Performance 2. Reduction in the number of Directorates and personal support to them
Savings achieved in these areas would negate the need to reduce the Contingency Fund in 2013/14 and provide additional savings to support the overall MTFP.
Upon a vote being taken, the Amendment was lost .
An Amendment was Moved by Councillor R Bell and Seconded by Councillor Bainbridge as follows:
Libraries 1. Restoration of planned Library opening hours cutbacks for Town Centre Libraries (£158,000) 2. Restoration of planned Library opening hours cutbacks for Community Libraries (£124,000). 3. Restoration of planned cutbacks to the book fund (£66,000) Annual cost of opening hours and book fund adjustments = £348,000 per year
Funded by in 2012/13 1. Stop publishing County Durham News but retain the Events Guide & Guide to Services. Annual Saving = £155,000 2. Reduce Contingency Fund by £193,000 Annual Saving = £193,000
Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP)
The Contingency Fund would be reduced in 2012/13 pending realisation of annual recurring savings of an estimated £500,000 from 2013/14, by unitising Communications Teams and their budgets from all Service Groupings.
Upon a vote being taken, the Amendment was lost .
An Amendment was Moved by Councillor Shuttleworth and Seconded by Councillor Arthur as follows:
Highways Maintenance Invest an additional £1m into the highways maintenance budget Additional cost - £1m
Funded by in 2012/13 • Stop publishing County Durham News Annual Saving = £155,000
Page 6 • Reduce the Corporate Policy and Communications Team to 3 full time equivalent officers Annual Saving = £845,000
Upon a vote being taken, the Amendment was lost .
On a further vote being taken it was:
Resolved: That the report of the Cabinet and its recommendations be adopted in full.
10 Council Tax Setting
The Council considered a report from Cabinet which detailed the information to calculate and set the Council tax for the Council’s area for 2012/13 (for report see file of Minutes).
Moved by Councillor Henig, Seconded by Councillor Napier that the report of the Cabinet and its recommendations be adopted, and with it the setting of the Council Tax.
Resolved: That the following be adopted (a) It be noted that on 14 December 2011 the Cabinet calculated the Council Tax Base 2012/13; i) for the whole Council area as 157,295.3 band D equivalent properties [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)]; and ii) for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a Parishprecept relates as in Appendix 3 attached to the report. (b) the Council Tax Requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2012/13 (excluding Parish precepts and the Charter Trustees for the City of Durham) is £201,787,849. (c) the following amounts be calculated for 2012/13 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act: i) being the aggregate of the gross expenditure which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish Councils: £1,200,029,833. ii) being the aggregate of the gross income which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act: £985,833,000. iii) being the amount by which the aggregate at (c) i) above exceeds the aggregate at (c) ii) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act): £214,196,833. iv) being the amount at (c) iii) above (Item R), all divided by Item T ((a) i) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B
Page 7 of the Act as the basic amount of its Council Tax at Band D for the year (including Parish precepts): £1,361.75. v) being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34 (1) of the Act: (total of all Parish precepts including Charter Trustees): £12,408,984. vi) being the amount at (c) iv) above less the result given by dividing the amount at (c) v) above by Item T ((a) i) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax at Band D for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Parish precept relates: £1,282.86. (d) it be noted that for 2012/13 County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Authority has recommended the following amounts will be in the precept issued to the County Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, as shown in the table below:
COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY A B C D E F G H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 60.30 70.35 80.40 90.45 110.55 130.65 150.75 180.90
(e) it be noted that for 2012/13 Durham Police Authority has recommended that the following amounts will be in the precept issued to the County Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, as shown in the table below:
DURHAM POLICE AUTHORITY A B C D E F G H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 102.27 119.32 136.36 153.41 187.50 221.59 255.68 306.82
(f) the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the tables below as the amounts of Council Tax for 2012/13 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL A B C D E F G H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 855.24 997.78 1,140.32 1,282.86 1,567.94 1,853.02 2,138.10 2,565.72
AGGREGATE OF COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENTS (excluding Parish, Town Council and Charter Trustees) A B C D E F G H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 1,017.81 1,187.45 1,357.08 1,526.72 1,865.99 2,205.26 2,544.53 3,053.44
Page 8 (g) the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax for 2012/13 is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB Local Government Finance Act 1992. (h) the Chief Executive be instructed to publish a notice in accordance with the Act, relating to the amounts of council tax set.
11 Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Plan 2012/13 to 2016/17 and 2012/13 Budget
The Council considered a report from Cabinet which provided details of the Cabinet’s budget recommendations in respect of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2012/13 to 2016/17 and the 2012/13 budget (for report see file of Minutes).
Moved by Councillor Robson, Seconded by Councillor Napier and
Resolved: That the report of the Cabinet and its recommendations be adopted in full.
12 Council Plan and Service Plans 2012-2016
The Council considered a report of the Assistant Chief Executive that sought approval of the Council Plan 2012-2016 (for copy see file of Minutes)
Resolved: That the recommendation contained in the report be approved.
13 Proposals for the Implementation of new Pay and Grading Arrangements for Council Employees
The Council considered a report of the Corporate Director of Resources which proposed changes to pay and grading arrangements for all employees engaged under the National Joint Council Terms and Conditions of employment and provided an update on these proposals following negotiations with recognised Trade Unions through the Council’s partnership Agreement (for copy see file of Minutes).
Moved by Councillor Napier, Seconded by Councillor Henig and
Resolved: That the recommendations contained in the report be approved.
The Chairman referred to paragraph 4.2 (c) of Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution and informed the Council that any further motions or recommendations on the agenda that remained to be dealt with would be deemed formally moved and seconded, together with any amendments. No speeches would be allowed on these items and the vote would be taken in the usual way. 14 Members' Allowances Scheme 2012/13
Page 9 The Council considered a report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services that sought agreement to a members allowance scheme for 2012/13, having due regard to the recommendation of the Independent Remuneration Panel (for copy see file of Minutes).
Moved by Councillor Napier, Seconded by Councillor Henig and
Resolved: That the recommendations contained in the report be approved.
15 Motions on Notice
Councillor R Bell informed the Council that he would withdraw his motion and would bring it forward to a future meeting of the Council.
16 Questions from Members
There were no questions from Members.
Page 10
Agenda Item 8
21 March 2012
Report from the Cabinet
Purpose of the Report
To provide information to the Council on issues considered by the Cabinet on 29 February and 7 March 2012 and to enable Members to ask related questions.
Members are asked to table any questions on items in this report by 2 pm on 20 March in order for them to be displayed on the screens in the Council Chamber.
Contents
29 February 2012
Item 1 Community Buildings: Consultation Feedback and Proposed Strategy Key Decision: CORP/A/05/11/3
Item 2 Localism Act 2011
Item 3 Forecast of General Fund and Housing Revenue Account Revenue and Capital Outturn 2011/12 – Period to 31 December 2011
Item 4 Disposal of Oversteads House and Brandon House - Tender Evaluation
7 March 2012
Item 5 Street Naming and Numbering Policy Key Decision NS/17/12
Item 6 Stanley Town Centre Masterplan Key Decision R&ED/01/12
Item 7 School Admission Arrangements September 2013 and Beyond Key Decision: CYPS/05/12
Item 8 Quarter 3 2011/12 Performance Management Report
Page 11
Item 9 Transfer of Public Health Functions to the Local Authority
1. Community Buildings: Consultation Feedback and Proposed Strategy Key Decision: CORP/A/05/11/3 Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Councillor Brian Stephens Contact – Gordon Elliott- 0191 372 5323
We have considered a report of the Assistant Chief Executive that outlined the results of the consultation carried out on the Community Buildings Review and sought agreement for a Community Buildings Strategy.
On 14 th September, 2011, we gave approval to consult on the findings of a Community Buildings Review. The report had considered the potential future approach to the Council’s stock of 120 community buildings as well as the grant aid it provides to 129 community buildings (38 of which are owned by the Council).
The consultation took place from 19 th September to 12 th December, 2011 and involved over 3,600 people (including over 400 young people) as well as a joint Member/Officer Working Group. Given the scale of the service users affected by the review, a range of consultation methods was used to seek responses. These included an online questionnaire, a number of stakeholder presentations, use of the Council’s Citizens’ Panel, attendance at all 14 Area Action Partnerships (AAPs) and critically, interviews with individual community building management committees.
As a result of this consultation, the Council has gathered an extensive resource to help inform the development of a Community Buildings Strategy. Respondents to the consultation were offered the opportunity to comment on a broad range of issues relating to community buildings, with particular focus on four key issues. The findings of the consultation established that there is clear support to target investment of £2.15 million on prioritised Council owned community buildings based on a principle of asset transfer. There was also general support for the criteria proposed to prioritise buildings.
Whilst there were a number of updates to the accuracy of data held on individual buildings, the resulting changes were of such a scale that they did not have a major impact on the priority ranking contained in the report to Cabinet in September. As a result of incorporating the new data, it is proposed that the Council’s 120 community buildings are categorised into five categories as set out below:
i. Invest from the current programme (36 buildings) ii. Do not invest from the current programme unless resources become available (38 buildings) iii Do not invest and take immediate action to close or Asset Transfer (16 buildings)
Page 12 iv. Confirm closure (14 buildings) v. Do not invest as full repair and insurance leases already in place (16 buildings)
The incorporation of this updated information has resulted in 36 community buildings being prioritised for investment (subject to a number of conditions, including the ability to progress with an asset transfer), the same overall number proposed in the report to Cabinet in September. This however involved changes to the ranking within categories that has resulted in a number of buildings moving between the ‘invest’ and ‘invest if resources become available’ categories.
Based on the results of this consultation, the report sought approval for a Community Buildings Strategy which recognises the vital role that community buildings play in the heart of their local communities and the valuable work carried out by the dedicated volunteers who manage these facilities. The proposed strategy has the vision to, ‘Ensure that by 2014 the County has a network of sustainable, well placed, highly valued and well used community buildings which are controlled by local people.’
Maximising the impact of available resources will be achieved by applying the proposed prioritisation criteria to target the Council’s £2.15 million of capital investment on 36 buildings, in line with the categorisation set out in the report. Handing over control to local communities will entail the Council actively working with community buildings management committees to promote the option of asset transfer. The consultation established widespread support for the principle of asset transfer, with respondents recognising the advantages it offered to, ‘Empower local communities, access additional resources and ultimately, to improve their long-term sustainability’.
The strategy recognises that the dedicated volunteers that run community buildings need support, such as advice and guidance, and the time to prepare for change. Indeed, the consultation process highlighted that it would be essential if the strategy is to be implemented by 2014. By April, 2014, at the end of the implementation stage of the attached Strategy, the aim is for as many council owned community buildings to have been subject to asset transfer as possible, for the temporary Support Team to step down and for ongoing support to be provided by permanent staff within the Council’s Partnership and Community Engagement Service as well as VCS agencies.
At a time of severe financial challenges for the Council, it is in recognition of the role community buildings can play in developing strong and vibrant communities that the report proposes investing significant resources into the sector over the next two years. Progressing this strategy will require extensive negotiations with the management associations of community buildings, and in a number of instances, because of current contractual arrangements, it may be necessary to revisit the action plan and timeframe with regard to certain facilities. Where there is a strong demand within the local community for a facility to remain open and to be placed in local control, then the proposals set out in this report will ensure that the mechanisms are in place to try to make this possible. However, for those buildings that are
Page 13 currently closed, and the consultation has established little or no local appetite for them to reopen, the report was seeking to formally declare them surplus to requirements.
Decision
1. We have agreed to the Community Building Strategy and its associated Action Plan that builds on the results of the extensive consultation process that was carried out from the 19th September to the 12th December, 2011.
2. To progress the implementation of this strategy, we have agreed to:
i. The time limited support package as set out in the report is put in place to assist community building management committees. ii. The Assistant Chief Executive, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Local Neighbourhoods and Partnerships, is delegated to agree the asset transfer of community buildings, the management of the capital investment fund of £2.15 million and the closure of community buildings where they are unable to progress with asset transfer. iii. Implementation of the strategy is overseen by the Council’s project assurance framework. iv. The Assistant Chief Executive Service’s Grouping take on responsibility for managing the non-staffing revenue budgets for the 120 community buildings in line with the approach set out in the report. v. Discussions continue with the relevant social housing providers, and if this leads to an alternative approach to one set out in the strategy attached to the report, this is presented to a future meeting of Cabinet for consideration. vi. Investigations continue to determine the requirements placed upon the Council where it is a trustee or a community building and to note the outcome of these discussions may impact on whether the building receives investment from the Council. vii. The current moratorium on capital investment from the Council’s resources (including Members Neighbourhood Budgets) in the Council’s community buildings remains in place unless the works are aligned with an asset transfer of the building in line with the process set out in the report. viii. The decision to progress with health and safety improvements in excess of £5,000, in line with the process set out in the report is delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Local Neighbourhoods and Partnerships. ix. The following closed community buildings are declared surplus to requirement:
80 Bede Terrace, Bowburn Bedburn Close, Durham Collier House, Sunnybrow Crookgate Communal Room, Burnopfield Dipton, Front Street Communal Room, Stanley
Page 14 Elite Hall, Crook Gairloch Drive Communal Room, Pelton Grasmere Grove, Crook Hambledon Hut, Chester le Street Millfield, Crook Shakespeare Centre, Seaham Sycamore Grove, West Auckland Wood Street, Chester-le-Street Woodland House, Kelloe
2. Localism Act 2011 Cabinet Portfolio Holders – Councillor Alan Napier, Brian Stephens, Neil Foster, and Clive Robson Contact – Kevin Edworthy- 0191 383 6514
We have considered a joint report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Director, Resources, and Corporate Director, Regeneration and Economic Development that updated on the final provisions of the Localism Act 2011, considered the implications for the Council and revisited the action plan in the light of the final outcome of this important piece of legislation.
When it was introduced to Parliament on 13 December 2010, the Localism Bill was billed as one of the most significant pieces of legislation affecting local government in recent years, which set out to shift the balance of power between local communities and the state. Overall, the Government intended that the measures in the Bill would provide:
a) new freedoms and flexibilities for local government;
b) new rights and powers for local communities;
c) reforms to make the planning system clearer, more democratic and more effective;
d) reforms to ensure that decisions about housing are taken locally.
The Localism Act 2011 as it is now known, retains many of the initial features of the original Bill in relation to community empowerment and additional powers and responsibilities for local government, but is now much more focussed.
A number of the additional general powers to be conferred on the Secretary of State and directly elected Mayors have been curtailed and the definitions involved in the provisions relating to neighbourhood planning and ‘community rights’ have been tightened up.
However, the Act still contains several provisions which enable the Secretary of State to direct what local government does through regulation and secondary legislation and that the Government has defended its stance on ‘guided localism’, whereby Ministers express a view about how local
Page 15 authorities should act, reinforced by the prospect of statutory direction if councils fail to respond to Ministers’ ‘reasonable expectations’.
In several areas, the practical detail and commencement orders for different parts of the Act have yet to be published and the Government’s timetable for when they can be expected is still awaited.
The Council nevertheless has to plan ahead and as such, has revisited the initial action plan for anticipating and responding to the proposed legislation, as agreed by Cabinet last year.
Decision
In order to respond to the Localism Act, we have:
a) noted the contents of the report and the implications of the final legislation;
b) noted the timetable for implementation of the legislation;
c) agreed to the proposed action plan for how the Council can prepare for the commencement of the legislation.
d) delegated authority to the relevant members of Corporate Management Team in consultation with the relevant portfolio holders to respond to subsequent consultations on draft regulations and supplementary guidance to the Act.
3. Forecast of General Fund and Housing Revenue Account Revenue and Capital Outturn 2011/12 – Period to 31 December 2011 Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Councillor Alan Napier Contact – Jeff Garfoot- 0191 383 3551
We have considered a report of the Corporate Director, Resources that provided a forecast of 2011/12 revenue and capital outturn for the period to 31 December 2011 for the Council’s General Fund and Housing Revenue Account.
Revenue
The following adjustments have been made to the Original Budget:
(i) agreed budget transfers between Service Groupings;
(ii) budget transfer from contingencies for expenditure items outside the cash limit;
(iii) planned contribution to Earmarked Reserves.
Page 16 Capital The revised General Fund (GF) capital budget for 2011/12 was set at £167.929m and was approved by us on 8 February 2012.
Since the revised budget was approved, an additional £0.311m of Disabled Facilities Grant has been confirmed and is reflected in the total GF Capital Programme detailed in the tables below.
The revised Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2011/12 was set at £42.792m and was approved by Cabinet on 16 November 2011.
The HRA Capital Programme has increased by £0.362m to £43.154m. The changes to the programme comprise a £1.235m increase in the New Build Scheme at Crook, which has been brought forward from 2012/13 at the request of the Homes and Communities Agency, offset by a £0.873m decrease through slippage in the Housing Demolitions programme.
Decision
We have:
• Approved the Revised Net Expenditure Budget of £443.712m for 2011/12 • Approved the revised Capital Budget including the HRA of £211.395m for 2011/12 • Noted the forecast use of and contribution to Earmarked Reserves • Noted the forecast end of year position for the Cash Limit underspend reserves • Noted the forecast end of year position for the General Reserve • Noted the forecasted outturn position for the Housing Revenue Account.
4. Disposal of Oversteads House and Brandon House - Tender Evaluation Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Councillor Clive Robson Contact – Glyn Hall- 0191 383 5609
We have considered a report of the Corporate Director Regeneration and Economic Development which detailed the outcome of a tender process for the disposal of two County Council owned sheltered housing schemes at Oversteads House, Ushaw Moor and Brandon House, Brandon and recommends their disposal at ‘nil’ value to the preferred developer, Vela Group.
Page 17 Built in the 1970’s, these two sheltered schemes have struggled with high management and maintenance costs for many years. The Councils Older Persons Accommodation and Support Needs Strategy (2010) had identified the problem of over provision of this type of accommodation across the county. An opportunity arose to consider how best to remodel or redevelop these two schemes for the greater benefit of future residents.
Given the poor design standards and the level of investment required, we previously agreed on 10 November 2010:
• To close Oversteads House and Brandon House
• To investigate further the possibility of one or other of the sites being transferred to another housing provider for development as affordable housing preferably for older people.
In March 2011 adverts were placed to invite Expressions of Interest (EOI) from suitable developers in relation to the redevelopment/ refurbishment of the two schemes. The closing date for submitting EOI’s was 26 April 2011. EOI’s were received by the due date from both private developers and Registered Providers. Shortlisting took place in May 2011 and five organisations were subsequently invited to tender. During the course of the tender period three of the shortlisted companies withdrew from the tender process.
In order to facilitate fair and accurate comparisons, the developer’s proposals were structured according to the methodology derived from the Home and Communities Agency publication “Quality Reviewer-Appraising the design quality of development proposals.”
The successful tenderer is expected to submit a detailed planning application on or before 31 March 2012 as well as submitting a Statement setting out the developers approach to targeted recruitment and training opportunities to support employment in the local area.
An assessment panel met on the 1 December 2011 to carry out an assessment of the two bids. Both bids complied with the requirements of the Development Brief and were structured according to the methodology derived from the HCA Quality Reviewer and both included space for a communal lounge, a lift, electric buggy store and public open space for residents.
The outcome of the Panel assessment judged the Vela Group as the preferred bid to deliver 20 two bedroom apartments and 2 two bedroom bungalows on the Brandon House site and 16 two bedroom apartments on the Oversteads House site. Of the total, 7 will be offered for shared ownership.
The outcome of this will be the provision of two high quality schemes specifically for older persons which will provide affordable housing (primarily for rent but with a shared ownership option) in popular locations within the
Page 18 county. It exemplifies a strong working partnership between the authority, the homes and Communities agency and one of our partner housing associations.
Decision
We have agreed:
(a) To accept the tender proposals from Vela Group
(b) Under the General Disposal Consents Order 2003 to dispose of Oversteads and Brandon House to Vela Group for redevelopment.
(c) Subject to contract to the disposal of Oversteads House and Brandon House at nil value.
5. Street Naming and Numbering Policy Key Decision NS/17/12 Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Councillor Bob Young Contact – Terry Collins- 0191 383 4447
We have considered a report of the Corporate Director, Neighbourhood Services which sought endorsement of the draft policy covering Durham County Council’s statutory duty for Street Naming and Numbering.
Decisions relating to street naming and numbering are controlled by Durham County Council. The purpose of this control is to ensure that any new street names and numbers are allocated logically to ensure, along with other issues, the effective delivery of mail and the location of addresses by the emergency services. Clear, unambiguous property addresses are therefore essential.
Anyone seeking an address change, or the creation of an address for a new property, must apply following the procedures outlined in the new policy.
Under the provision of Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003, the Authority reserves the right to make an administrative charge for the provision of the service. In doing so, the income from charges must not exceed the cost of providing the service. Charging for this service commenced in April 2011 on a trial basis. The fees and charges applicable for street naming and numbering will be reviewed annually during Durham County Council’s budget setting process.
Decision
We have endorsed the draft Street Naming and Numbering Policy along with associated fees and charges.
Page 19 6. Stanley Town Centre Masterplan Key Decision R&ED/01/12 Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil Foster Contact – Carole Dillon- 03000 261911
We have considered a report of the Corporate Director, Regeneration and Economic Development that sought approval for the Stanley Town Centre Masterplan and to establish timescales for the delivery of the initial elements of the proposed regeneration programme. Subject to approval of the masterplan, approval was then sought to the principle of the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers to facilitate the completion of land acquisition needed to implement a consented development highlighted in the masterplan.
The Council is committed to improving the County’s main towns and villages. A key first step is identifying how this can best be achieved and to this end a series of plans and frameworks are being drawn up to help facilitate this.
As one of the main priority towns in North Durham, Stanley presents significant opportunities for regeneration and improvement. In recent years there have been successful developments in the town while additional investment is planned including the Academy and a food retail scheme at the Clifford Centre.
It is apparent however that the town centre is underperforming and does not function as well as it could, and indeed should. There remains a pressing need to set out a clear plan for how the town should be developed and improved. The Masterplan is a mechanism to ensure new developments are successfully integrated into the town and give confidence for businesses to invest in Stanley. The plan will also help to maximise the potential of the numerous development opportunities.
The document provides a guide for regeneration and investment over the next 15 years, creating a vision for the town in terms of its distinctive role and identity within the County. The results from the consultations have been used alongside Sustainability Appraisal and a Baseline Report to inform the selection of the most appropriate suite of Proposed Actions to be taken forward in the Masterplan.
Committed investment by both public and private sector partners in support of the place shaping aspirations is detailed in the Delivery Plan section of the Masterplan. More fundamentally, whilst public sector expenditure is expected to be limited for the foreseeable future, its sensible use should seek to stimulate and work with the local property market to deliver the long term objectives of the framework.
One of the key issues in developing the Masterplan has been to ensure that the proposals contained within the plan are deliverable, particularly given current commercial markets and public sector funding constraints. One of the major development areas, identified within the Masterplan for significant private sector investment, is the redevelopment of the Clifford Road site. This site currently has planning consent for a major foodstore development and
Page 20 associated car parking, which is an investment of approximately £30 million and anticipated to create in excess of 400 jobs.
The developer for the scheme has progressed to an advanced stage with the site assembly associated with the project. However, after protracted negotiations, an impasse has been reached for the freehold acquisition of the remaining plots across the site, preventing the delivery of the Foodstore project.
In view of the central nature of the proposed development to the aims of the masterplan, the Council has been approached by the developer to consider the use of Compulsory Purchase powers to secure remaining land interests within the development site and allow the new development to come forward.
It is anticipated that the Clifford Road scheme will deliver a range of significant economic, social and environmental benefits to an area which is much in need of regeneration and improvement. Details of these benefits, the need and justification for the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), and the Council’s purpose in seeking to acquire land for the scheme, would be required to be set out in detail in a ‘Statement of reasons’ for consideration before an order can be published.
Under the use of such powers if approved, there will be an opportunity for all affected parties to object to the Order, possibly culminating in a Public Inquiry. Should the Compulsory Purchase Order be confirmed by the Secretary of State, appropriate compensation will be available to those entitled to claim under the relevant statutory provisions.
Decision
We have:-
• agreed to support the regeneration of Stanley, and approved the Stanley Town Centre Masterplan and its associated Delivery Plan.
• given approval to develop further a Compulsory Purchase Order to complete land acquisition and facilitate development of the foodstore site at Clifford Road, Stanley, with a further detailed report to be presented detailing all relevant information required to prepare the order for submission to the Secretary of State.
7. School Admission Arrangements September 2013 and Beyond Key Decision: CYPS/05/12 Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Councillor Claire Vasey Contact – Maureen Clare- 0191 383 3535
We have considered a report of the Corporate Director, Children and Young People’s Services about the proposed admission arrangements
Page 21 for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools for the 2013/14 academic year and beyond.
The Authority is required to consult widely about its admission arrangements for all Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools and ensure that the determined arrangements comply with the mandatory provisions of the School Admissions Code. Failing to comply would mean that the Authority would fail to meet its statutory duty.
The Local Authority (LA) is the admission authority for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools, while the governing body is the admission authority for Voluntary Aided and Foundation Schools and Academies. All admission authorities must publish admission arrangements, to include:
• the number of pupils to be admitted in each year group; • application procedures; • the criteria to be used in the event of over-subscription; • any separate entry requirements and oversubscription criteria for Year 12 or nursery places; and • information on waiting lists and how late applications will be handled.
There were only 7 responses received, one from a parent and 3 from head teachers with other types of respondents not known. Not all respondents answered each question. In response to the comments from the consultation, it is not possible to give siblings the highest priority in a school’s oversubscription criteria as the School Admissions Code states this must be given to children who are ‘looked after’ or a child who was previously looked after but immediately after being looked after became subject to an adoption, residence, or special guardianship order. However, in recognition of the importance of siblings being placed together in the same school wherever possible, priority is afforded to them over some other applicants within the oversubscription criteria. In relation to post 16 priorities it is important that we seek to ensure that students attending 11-16 school have the opportunity to attend appropriate post 16 provision.
It is a statutory requirement that admission arrangements for 2013/2014 are determined by 15 April 2012 and published (public notice in local newspapers) not later than 1 May 2012.
Since the consultation a new Admissions Code applies to admission arrangements determined in 2012 for admission to the school year 2013/14. Some elements are mandatory and these have been incorporated into the Authority’s admission arrangements as appropriate.
A risk assessment has been undertaken on the proposed Admission Arrangements for 2013/2014. There will be a breach of statutory duty imposed on the Authority if Admission Arrangements are not
Page 22 determined by 15 April 2012 and published by 1 May 2012. Any parents or others unhappy with the Council’s arrangements may object to the Schools Adjudicator who can amend the Council’s arrangements.
Decision
We have agreed:
a) That the proposed oversubscription criteria for each and every Community and Voluntary Controlled Nursery School and Unit, at Appendix 7 to the report, be approved.
b) That the proposed oversubscription criteria for each and every Community and Voluntary Controlled Infant, Junior and Primary School, at Appendix 8 to the report, be approved.
c) That the proposed oversubscription criteria for each and every Community and Voluntary Controlled Secondary School, Appendix 9 to the report, be approved.
d) That the proposed oversubscription criteria for each and every Community and Voluntary Controlled Sixth Form, at Appendix 6 to the report, be approved.
e) That the Co-ordinated Admission Schemes and Application Procedures Primary and Secondary, at Appendix 3 and 4 to the report, be approved.
f) That the admission numbers (PANS), as recommended in Appendix 5 to the report, be approved.
8. Quarter 3 2011/12 Performance Management Report Leader of the Council – Councillor Simon Henig Contact – Jenny Haworth- 0191 383 6598
We have considered a report of the Assistant Chief Executive that set out progress against the council’s corporate basket of performance indicators (PIs) and reported other significant performance issues for the third quarter of 2011/12, and sought agreement to make changes to the Council Plan.
The report set out an overview of performance and progress by Altogether priority themes. The major impact on the council continues to be performance of the UK economy with it affecting a number of tracker and target indicators.
Some Council Plan actions need to be amended or deleted to reflect current circumstances.
Page 23 The quarterly report has highlighted a number of performance issues which require further investigation or intervention.
Decision
We have:
a. Noted the performance of the council at quarter 3 and the actions to remedy under performance.
b. Agreed changes to the Council Plan as outlined below:
Altogether Wealthier
• Implement walking and cycling provision based on the 2010 audit of facilities - December 2011 - Revised date April 2012
• Undertake a review of markets managed by or on behalf of the council - October 2011 - Revised date September 2012
• Business park at Hawthorn in Murton for B1, B2, B8 uses. Marketing site in collaboration with the Homes and Communities Agency – October 2011 - Revised date 2013
Altogether Greener • Develop biodiversity and landscape policies for the County Durham Plan and develop criteria based policies through subsequent development planning documents - December 2011 – Revised date December 2012 • Develop an Open Space Strategy to incorporate countryside play events, playing pitches, parks, allotments - December 2011- Revised date December 2012 Altogether Better Council • Produce a corporate accessibility strategy - December 2011 – Revised date March 2012 • Undertake a baseline assessment of comparative cost and performance of all council services – March 2012 - Revised date May 2012
9. Transfer of Public Health Functions to the Local Authority Cabinet Portfolio Holders – Councillor Lucy Hovvels, Morris Nicholls, and Claire Vasey Contact – Peter Appleton- 0191 383 3628
We have considered a joint report of the Corporate Director, Adults, Wellbeing and Health, Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services, and Director of Public Health, NHS County Durham that sought agreement on the
Page 24 public health transition arrangements which are included in the NHS County Durham and Darlington Public Health Transition Plan 2012-2013, and the date of transfer of public health functions to Durham County Council.
On 30th November 2010 the Department of Health published ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our Strategy for Public Health in England’. This White Paper set out the Government’s long-term vision for the future of public health in England.
‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Update and Way Forward’ was released on 14 th July 2011 by the Department of Health. This document set out the progress which has been made in developing the Government’s vision for public health. It states that subject to Parliament, upper tier and unitary local authorities will take on their new public health responsibilities in April 2013, at which point they will also take responsibility for Directors of Public Health and their functions.
It also advises that upper tier Local Authorities will have a role across the three domains of public health, health improvement, health protection and health services. In addition to improving the health of the people in its area Local Authorities will also have new functions through regulations for taking steps to protect the health of the population in its area and to ensure NHS Commissioning receive the public health advice they need.
The Health and Social Care Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 th January 2011. The Bill is currently at Report Stage in the House of Lords. A report was provided to us on 25 th January 2012 which provided an update on recent developments related to the transition of public health functions to Local Authorities from April 2013.
The process to transfer public health functions and reviewing the commissioned public health services is complex. This work is currently being led by NHS County Durham and Darlington.
The County Durham & Darlington Public Health Transition Steering Group has been established to lead the transfer of public health staff and public health functions to the two local authorities (Durham County Council and Darlington Borough Council) and also to Public Health England. The Steering Group includes senior managers from both Durham County Council and Darlington Borough Council and NHS County Durham & Darlington and is led by the Directors of Public Health, County Durham and Darlington. The Steering Group is supported by nine workstreams; all with representatives from Durham County Council, Darlington Borough Council, NHS County Durham & Darlington and others with the specialist skills and knowledge required to progress the transfer.
The County Durham and Darlington draft Public Health Transition Plan 2012- 13, jointly developed by Durham County Council, Darlington Borough Council and NHS County Durham & Darlington identifies tasks which need to be undertaken and lead officers responsible for ensuring delivery and implementation by agreed timescales. Currently there are a number of
Page 25 actions within the Transition Plan which are yet to start. A project management approach has been adopted and each of the above workstreams will report progress against milestones to the NHS County Durham & Darlington Transition Steering Group. This is essential to ensure transition issues are progressed to enable DCC and DBC to deliver the new public health responsibilities from 1 st April 2013.
Outline plans for the transfer of public health functions have been shared with the Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board on 15 th December 2011. There are significant risks in transferring public health functions to local authorities, which will require careful and diligent resolution in order to achieve an effective transfer.
The next steps for continuing the work on the transitional arrangements to public health are:
• DCC NHS Transition Project Board continues to meet on a monthly basis in relation to the wider NHS Reforms including public health. • Ongoing discussions will take place on a tripartite basis between NHS County Durham, Durham County Council and Darlington Borough Council. • The County Durham Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board will receive the proposed model for public health commissioning in DCC in April 2012. • The agreed Public Health Transition Plan for County Durham will be submitted to the Department of Health on 5 th April 2012. • A ‘receiver’ board established by Durham County Council will manage the transition of public health functions and workforce to DCC. • Relevant Portfolio Holders will be kept up to date on transitional arrangements.
Decision
We have :-
• Accepted the transition planning project management arrangements set out in the report and embodied in the Public Health Transition Plan to be submitted to the Department of Health on 5 th April 2012. • Agreed that the transfer of public health functions from NHS County Durham (the PCT) to the Durham County Council will not take place until the 1 st April 2013 due to the significant risks that an earlier transfer presents. • Agreed that the approval of the final version of the Public Health Transition Plan is delegated to the Chief Executive of Durham County Council and the Corporate Director of Adults, Wellbeing & Health in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Healthier Communities. • Agreed to receive regular public health transition reports.
Page 26
Councillor S Henig Leader of the County Council
13 March 2012
Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 28 Agenda Item 9
County Council
21 March 2012
Revision to Corporate Management Team
Report of George Garlick, Chief Executive Councillor Simon Henig, Leader of the Council
Purpose of the Report 1 This report proposes a revision to the Corporate Management Team (CMT) structure in line with the Medium Term Financial Plan.
Background 2 In developing the MTFP 2011-15 the Council carried out extensive consultation and committed to seek to maximise savings from management costs, support services and efficiencies in order to minimise the impact on frontline services. The Council committed to reducing management costs by at least 30%.
3 The MTFP 2011-15 highlighted the requirement to make £123.5m savings over that four year period. Last month Council agreed a revised MTFP which estimates that £172m savings need to be delivered over the period 2011-17.
4 Members will be aware that the savings required were heavily frontloaded with £66.4m required during 2011-12. The Council has risen to this challenge and has met this first year target. Analysis shows that the Council has made approximately 20% reduction to the number of senior posts (those earning over £50k) with 16% from the extended management team (corporate management team plus heads of service). The Council is delivering reductions to senior management at a faster rate than overall savings. Proportionately, twice as many senior manager posts have been removed than other posts.
5 In accordance with the MTFP and the commitment to making significant management reductions, this report proposes a revision to the corporate management team that would realise a permanent base budget saving of £175k with the potential for greater consequent savings.
Corporate Management Team
6 CMT comprises the Chief Executive, five corporate directors and the Assistant Chief Executive. A high level summary of the functions for which each member of the management team is responsible is provided at Appendix 2.
7 This structure was established to ensure a smooth transition to a new unitary authority and to provide the senior strategic management leadership to the new organisation to deliver the vision and priorities agreed by Council.
Page 29
8 The Council has achieved a considerable degree of success in a relatively short time. New policies, procedures and systems have been developed and implemented, underpinned by a strong organisational culture. Collectively these have been key to improving a wide range of services such as housing, recycling, school improvement, safeguarding, community safety etc. Significant improvements in residents’ satisfaction have been achieved at the same time as improvements to major inspection ratings such as adult social care and children’s services.
9 Members have been very clear that economic development and regeneration and community engagement were important priorities from the outset and this focus is behind the development of the County Durham Plan, improvements to tourism and the attraction of Hitachi to the County, in addition to the development of AAPs. Such achievements have been made at the same time as delivering over £66 million of savings arising from Government grant reductions. Achieving seven shortlistings for LGC awards, including Council of the Year,is further testimony to the Council’s record of continuing to promote growth, improve services and engage with the public whilst delivering unprecedented levels of savings.
10 It is vital that the foundations laid in our early years are built upon to continue to deliver well for the residents of County Durham in line with the Council’s ambitions for the future. At the same time, the challenges posed by the largest ever reductions to public expenditure must not be underestimated.
Proposal
11 It is proposed to reduce the number of posts in CMT from seven to six, by integrating many of the functions currently within the Adults, Well-being and Health and Children and Young People’s service groupings into an integrated service grouping: Children and Adults Services.
12 Merging these services is a well-established model which has been adopted by many authorities. Many of these are in the same size range as Durham. These models take into account statutory requirements regarding the delivery of adult and children’s social care functions and education.
13 The deletion of one corporate director post would realise a permanent base budget saving for the council of £175k (including immediate on-costs).
14 This proposal balances the requirement for stability within the management arrangements of the authority to enable the council to continue to perform well with the delivery of savings at the highest level management in accordance with the MTFP. It provides an effective structure to continue to ensure that savings are delivered, including the target of at least 30% reduction in management costs over the MTFP period. Such a target for management savings as well as the overall estimate of £172 million savings requires the structure of CMT and indeed every other management level, to be kept under review.
15 This proposal forms part of the organic change necessary to reconfigure the structure of officer support to the Council in a time of retrenchment. Review of management will continue.
Page 30
Next steps
16 Under Section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972 it is for the Council to appoint such officers as it thinks necessary for the proper discharge of its functions. The issue of the structure of CMT is therefore a decision for full Council.
17 Should the Council agree the integration of the two services groupings, a proposed timeline is outlined at Appendix 3. The appointment of the new director for Children and Adults Services would be made by the Chief Officer Appointments Panel in May/June 2012.
18 In accordance with the Council’s guidance on reorganisation and restructure, the process for appointing to a post in such an exercise would require a period of consultation with those individuals affected by the change, and Appendix 3 highlights this step in the process.
19 In circumstances where there is potentially more than one individual eligible to apply for a post in a reorganisation situation, selection for the post is undertaken via a ‘ring fencing’ exercise. This is where those who:
• Undertake similar duties to the new post
• Hold the same level of responsibility for the job description of the new post, and
• Are suitably qualified and experienced in accordance with the person specification
become part of an established ‘pool’ of employees to be ring fenced for the post. These individuals are then interviewed for the position. Any individual who has expressed an interest in ER/VR in such circumstances can choose to step aside from the interview process to allow others to secure employment. Should this selection exercise be successful this individual’s ER/VR request is then progressed to the Human Resources Committee for consideration.
20 For the purpose of the proposals outlined above, following analysis of the job description/person specification for the existing and new roles:
a. Two employees would be considered to be within the ring fence for the new corporate director post, namely the Corporate Director of Adults, Well-being and Health and the Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services;
b. One individual, the Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services, has expressed an interest in ER/VR and has indicated a preference not to be considered for the new post should the council agree that the two existing posts are merged.
21 The Council is asked to agree to the proposed changes, and enter into a period of consultation with affected employees. Following the consultation period, it is recommended that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair of the Chief Officer Appointments Committee, be given delegated
Page 31
authority, subject to consideration of the consultation responses, to implement the new structure.
22 Should this selection process be successful, the Human Resources Committee would then consider the ER/VR request of the Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services.
23 The new director, working closely with the outgoing director, would lead the reorganisation required to merge and integrate the majority of functions currently provided within the existing service groupings. This is expected to be completed by the end of August and to identify further management savings.
24 It is apparent that some existing functions within Adults, Well-being and Health would have limited strategic fit with the new integrated service grouping. These would include arts and culture and libraries. In the light of the impact of management capacity within Adults Well-being and Health of preparation for the transfer of public health functions to the Council, it is recommended that arts and culture be transferred, subject to the satisfactory appointment of a new director in May/June and consultation with affected officers, to Neighbourhood Services and that detailed proposals for the remaining consequential changes be reported to Cabinet.
Conclusion
25 The Council is committed to reducing management costs by at least 30% as part of an overall MTFP expected to require the delivery of £172 million by 2017. This is fully in line with the large scale consultation carried out in late 2010.
26 The Council has already delivered approximately 20% reduction in senior management posts which means that, proportionately, twice as many senior manager posts have been removed as other posts.
27 This report proposes that a further reduction to senior management is made by reducing the number of posts in CMT from seven to six, generating a saving of £175k per annum.
28 Continuing to deliver savings required by unprecedented levels of reductions to Government grant, and on the commitment to reduce management costs by 30% will require further review of all levels of management.
Recommendations and reasons 29 The Council is recommended to:
(a) Approve the commencement of a consultation on the proposed revision to CMT outlined in paragraphs 11 to 15;
(b) Delegate, subject to consideration of consultation responses, the decision to implement the proposed revision to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair of the Chief Officer Appointments Committee;
Page 32
(c) Commence the consultation exercise with those individuals affected by the proposed change;
(d) Note the timeline and next steps outlined in Appendix 3 and paragraphs 16 to 24 respectively;
(e) Note the transfer of arts and culture to Neighbourhood Services in May/June 2012.
Background papers
Contact: Kim Jobson Tel: ext 3240
Page 33
Appendix 1: Implications
Finance – the report highlights initial financial savings of £175K per annum.
Staffing – the report highlights the reduction in the number of CMT posts from seven to six and the impacts on the individuals affected.
Risk – the proposal for an integrated service grouping whilst new for Durham has been successfully implemented in many other authorities, including those in the same size range as Durham. The Council has effective management of change policies and procedures in place.
Equality and Diversity / Public Sector Equality Duty – The proposed changes have a potential gender impact, as for the two posts affected one postholder is female and one male. Fair treatment will be ensured by following agreed HR procedures and monitoring outcomes for affected staff. If any further restructuring is required as a consequence of these proposals, an equality impact assessment will be prepared.
Accommodation – N/A
Crime and Disorder – The Council’s community safety duties will be considered as part of the consultation and detailed proposals.
Human Rights – See comments on legal implications.
Consultation - The proposals for creating one chief officers post and that of transferring the arts and culture will be the subject of consultation with the employees affected by this change.
Procurement – N/A
Disability Issues – See comment on equality and diversity
Legal Implications - The process described in the report is designed to ensure that the council complies with employment and equalities law and that any termination arrangements are compliant with the law relating to redundancy and the regulations governing any relevant pension scheme.
Page 34
Appendix 2: Current functional structure of corporate management team
Page 35
Page 36
Appendix 3: Proposed Timeline for Progress
DATE
Council consideration of proposals 21/03/2012
Consultation commences with affected 26/03/2012 employees
Consultation ends 27/04/2012
May 2012
Date for Chief Progress to selection process Officer Appointments Committee to be confirmed
ER/VR case progress to HR Committee for 27/6/2012 consideration
Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 Agenda Item 10
County Council
21 March 2012
Review of Community Governance in
relation to Crook and Durham City
Report of Constitution Working Group
Purpose of Report
1 To present Council with an analysis of the responses to the consultation in relation to Community Governance for the areas of Durham City and Crook.
2 Present draft proposals for each of the areas taking into account the responses in the consultation and the obligations upon the Council.
Background
3 On 26 October 2011 this Council approved the terms of reference for the two reviews. These were published on 1 November 2011 and signalled the formal commencement of the reviews. The initial consultation period ended on 31 December 2011 and its results are referred to later in this report.
Timetable for the review
Action Time Dates Span Publication of Terms of 1 November 2011 Reference Invitation of initial submissions Two 1 November 2011 to 31 December months 2011 Analysis/evaluation of Two 1 January 2012 to 21 March 2012 submissions and preparation months of draft proposals Publication of draft proposals 1 April 2012
Consultation on draft Two 1 April 2012 to 30 May 2012 proposals months
Analysis/evaluation of draft 31 July 2012 proposals and preparation of final proposals
Page1 39
Publication of final 1 October 2012 recommendations Preparation and publication of Two 1 November 2012 any reorganisation Order months Election date May 2013
The legal duties and process
4 Under Section 93 of the Local Government Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the Act”), the Council must have regard to the need to secure that community governance within the area under review:-
(a) reflect the identities and interests of the community in that area and
(b) is effective and convenient.
5 In deciding what recommendations to make, the principal Council must take into account any other arrangements (apart from those relating to parishes and their institutions):-
(a) that have already been made or
(b) that could be made for the purposes of community representation or community engagement in respect of the area under review.
6 The Council must also take into account any representations received in connection with the review.
7 As soon as possible, after making any recommendations, the principal council must publish them and take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of those recommendations.
Constituting a new parish
8 The review will need to consider a hierarchy of topics, described in Association of Electoral Administrators literature as dependent upon and related to the other:-
Parish Areas
• creating, merging and abolishing parishes; • parishing previously un-parished areas; • lesser boundary alterations between existing parishes; • grouping parishes under a common council or dissolving groups; • parish name changes; • alternative styles for any new parishes.
Page 40 2
Electoral Arrangements
• whether to have a parish council or not; • the size of the council; • whether to ward the parish or not; • drawing up appropriate ward boundaries; • allocating councillors to wards.
“Consequential Matters”
• recommendations to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for changes to the unitary/county/borough/district divisions or wards; • dealing with assets – fixed and otherwise; • setting a precept for the new council; • first elections and electoral cycles; • setting the commencement dates.
Parish – new and existing parishes
A new parish is:-
• establishing an unparished area as a parish; • aggregating one or more unparished areas with one or more parished areas; • aggregating parts of parishes; • amalgamating two or more parishes; • separating part of a parish.
If a new parish is set up, the review needs to make recommendations as to the name of the parish, as to whether or not it should have a parish council, the electoral arrangements of that council and whether or not the new parish should have one of the alternative styles.
Existing parishes
The areas originally under review did not include existing parishes. If any recommendations relate to existing parishes the review must make recommendations in relation to each of them as follows:-
• That the parish should not be abolished and its area not altered. • That the area should be altered. • Or that the parish should be abolished.
The review will also need to make recommendations as to whether or not the name of the existing parish should be changed.
Page3 41 Recommendation should follow about electoral arrangements for the parish.
• Whether the parish should have or continue to have a council. • What electoral arrangements should apply to that council.
The review cannot make recommendations with regard to alternative styles for the existing parishes.
So far as reasonably practicable, when the LGBCE is making changes to principal council’s electoral arrangements it takes the approach that no unwarded parish should be split and no parish ward should be split by such a boundary. These provisions do not apply to parish electoral arrangements, but the guidance states that ‘in the interest of effective and convenient local government, they are relevant considerations for principal councils to take into account when undertaking community governance review.’
The government has stated it expects to see a trend in the creation of parishes and that it will be undesirable to see existing parishes abolished with an area becoming unparished and with no community governance arrangements in place.
Grouping parishes
A review can recommend grouping arrangements. The guidance states that this should not be used to build up artificial enlarged parishes.
Parish names and alternative style
Where a new parish has been constituted, the review must make recommendations as to the name of the new parish and whether it should have an alternative style.
If the review is concerned with existing parishes, it must make recommendations to whether or not the name of the parish should be changed. But it should not concern itself with any recommendations regarding an alternative style for an existing parish.
The government has stated that recommendations for the dissolution of parish councils ‘are undesirable’ unless they are in cases of parishes with very low populations or in cases where boundary changes are reordering the parish structure or grouping parishes.
Where the review make recommendations that a parish should have a council or an existing parish council should be retained, the review must also make recommendations with regard to the electoral arrangements or changes to electoral arrangements.
Page 42 4 9 What are electoral arrangements?
• The year in which ordinary elections of councillors to be held. • The number of councillors to be elected to the council (or in the case of a common council, the number of councillors to be elected to the council by each parish). • The division (or not of the parish), or (in the case of a common council) any of the parishes into wards for the purposes of electing councillors. • The number and boundaries of any such wards. • The number of councillors to be elected for any such ward. • The name of any such ward.
Duties with regard to parishes in relation to the number of electors are set out in section 94 of the Act are set out in the table beneath:-
1 The parish has 1,000 or more local The review must recommend that government electors the parish should have a council
2 The parish has 150 or fewer local The review must recommend that government electors and does not the parish should not have a currently have a council council
3 The parish has 150 or fewer local It is for the principal council to government electors and currently decide whether or not the parish has a council or was part of a parish should have a council that had a council
4 The parish has between 150 and It is for the principal council to 1000 electors decide whether or not the parish should have a council
10 Councillor Numbers
The minimum legal number of parish councillors for each parish council is five. There is no maximum number and there is no other legislative guidance. The only other requirement is that each parish in a grouping arrangement must have at least one member on the common council.
NALC published guidance in 1988. It recommended that a council of no more than the legal minimum of five members is inconveniently small and considers a practical minimum should be seven. It does however state that local council business does not usually require a large body of councillors and business convenience makes it appropriate to suggest that the practical maximum should be twenty five.
Aston Business School has also carried out research and the recommended figures by both the NALC and Aston are reproduced below.
Page5 43 Within those minimum and maximum limits, the following allocations were recommended by NALC:
Electors Councillors Electors Councillors
Up to 900 7 10,400 17 1,400 8 11,900 18 2,000 9 13,500 19 2,700 10 15,200 20 3,500 11 17,000 21 4,400 12 18,900 22 5,400 13 20,900 23 6,500 14 23,000 24 7,700 15 Over 23,000 25 9,000 16
However, in rural authorities with sparsity of population, even this table may not be appropriate.
The Aston Business School‘s research was published in 1992 . It showed the then levels of representation. It is likely that these levels of representation have not greatly changed in the intervening years.
Electors Councillors
<500 5-8
501-2,500 6-12
2,501-10,000 9-16
10,001-20,000 13-27
>20,000 13-31
The LGBCE is of the view that each area should be considered on its own merits having regard to population, geography, the pattern of communities and to the current powers of parish councils.
When considering the number of electors, the council must have regard to
1. The number of local government electors of the parish.
2. Any change in that number which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review starts.
Page 44 6 Guidance from the government states that the most recent electoral register should be used to gain an accurate figure for the existing electorate. Planning assumptions and likely growth within the area, based on planning permissions granted, local plans or existing local development frameworks, should be used to project an accurate five year electoral forecast. The electoral forecasts for both areas are set out in Appendix A.
11 Warding
Warding arrangements are dealt with under S95 of the Act. In considering whether to recommend that a parish should or should not be divided into wards, the principal council should consider the following:
• Whether the number, or distribution, of the local government electorate for the parish would make a single election of councillors impracticable or inconvenient. • Whether it is desirable that any area or areas of the parish should be separately represented on the council. • Whether Governance is effective and convenient. Guidance suggests that it might be relevant to ask if the additional cost of separate ward elections in some cases would represent an effective use of the parish’s limited resources. The LGBCE stated ‘there must be a reasonable number of local government electors in the parish ward to make the election of a council viable and the commission considers that a hundred electors is an appropriate lower limit.’
If the council decides to recommend that the parish should be divided into wards, it must have regard to the following when considering the size and boundaries of the wards and the number of councillors to be elected:
• The number of local government electors for the parish • Any change in the number, or distribution, of the local government electors which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends • The desirability of fixing boundaries which are, and will remain, easily identifiable • Any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundaries.
The government also advises that another relevant consideration in the warding of parishes is the layout of the principal council electoral areas. No unwarded parish should be divided by district or county division boundary and no parish should be split by such a boundary.
The number of councillors should be proportional to electoral sizes across parish wards. LGBCE’s guidance states that “each person’s vote should be of equal weight so far as possible, having regard to other legitimate competing factors when it comes to the election of councillors”.
Page7 45 The Council also needs to comply with its terms of reference when carrying out this review, and a copy of the terms are attached at Appendix B.
12 The Consultations
Following publication of those terms of reference on 1 st November 2011 an information leaflet and questionnaire was sent to all households and other interested parties in each review area. An electronic version of the questionnaire was sent to the Durham University.
Copies of the questionnaires are attached at Appendix ‘C’.
At Appendix D is an illustrative analysis of the responses in relation to the Durham area, and at Appendix ‘E’, responses in relation to Crook.
A 5 year electoral projection for Durham and Crook is attached at Appendix A. These figures are one of several factors which the Council must have regard to when considering the viability of any proposals.
Statistical Breakdown of Responses received (Durham) is attached at Appendix F
Equalities Statistics (Durham) is attached at Appendix G
Statistical Breakdown of Responses received is attached at (Crook) Appendix H
13 Response and Recommendations in Relation to Durham
In relation to the unparished area of Durham, there were 1,334 responses out of 11,331 properties. 62% of responses requested the formation of a parish. 60% of those proposed one parish. In all areas with the exception of one (Newton Hall) the responses favoured a parish for the whole unparished area of Durham City. Royal Mail returned 51 envelopes as being undeliverable.
In the case of Newton Hall, the responses in favour of a parish comprised 52.5% of the responses, with 55.8% of those responses favouring more than one parish. Respondents were invited to give a view of where the proposed parish should be. 61.7% proposed Newton Hall alone. 14.4% proposed another. 8.5% proposed joining another parish and 15.4 proposed north alone.
It would, therefore, appear on the basis of these responses, that whilst most of Durham City has focused on identity with Durham City, the residents of Newton Hall seem to favour arrangements for Newton Hall alone.
An electronic survey was used to consult with Students from Durham University. 25 responses were received, of the 25 responses:
Page 46 8 • 15 indicated that they would like a Parish Council for the area • 5 suggested an alternative • 3 respondents told us they wanted no additional form of community governance • 2 did not contain an answer • 8 respondents told us that they would like to see one parish for the whole of the unparished area of Durham • 17 said they would like more than one parish, based around neighbourhoods
Two complications have been revealed. The new County Electoral Division boundary (effective from May 2013) prevents two areas identified on Map A (i) and (ii) from being linked with Newton Hall. They would not form viable wards linked to Durham City. These unparished areas have another parish council close by – Framwellgate Moor Parish Council (although there were no representations from this Parish Council to merge with the unparished area of Durham).
In addition Map A also identifies an unparished area of land referred to on Map A (iii) which, although inside the Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall Electoral Division boundary is separated from that area by a natural boundary, an area of no development. This area has a number of streets (e.g. Priory Road linking with houses on Beech Road), which form a continuous development into Framwellgate Moor Parish and it is with the latter that their affinity lies. Links with the Newton Hall development are less obvious and all the properties have a Framwellgate Moor postal address. It would be logical, therefore, to re-draw the boundary of Framwellgate Moor Parish to include the areas of land shown on Map A (iii).
All three areas would, to reflect community identifies, fit logically within the Framwellgate Moor Parish. It is therefore proposed that discussions take place with Framwellgate Moor Parish Council, households within that parish and households within the three areas identified on Map A(i), (ii) and (iii) with a view to extending the boundary of Framwellgate Moor Parish Council to include those areas.
It is therefore proposed that reference is made to these areas under the proposals later in this report.
An analysis of the comments and representations
An analysis of the comments and representations is attached at Appendices D and F.
In relation to this area there were 4 letters of representation. One was from Sherburn Village Parish Council supporting the parishing of the area under review, with the residents deciding how this should be best organised.
There was also one letter from a Charter Trustee for Durham City strongly urging that the un-parished areas be treated as a single unit - a Town Council,
Page9 47 adding that the areas belong to each other and would contain the importance of the historic unit to a degree.
A further letter was received from a resident who was of the opinion that the status quo was not acceptable as it left people in the unparished area unable to have a say in important matters affecting their area and therefore unable to make small-scale improvements to the facilities of the area. The respondent expressed the view that a parish council was the only option able to carry out these functions and that the heart of the historic city should be styled as a Town Council which would be able to comment on planning applications affecting the area and potentially carry more weight coming from a democratically elected body.
The submission made a case to create a larger council from the unparished area plus Framwellgate Moor and Belmont parishes, although there were no requests from any parish councils proposing this arrangement.
A letter of representation letter was also received from a resident of Newton Hall who felt that their local community consisted of Newton Hall, Framwellgate Moor, Brasside and Pity Me . The respondent commented that the size of Newton Hall did warrant some form of arrangement on its own, given the amount of electors residing in the area. Their favoured arrangement was that of a 'community council'. If this was not a preferred option there was a suggestion that Newton Hall could join with Framwellgate Moor Parish Council. As a further alternative the respondent suggested some form of community forum where residents would have the chance to create a strong joined-up community voice on local issues . The respondent didn’t feel that Newton Hall should become part of a larger Durham Town Council, in light of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England's final recommendations relating to the County Council's Electoral Divisions (which recommended a Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall Electoral Division). The respondent didn’t feel as though Durham City Centre was part of their local community, but as a resident of County Durham, would continue to have an interest in the City.
First option for Durham
The Council is mindful of the fact that from information received so far, the population appears to be supportive of a formation of one or more democratically elected body.
It is proposed that the first option for consultation at stage 2 is for the whole of the unparished area 1 to be parished by one parish council (62% of respondents).However, it is also considered important that the residents are informed of the fate of the Charter Trustees should such a parish be formed. This is covered later in this report.
1 Reference to a parish for the whole of the unparished area of Durham Reference to a parish for the whole of the unparished area of Durham assumes that the three areas identified on Map A as (i) (ii) and (iii) are excluded and will become part of the Framwellgate Moor Parish.
Page 48 10
Map B shows whole unparished area (including Newton Hall).
The current electorate for the whole of the unparished area of Durham is 25,970 with a projected electorate for the five years from the end of review of 25,579.
Second option for Newton Hall only
The group has also given consideration to the second preferences expressed by respondents and it is here where there are differences of opinion between areas.
It is not considered appropriate to go to the public with only one option for a Parish Council, given the division that has appeared in relation to Newton Hall. Simply consulting on a single Parish Council for the whole area, will not be heeding the views and representations of people in Newton Hall.
Newton Hall has its own recognised community with its own local shops and amenities (public houses, church, library, leisure centre, doctors, and post office). Its particular identity is focused upon a large housing development.
The group is of the view that the formation of a Parish Council for this area would reflect community identities. It is therefore proposed that residents of Newton Hall have a second option of a new parish for the unparished area of Newton Hall. 1This new proposed Parish area is shown on Map C.
Durham City
As previously stated, Durham City has its own recognised community with its own local shops and amenities (public houses, church, library, leisure centre, doctors, post office). Its particular identity is focused upon its city centre, a compact and historic centre including the World Heritage Site of the Cathedral and Castle, and its world class university.
The group is of the view that the formation of a Parish Council for this area (excluding Newton Hall and (i) (ii) on Map A) would still reflect community identities. However, as the majority of responses from this area preferred one parish for the whole of the unparished area including Newton Hall, it is proposed to consult on one parish for the whole of the unparished area, but this will be subject to any necessary boundary change should households within Newton Hall prefer a Newton Hall parish.
1 Reference to Newton Hall excludes the area identified as (iii) on Map A which, it is proposed, should become part of Framwellgate Moor Parish.
Page11 49 Whether there should be a Parish Council for Durham
Under the Act, the Review must recommend that the Parish should have a Council given that there are more than 1,000 local government electors.
The electors/properties for a parish covering the whole of the unparished area of Durham (including Newton Hall) would be:
• 25549 electors – 10571 properties
• The electors/properties for a parish covering the unparished area of Durham excluding Newton Hall would be:
• 19514 electors – 7718 properties
• The electors/properties for a parish covering the unparished area of Newton Hall alone would be:
• 5744 electors – 3144 properties
The number of electors and number of properties for the three areas which are proposed to be transferred to Framwellgate Moor Parish have been excluded from the above figures.
The breakdown into polling districts is attached at Appendix I.
Under both option 1 and 2, the group would propose the formation of Parish Councils. If one or two Parish Councils are formed, then, following elections, there will be one or two democratically elected parish councils in the area whose powers and duties are set out in Appendix J.
Under the Localism Act 2011, “eligible” Parish Councils may also have the general power of competence which has been be given to other local authorities by the Act. This is a power to do anything that individuals generally may do, although with some restrictions set out in the legislation. What makes a parish council eligible will depend upon whether it meets conditions yet to be set out in an Order from the Secretary of State.
Charter Trustees
Whilst the outcome of the consultation would seem to suggest that there is an appetite for a parish council in Durham City, it is considered important that the residents are informed of the fate of the Charter Trustees should such a parish be formed.
Under the Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England) Regulations 2008, on the date on which the whole of the unparished area is parished , the following occurs:-
Page 50 12 (a) The Charter Trustees shall be dissolved; (b) The Mayor and Deputy Mayor (if any) shall cease to hold office as such; (c) The appointment of any local officer of dignity shall be treated as if it had been made by the parish council; (d) All property rights and liabilities (of whatever description) of the Charter Trustees, shall become property rights and liabilities of the parish council; and (e) Any legal proceedings to which the Charter Trustees are party may, subject to rules of Court, be prosecuted or defended (as the case may be) by the parish council.
In terms of its functions, however it remains a parish council.
To clarify, should the whole of the unparished area of Durham be parished then the Charter Trust will be dissolved and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will cease to hold office. The new parish council will appoint a Chairman in the first instance and can then decide whether to continue to be called a Parish or change to a Town Council. If the latter is agreed then the council can decide to call its Chairman by the title of Mayor. The Town Council will have the same power and status as a parish and the mayor will have no higher status then that of a Chairman a Parish Council.
A further Option for the whole of the unparished area of Durham
Given the implications in relation to the Charter Trustees it is suggested that the Council include the option of retaining the Charter Trustees in any consultation on parish council arrangements. The fact that an outcome which retains only a small part of the present unparished area will result in the retention of the Charter Trustees, is a matter which will need to be carefully taken into account when the results of the consultation are considered.
Other forms of governance
Mindful that the Council is required by law to consider other forms of community governance as alternatives to parish councils, consideration has been given to other arrangements for community representation or community engagement which already exist in the area, including the Area Action Partnerships, tenants associations, community associations and resident associations. A list of the external bodies consulted is attached at Appendix K.
There are other forms of Community Governance within the unparished area of Durham, including a number of Residents Associations encompassing five main areas:
• St Nicholas/Claypath
• Crossgate
Page13 51 • Whinney Hill
• Elvet
• Newton Hall
In addition to the County Councillors who represent this area, the County Council has established 14 Area Action Partnerships to give people in County Durham a greater choice and voice in local affairs.
Durham Area Action Partnership is made up of local people, businesses and organisations such as the County Council, Town and Parish Councils, police and fire, health and voluntary groups. The partnership allows people to have a say on services, and give organisations the chance to speak directly with local communities, focusing action and spending on issues important to local communities.
The group is mindful of such other forms of community governance in its consideration of whether parish governance is most appropriate in unparished Durham area. It also notes that what sets parish councils apart from other kinds of governance is the fact that they are a democratically elected tier of local government with directly elected representatives, independent of other council tiers and budgets, and possessing specific powers for which they are democratically accountable.
Other forms of Community Governance Considered
Other forms of community governance consulted upon during the stage 1 consultations included:
• Area/community forums • Community associations • Neighbourhood Management
Consideration has been given to the pattern of community representation and community engagement already operating in the area.
In respect of the whole unparished area of Durham only 35 people out of 1,334 who responded, expressed a preference to join with another parish council.
Page 52 14 Proposals for consultation for Durham
It is proposed that consultation takes place on:-
For the Durham City area (excluding Newton Hall and the three unparished areas identified on Map A as (i) (ii) and (iii)):
1. A parish council for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City (see map B) 1
2. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
For the Newton Hall area only but excluding the area shown as (iii) on Map A:
1. A parish council for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City (see map B)
2. A parish Council for Newton Hall area only (Map C)
3. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
For the areas identified on Map A (i) (ii) and (iii)
1. To be part of Framwellgate Moor Parish Council
2. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
All of the proposals for parish councils are viable in relation to numbers.
Consultation with Households in Framwellgate Moor Parish Council
Consultation will take place with all households in Framwellgate Moor Parish seeking their views on the proposal to extend the boundary of their parish to include the three Areas identified on Map A as (i), (ii) and (iii).
Framwellgate Moor Parish Council will also be asked for their views.
The present structure of parishes and their electoral arrangements
Consideration has been given to the present parish structure in the County, including parishes, parish wards, ward representation, overall representation, ratios of electors to councillors and rural/urban designation.
1 The boundary of such a parish will be determined once the responses from households in the Newton Hall area have been considered.
Page15 53 Boundaries
The group has endeavoured to select boundaries that are and are likely to remain easily identifiable.
Names and styles of parishes
With regard to the names of parishes, the Group recommends that the Council should endeavour to reflect existing local or historic place-names.
Should one parish be created for the whole unparished area of Durham it is suggested that the name be as follows:
• Durham Parish Council (once established the Parish Council can resolve to become a Town Council).
Should two parishes be created for the unparished area of Durham it is suggested that the names be as follows:
• Durham Parish Council (once established the parish council can resolve to become a town council).
• Newton Hall Parish Council
In respect of the three areas of land identified on Map A as (i) (ii) and (iii) it is proposed that the boundaries of Framwellgate Moor Parish be extended to include these three areas. Thus the Group proposes the formation of a new parish under the Act and subsequently the Council must consider the necessary electoral arrangements. No change to the name of the parish is proposed. No change can be made to the style of that parish.
Warding arrangements of the parish councils under option 2
In considering whether to recommend that a parish council be warded, the group took account of guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government and Local Government Boundary Commission referred to earlier in the report. For the whole unparished area excluding the areas identified on Map A at (i), (ii) and (iii), the following wards are proposed:-
Pelaw Gilesgate Durham South Framwelgate Crossgate St. Nicholas and Elvet Nevilles Cross South Nevilles Cross North Newton Hall North Newton Hall South
Page 54 16
For Durham parish only (excluding Newton Hall and (i) and (ii) on Map A).
Pelaw Gilesgate Durham South Framwelgate Crossgate St. Nicholas and Elvet Nevilles Cross South Nevilles Cross North
For Newton Hall parish only excluding (iii) Map A.
Newton Hall North Newton Hall South
Consideration has also been given as to whether a proposed newly enlarged Framwellgate Moor Parish should be warded.
A logical boundary for any warding would be the current polling districts. The population of the area is concentrated in the Framwellgate Moor polling district (2014 electors). The next district (Pity Me) has 1649 electors. Brasside has 417 electors. The disparity in numbers between them would suggest that warding would create an inequality in Councillor/elector ratios across the parish. It is not proposed therefore to divide the newly extended parish into wards.
Electoral Arrangements
Ordinary year of election
The group propose that the ordinary election of parish councillors is 2013, and every 4 years thereafter. This cycle coincides with the cycle for Durham County Council Unitary elections; this enables the costs of elections to be shared.
Size of the parish councils
The minimum legal number of parish councillors for each parish council is five. There is no maximum number and no other legislative guidance in this respect.
Subsequently, in respect of the number of electors consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors of the proposed parish • Any change in that number which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends • NALC guidance
Page17 55 • Aston Business School research (1992) • The Councillor to elector ratios that currently exists across existing parish/town councils in County Durham. See Appendix L.
Electoral forecasts are attached at appendix A.
The NALC guidance indicates that local council business does not usually require a large body of councillors but to ensure business convenience it is considered appropriate to suggest the following as practicable councillor numbers per parish council:-
One parish Council for the whole of the unparished area including Newton Hall
• Durham Parish Council – 19 Councillors
Two Parish Councils for the unparished area
• Durham Parish Council – 15 Councillors • Newton Hall Parish Council – 7 Councillors
In respect of Framwellgate Moor parish the number of electors resulting from the realignment of the boundaries to include the three areas identified on Map A is 4,882. This will be comprised of the 4,170 electors currently within the existing parish and the 712 electors from the three areas identified on Map A as (i), (ii) and (iii). The area is an urban largely concentrated area and taking into account NALC Aston Guidance and also the electorate to councillor ratios within the County, the current number of Councillors (11) for Framwellgate Moor Parish would continue to be a manageable number for conducting business and that the proposed size of the new parish representation of 11 Councillors would continue to be effective and convenient.
In respect of Durham Parish Council including Newton Hall, the following wards are proposed:
Ward Proposed Councillors
Pelaw 1 Gilesgate 2 Durham South 1 Framwelgate 1 Crossgate 1 St Nicholas and Elvet 4 Nevilles Cross South 2 Nevilles Cross North 3 Newton Hall North 2 Newton Hall South 2
Page 56 18 In respect of Durham City excluding Newton Hall, the following wards are proposed:
Ward Proposed Councillors
Pelaw 1 Gilesgate 2 Durham South 1 Framwelgate 1 Crossgate 1 St Nicholas and Elvet 4 Nevilles Cross South 2 Nevilles Cross North 3
In respect of Newton Hall alone, the following wards are proposed:
Ward Proposed Councillors
Newton Hall North 3 Newton Hall South 4
Setting precepts for new parish Councils
The group is considering what would be an appropriate precent for the new parish councils and these are set out below:
• Durham Parish Council (covering the whole of the unparished area including Newton Hall) – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council
• Durham Parish Council (excluding Newton Hall) - a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council
• Newton Hall Parish Council - a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council
Under the Regulations the Charter Trustees would remain until such time as the whole of the unparished area of Durham is parished.
Should Framwellgate Moor Parish boundary be extended to include the areas identified on Map A as (i), (ii) and (iii) then it will be for that Parish Council to determine any change to the level of precept.
Suggested commencement dates:
• 1 April 2013 for administrative and financial purposes • 2 May 2013 ordinary elections for the election of a council.
Page19 57 Property
There is a property issue that will need to be resolved between any new parish council for Durham City and the County Council. The County Council has been attempting to negotiate with the Charter Trustees the issue of ownership of historical and ceremonial property. The Charter Trustees have, however, indicated that they are not willing to enter such negotiations but wish to leave such issues to any new Council to resolve.
14 Response received in relation to Crook and surrounding area
There were 860 responses out of 7,340 properties for the full unparished Crook and surrounding area (as identified on Map D as Crook North, Crook Central and Crook South). 52% of responses requested no change to current arrangements. (See Appendix E). Royal Mail returned 24 envelopes as being undelivered. 55% of residents in Crook Central requested no change – this was the area covered by the petition requesting a Town Council for Crook.
Mindful of the percentage of responses requesting no change it is felt appropriate that no change should be one of the options consulted upon at stage 2.
Having identified Option 1 as no change consideration was given to the second preference identified by respondents.
In respect of Crook North (Crook North being the area identified on Map E as Crook North), the next preference of those who responded (24%) requested a new parish for the Crook North Area. Only 18% expressed the preference of becoming part of another parish. Tow Law Town Council had requested that their boundary be amended to include the hill top villages (Stanley, Sunniside and Billy Row) within Tow Law parish. However, from the results of the stage 1 consultation, it can be noted from responses from the hill top villages that they do not appear to support merging with another parish. It has subsequently been identified that an appropriate alternative option for Crook North is a parish for the north part of the unparished area of Crook.
In respect of Crook Central, the petition area, 55% of responses sought no change. Their second preference was for a new parish for Crook Central.
Roddymoor was part of the area which was the subject of Crook Central petition requesting the establishment of a town council for Crook. However, as a result of the final recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) review, Roddymoor is now in the electoral division of Crook North (previously Crook Central). If Roddymoor is to be included in a Crook Central Parish it will be necessary to ward that area. Warding arrangements are covered later in this report. In respect of Roddymoor, 17 returns were received out of 198 properties. It is proposed that as a second option Roddymoor be included in the Crook Central area as identified on Map F.
Page 58 20
In respect of North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear, the first preference was for no change. The second was to be part of any Crook Parish. It is proposed that the first option for consultation in this area at stage 2 be no change and the second to be part of a Crook Central parish. Thus, it is proposed that Crook Central include the areas of Crook, Roddymoor, North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear and this be the second option for consultation in this area.
In respect of Hunwick 59% of responses requested no change. The second preference was for a Crook South parish. Taking into account the second preference expressed by North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear to be part of a Crook Central parish, it is proposed that Hunwick be consulted on two options - No Change and a parish for Hunwick. Map G
Consideration has been given as to whether households in Crook North, South and Central (as identified on Map H) should be offered a third option of one parish covering the whole of these three areas. However, taking into account the comments received during the stage 1 consultations this proposal was not supported by Crook North or Hunwick and it could be considered undemocratic to impose one parish for the whole unparished area, should the outcome of the second consultation be affected by the high density of residents in Crook Central compared to Crook North and Hunwick. Likewise, it could be considered undemocratic if Hunwick or Crook North were seen to influence the decision as to whether or not a parish council should be created for Crook Central.
Mindful of respondents second preferences, the grouping of Roddymoor, Howden le Wear, North Bitchburn, Fir Tree and High Grange with Crook may be explained in that Crook is the main provider of mixed retail outlets, doctors, dentists, chemists, schools, industrial units, council offices, library, market, nursery schools and garage services for the area. Regular bus services link these villages with Crook.
In the grouping of these villages the group believes that the wishes of local inhabitants should be a primary consideration in this review.
An issue has arisen in relation to the electoral division boundary effective from 2013 which would isolate one property “the Kennels” between 2 parish boundaries. The result is “the Kennels” will be between the 2 parish boundaries of Wolsingham parish and the Crook Central parish, should the latter be created. Should the results of the second stage of consultations propose a Crook Parish (Map F) then discussions take place with Wolsingham Parish Council in respect of land referred to as “the Kennels”. The remainder of this report assumes that this course of action is supported.
Discussions have also taken place with local County Councillors for this area and they supported the proposals for consultation at stage 2.
Page21 59 Further representations received
Attached at Appendix H is the additional representation received in respect of Crook.
As previously stated, Tow Law Town Council had requested that the hill top villages be included within Tow Law parish. However, following consultation, it can be noted from responses from the hill top villages that they do not appear to support merging with an existing parish council.
A letter of support for a Crook Town Council has been received from the local MP for North West Durham.
Electorate Forecasts
The group has used the Register of Electors of February 2011 in providing the electorate figures for the unparished Crook and surrounding area. Consideration has also been given to the change in the number / distribution of the electors which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends. Polling District electorate forecasts for the unparished Crook and surrounding area up to and including 2017 are attached at Appendix A.
Proposals and Recommendations for Crook
Having considered these projections it can be established that population levels would sustain:
• A Crook North parish (Crook north as identified on Map E)
• Crook Central – including Crook, Helmington Row, Roddymoor, Fir Tree, North Bitchburn, Howden le Wear and High Grange as identified on Map F.
• A Hunwick parish as identified on Map G.
Consideration has been given as to whether parishes of the size proposed would produce an effective parish Council i.e. they have the capacity to deliver better services and to represent the community’s interests. Issues to consider here include whether their size would raise a precept that would enable them to actively and effectively promote the well-being of their residents and to contribute to the real provision of services in their areas in an effective and efficient manner.
The group recognises that, in rural areas, a strong sense of community can prevail over an extensive but otherwise sparsely populated area. Parishes in these areas may have limited capacity to facilitate service provision and effective local government. Even so, arrangements in these areas, when they
Page 60 22 accord with the wishes of the inhabitants of the parish, will at least represent convenient local government. This has been considered when more rural villages (i.e. High Grange, North Bitchburn) have expressed a second preference of being linked with Crook under one parish council.
Whether there should be a Parish Council for Crook
Under the Act , the Review must recommend that the Parish should have a Council given that there are more than 1,000 local government electors.
The electors/properties for the three proposed parishes are set out below: Crook North – 1390 electors – 822 properties Crook Central – 9929 electors – 5941 properties Hunwick – 1057 electors – 606 properties
The breakdown into polling districts is attached at Appendix I.
Under this option, for the unparished area of Crook and surrounding villages (Map H), the group would propose the formation of 3 parish councils. If a Parish Council is formed, then, following elections, there will be one or more democratically elected Parish Council in the area whose powers and duties are set out in Appendix J.
Under the Localism Act 2011, “eligible” Parish Councils may also have the general power of competence which has been be given to other local authorities by the Act. This is a power to do anything that individuals generally may do, although with some restrictions set out in the legislation. What makes a parish council eligible will depend upon whether it meets conditions yet to be set out in an Order from the Secretary of State.
The present structure of parishes and their electoral arrangements
Consideration has been given to the present parish structure in the County, including parishes, parish wards, ward representation, overall representation, ratios of electors to councillors and rural/urban designation.
Mindful that the group is required by law to consider other forms of community governance as alternatives to parish councils, consideration has been given to other arrangements for community representation or community engagement which already exist in the area, including the Area Action Partnerships, tenants associations, community associations, resident association. A list of the external bodies consulted is attached at Appendix M.
The group is mindful of such other forms of community governance in its consideration of whether parish governance is most appropriate in unparished Crook and the surrounding area. It also notes that what sets parish councils apart from other kinds of governance is the fact that they are a democratically elected tier of local government with directly elected representatives, independent of other council tiers and budgets, and possessing specific powers for which they are democratically accountable.
Page23 61 Other forms of Community Governance Considered
Other forms of community governance consulted upon during the stage 1 consultations included:
• Area/community forums
• Community associations
• Neighbourhood Management
Consideration has been given to the pattern of community representation and community engagement already operating in the area.
In respect of the whole unparished area of Crook (Crook North, South and Central as identified on Map H) only 3% expressed an interest in other forms of community governance.
Boundaries
The Council in drawing up its proposals has tried to ensure that the boundaries between parishes reflect the ‘no-man’s land’ between communities represented by areas of low population or pronounced physical barriers.
The consideration of demographic trends and influences on them, such as new development, has resulted in the realignment of the southern boundary of any Crook Central parish to allow for further housing development
Names and styles of parishes
With regard to the names of parishes, the group recommend that it should always endeavour to reflect existing local or historic place-names.
It is suggested that should parishes be created then the names be as follows:
• Hill Top Villages Parish Council
• Crook Parish Council (once established the parish council can resolve to become a town council).
• Hunwick Parish Council
Warding arrangements of the parish councils for the Crook area
In considering whether to recommend that a parish council be warded, the group took into account, guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission referred to earlier in the report.
Page 62 24 Mindful of the size of any Crook North parish it is not considered appropriate or necessary to apply warding arrangements. Although Sunniside, Billy Row and Stanley are distinct villages, the overall electorate would not make a single election of councillors impracticable and inconvenient. This will be a smaller parish with 1390 electors and the cost of separate ward elections may represent an ineffective use of the parish’s limited resources. The villages are collectively known locally as the Hill Top Villages with a Hill Top Villages Association.
However, as a result of the final recommendations of the LGBCE’s review, Roddymoor is now in the electoral division of Crook North (previously Crook Central). If Roddymoor is to be included in a Crook Central Parish it will be necessary to ward that area.
It is also considered appropriate to ward the area covering High Grange, North Bitchburn, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear to ensure the Councillor spread across the whole area is, as far as possible, consistent. High Grange, Fir Tree and North Bitchburn are small semi-rural villages. The larger village of Howden-le-Wear compares to the urban area of Crook Town. Furthermore, the number of electors and the proposed number of councillors would make an election for the whole of Crook parish impractical and inconvenient.
Hunwick has its own identity and given its size no proposals are put forward to ward that parish council should one be created. A single election for the parish would be practicable and convenient.
Electoral Arrangements
Ordinary year of election
The group suggested that the next ordinary election of parish councillors is 2013, and every 4 years thereafter. This cycle coincides with the cycle for Durham County Council Unitary elections; this enables the costs of elections to be shared.
Size of the parish councils for the Crook area
The minimum legal number of parish councillors for each parish council is five. There is no maximum number and no other legislative guidance in this respect.
Subsequently, in respect of the number of electors consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors of the proposed parish
• Any change in that number which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends
• NALC guidance
Page25 63
• Aston Business School research (1992)
• The Councillor to elector ratios that currently exists across existing parish/town councils in County Durham. See Appendix L.
• Electoral forecasts are attached at appendix A.
• The NALC guidance indicates that local council business does not usually require a large body of councillors but to ensure business convenience it is considered appropriate to suggest the following as practicable councillor numbers per parish council:
• Hill Top Villages Parish Council – 8 Councillors
• Crook Parish (Town) Council – 16 Councillors
• Hunwick Parish Council – 7 Councillors
• In respect of Crook parish, three wards are proposed:
• Roddymoor Ward – 1 Councillor
• Crook Central Ward – 12 Councillors
• Crook South Ward – 3 Councillors
Setting precepts for new parish Councils
The Group is considering what would be an appropriate precept for the new parish councils and these are set out below:
Hill Top Villages Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
Crook Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
Hunwick Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
The group has also considered the remaining electoral arrangements and recommend as follows.
Page 64 26 Suggested commencement dates:
• 1 April 2013 for administrative and financial purposes
• 2 May 2013 ordinary elections for the election of a council and every 4 years thereafter.
Proposals and Recommendations for Consultations for Crook
In summary, the group does not propose to consult on one option alone but that consultation takes place as follows:-
For residents of the area identified as Crook North on Map E:
1. No change.
2. On the formation of a Hill Top Villages Parish Council.
For residents of the area identified as Crook Central on Map F:
1. No change
2. Crook Parish Council including Crook, Roddymoor, Helmington Row, Howden le Wear, North Bitchburn, Fir tree and High Grange with appropriate warding arrangements.
For residents of Hunwick as identified on Map G:
1. No change
2. A Hunwick Parish Council
Further, should the results of the second stage of consultation propose a Crook Parish Council (Map I) then discussions take place with Wolsingham Parish Council in respect of land referred to as “the Kennels”.
15. Equalities
The Equalities Impact Assessment had been reviewed and is attached. The areas where caution is required relate to disabled people and people with reading difficulties (either due to language or disability). To mitigate the impact all reports and documentation will be suitably adapted and provided when requested. Staff will also available at ‘drop in’ centres to assist.
Page27 65 16 The next part of the Consultation Process
The Group is of the view that all the proposed Parish Councils are effective and convenient and reflect the identities of the relevant communities. The Group recommends that the Council, in the next phase of this consultation gives households a choice of viable options or no change so that any arrangements which are made have the broad support of communities.
The group has approved the consultation documents. In addition to the questionnaire and information leaflet being delivered to every household in the area, further information will be displayed on the Council’s website and sent to residents when requested. The consultation document appears at Appendix O.
“Drop In” sessions are also to be held in the area where residents can speak to Officers direct to seek further clarifications on the options available.
17 Recommendations and Reasons
County Council are asked to:
1. Approve the draft recommendations at Appendix P and authorise their publication (including inserting the precepts recommended by the Constitution Working Group). 2. Note the consultation documents and approve the plans for consultation set out in the attached documents.
Background documents
Council Report – 26.10.2011
Contact: Colette Longbottom Tel: 0191 383 5643
Page 66 28
Appendix 1: Implications
Finance – There will be a financial cost in holding Community Governance Reviews, particularly in respect of Consultation. There is no budget provision for undertaking a review of the whole of the Council within twelve months.
Staffing – There will be staffing implications in undertaking Community Governance Reviews with an extra burden on staff from Democratic Services and ACE.
Risk – The risk would be to the reputation of the Council if the process is not viewed as open and transparent. A risk assessment has been undertaken and revisited at stage 2.
Equality and Diversity / Public Sector Equality Duty – An Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken prior to stage consultation 1 and reviewed prior to stage 2 consultations. This will be reviewed during the exercise before any FINAL recommendations are prepared.
Accommodation - None
Crime and Disorder - None
Human Rights - None
Consultation – An essential part of the process and is covered in this report.
Procurement - None
Disability Issues – see Equality and Diversity.
Legal Implications – Legal requirement to complete reviews within 12 months of agreeing Terms of Reference. The legal implications are covered in the report.
Page29 67 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 68 GLOSSARY OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Electoral Forecasts – Crook and Durham
Appendix B – Terms of Reference – Crook and Durham
Appendix C – Questionnaires used at Stage 1
Appendix D – Illustrative Analysis of Responses (Durham)
Appendix E – Illustrative Analysis of Responses (Crook)
Appendix F – Statistical Breakdown of Responses – Durham
Appendix G – Equality Statistics – Durham
Appendix H - Statistical Breakdown of Responses – Crook
Appendix I – Breakdown of Polling Districts – Crook and Durham
Appendix J – Powers and Duties of Parish Councils
Appendix K – List of consulted Outside Bodies – Durham
Appendix L – Councillor/Elector Ratios that currently exist across Parish and Town Councils in County Durham
Appendix M – List of consulted Outside Bodies – Crook
Appendix N – Equality Impact Assessment
Appendix O – Consultation Documents for Crook and Durham
Appendix P – Draft Recommendations for Crook and Durham
Map A – Area it is proposed to transfer to Framwellgate Moor Parish
Map B – Whole of the unparished area of Durham including Newton Hall
Map C – Newton Hall
Map D – Crook (North, South and Central)
Map E – Crook North (Hill Top Villages)
Map F – Crook Central
Map G - Hunwick
Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 70 Polling District electoral projections for Unparished areas of Crook and Durham up to and including 2017 APPENDIX A Notes: (1) - an allowance for committed new development has been made
Former PD type New PD Old PD Notes 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 % change LA code code 2011-17
Durham
20UE PD Unparished DAA AA 2693 2690 2678 2678 2672 2712 5.239 20UE PD Unparished DBA AB 3185 3180 3165 3163 3155 3201 3.059 20UE PD Unparished DCA AC 1399 1414 1424 1440 1454 1493 3.179 20UE PD Unparished DCB AD (1) 253 315 377 441 504 246 19.417 20UE PD Unparished DCC AM 1845 1887 1898 1905 1910 1899 7.41 20UE PD Unparished DCD AP 1013 1017 1017 1021 1023 1043 7.415 20UE PD Unparished DDA AE 1131 1118 1101 1088 1073 1077 -8.34 20UE PD Unparished DDB AF 948 948 944 945 943 958 -8.935 20UE PD Unparished DDC AH 592 591 588 588 586 594 -6.604 20UE PD Unparished DDD AI 494 492 488 487 484 490 -5.039 20UE PD Unparished DDE AJ 403 371 339 307 275 246 -48.211 20UE PD Unparished DEA AG 2798 2763 2720 2688 2650 2656 -10.422 20UE PD Unparished DFA AK (1) 1682 1723 1758 1801 1818 1730 7.387 20UE PD Unparished DFB AL 1172 1172 1169 1170 1169 1188 -1.493 20UE PD Unparished DGA AN (1) 5272 5324 5352 5373 5385 5388 7.395 20UE PD Unparished DGB AO 24 23 22 21 20 19 -24 20UE PD Unparished DND DVA 532 530 527 526 524 531 -0.375 20UE PD Unparished DNE DVB (1) 109 109 108 107 107 108 -0.917
Crook
20UJ PD Unparished NWDSA BA 273 272 270 269 268 272 -0.73 20UJ PD Unparished NWDSB BB (1) 465 492 518 536 538 483 0 20UJ PD Unparished NWDSC BC 619 620 621 623 625 639 -0.156 20UJ PD Unparished NWDTA BQ 244 245 247 249 250 257 7.983 20UJ PD Unparished NWDTB BR 1198 1200 1201 1206 1210 1237 2.316 20UJ PD Unparished NWDUA BD 369 364 359 355 351 354 -5.851 20UJ PD Unparished NWDUB BE 1053 1059 1063 1071 1077 1105 6.25 20UJ PD Unparished NWDVA BF 1227 1206 1184 1167 1149 1153 -7.464 20UJ PD Unparished NWDVB BG 363 360 356 354 352 357 -3.774 20UJ PD Unparished NWDVC BH (1) 2720 2779 2850 2930 2978 2991 9.48 Page 71 20UJ PD Unparished NWDWA BO 954 942 929 920 910 917 -6.714 20UJ PD Unparished NWDWB BP 992 986 978 974 969 984 -2.767 20UJ PD Unparished NWDWC BW 322 315 309 304 298 299 -11.538 20UJ PD Unparished NWDZA BT 343 350 356 363 370 385 13.235 20UJ PD Unparished NWDZB BU1 140 140 139 139 139 141 6.015 20UJ PD Unparished NWDZC BV 1116 1132 1146 1163 1179 1219 12.04 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 72 APPENDIX B
CROOK COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW TERMS OF REFERENCE
Introduction
In July 2011 Durham County Council resolved to undertake a community governance review, commencing on 1 November 2011, covering the unparished area of Crook and the surrounding area.
In undertaking the Review, the Council will be guided by Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the relevant parts of the Local Government Act 1972, Guidance on Community Governance Reviews issued in accordance with section 100(4) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 by the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in March 2010, and the following regulations which guide, in particular, consequential matters arising from the Review: Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI2008/625); Local Government Finance (New Parishes) Regulations 2008 (SI2008/626). (The 2007 Act has transferred powers to the principal councils which previously, under the Local Government Act 1997, had been shared with the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee for England).
The County Council has also given due consideration and carefully considered the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government published in 2008.
What is a community governance review
A Community Governance Review is a legal process whereby the Council will consult with electors and other interested parties on the most suitable ways of representing the people in the unparished areas of Crook.
This means making sure that electors and other interested groups have a say in how local services are delivered in their area. Electors will receive an information sheet and questionnaire which can be returned in a freepost envelope or by completing a Governance Review questionnaire online.
A community governance review can consider one or more of the following options:
• creating, merging, altering or abolishing parishes; • the naming of parishes and the style of new parishes and the creation of town councils; • the electoral arrangements for parishes (for instance, the ordinary year of election; council size; the number of councillors to be elected to the council, and parish warding);
Page 73 • grouping parishes under a common parish council or de-grouping parishes; • other types of local arrangements
The Council is required to ensure that community governance within the area under review:
• will be reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area; • will consider what community governance arrangement is effective and convenient to the community in that area; • will consider what other arrangements there could be for the purpose of community governance or engagement; • will consider the size, population and boundaries of the local community or parish.
Why is the council undertaking the review
Residents of Crook have shown significant interest in the possible creation of a parish council with the submission of a valid petition, containing the required number of signatures of eligible electors, entitled ‘Petition for a New Parish Council’ which states:
“we the undersigned, each being a local government elector for the area of the following proposed new parish council, in pursuance of the rights conferred upon us by the above act of parliament, hereby request you to constitute a local government parish council for the neighbourhood of Crook, the area of which shall be the same as that outlined on the attached map, the electoral ward of Crook South, Crook North and Wheatbottom and Helmington Row wards and other areas which are shaded in on the attached maps of Wear Valley District Council, in the County of Durham, such new parish council to be called Crook Parish Council”.
This review will consider whether:
• a new Crook Parish Council should be created for the area identified within the petition and illustrated on the attached plan; • more than one new town or parish council should be created in the unparished area of Crook; • the merging of part of the unparished area with an existing parish council(s) • any other alternative forms of community governance should be created.
Who is undertaking the review
Durham County Council is responsible for undertaking any review within its electoral area. The full Council is responsible for agreeing the terms of reference for the review and agreeing the draft and final recommendations prior to any Community Governance Order being made.
Page 74 The County Council has delegated a number of functions to a working group which will oversee the review process, propose terms of reference, initial options for consideration and produce recommendations for consideration by the full Council.
Consultation
The Council has drawn up and now publishes these Terms of Reference. This document sets out the aims of the review, the legislation that guides it and some of the policies the Council considers important in the review. In coming to its recommendations in a review, the Council needs to take account of the view of the local people.
The Council recognises that the development of strong, sustainable communities depends on residents’ active participation in decision making and making a positive contribution to improving the place where they live. The Council is therefore committed to engaging effectively with the diverse communities it serves and to enabling local people to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their lives, where all people feel able to take an active part in influencing service delivery.
The Council intends to undertake extensive consultation with electors and stakeholders in the area, including local business, schools and colleges, community associations, local county councillors, tenants and residents associations, voluntary groups and societies. Neighbouring Parish Council’s will also be consulted.
In addition to this the Council will also:
• provide an electronic leaflet and questionnaire and other information on it’s website and other social networking sites; • produce an information leaflet and questionnaire which will be sent to all households in the review area; • publish an article in the Autumn/Winter edition of the Council’s residents magazine ‘Durham County News’; • publish relevant statutory notices within the local media;
The initial consultation period (detailed in the review timetable) will end on 31 December 2011. Any representations on the review must be received by that date or they may not be considered.
The Council will also be pleased to receive comments from any other person or body that wishes to make representation during the initial submission.
The Council intends to clearly publish all decisions taken during the review, give reasons for taking such decisions and conduct the process transparently so that local people and local stakeholders who may have an interest are made aware of the outcome of the decisions taken on them and the reason.
Page 75
How to contact us
Representations should be sent to:-
Freepost RSSZ-SYUS-ERXZ Democratic Services Room 1/142 Durham County Council County Hall DURHAM DH1 5UL
or alternatively, written representation can be submitted by email to [email protected] or can be completed online at www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance
Further information about the review is available on the Council’s website and its social network pages, detailed below: www.durham.gov.uk www.facebook.com/durhamcouncil www.twitter.com/durhamcouncil
Timetable for the review
Action Time Dates Span Publication of Terms of 1 November 2011 Reference Invitation of initial submissions Two 1 November 2011 to 31 December months 2011 Analysis/evaluation of Two 1 January 2012 to 21 March 2012 submissions and preparation months of draft proposals Publication of draft proposals 1 April 2012
Consultation on draft Two 1 April 2012 to 30 May 2012 proposals months
Analysis/evaluation of draft 31 July 2012 proposals and preparation of final proposals Publication of final 1 October 2012 recommendations Preparation and publication of Two 1 November 2012 any reorganisation Order months Election date May 2013
Page 76 When considering its final proposals the Council will, in the event of the creation of (a) new parish/town council(s) being recommended, give consideration to the electoral arrangements to be applied, which will include:
• Council size • Council name • Ordinary year of election • Warding arrangements
Previously unparished areas
The Council is required by law to consider other forms of community governance as alternatives or stages towards establishing parish councils. There may be other arrangements for community representation or community engagement in an area, including area committees, neighbourhood management programmes, tenant management organisations, area or community forums, residents and tenants associations or community associations, which may be more appropriate to some areas than parish councils, or may provide stages building towards the creation of a parish council, which are already successfully creating opportunities for engagement, empowerment and co-ordination in local communities.
The Council will be mindful of such other forms of community governance in its consideration of whether parish governance is most appropriate in certain areas. However, the Council also notes that what sets parish councils apart from other kinds of governance is the fact that they are a democratically elected tier of local government with directly elected representatives, independent of other council tiers and budgets, and possessing specific powers for which they are democratically accountable.
Order and commencement
The Review will be completed when the Council publishes its final recommendations.
In the event of a Reorganisation of Community Governance Order being required, the provisions of such an order would take effect from 1 April 2013 for financial and administrative purposes. The electoral arrangements for the possible formation of any new or revised arrangements for an existing town or parish council will come into force at the local town and parish council elections in May 2013.
Publication of terms of reference
These Terms of Reference will be published on the Durham County Council website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance and are available for inspection at the offices of the Council.
Date of publication 1 November 2011.
Page 77
Page 78
APPENDIX B
DURHAM CITY COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW TERMS OF REFERENCE
Introduction
In July 2011 Durham County Council resolved to undertake a community governance review, commencing on 1 November 2011, covering the unparished areas of Durham City and the immediate surrounding area.
In undertaking the Review, the Council will be guided by Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the relevant parts of the Local Government Act 1972, Guidance on Community Governance Reviews issued in accordance with section 100(4) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 by the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in March 2010, and the following regulations which guide, in particular, consequential matters arising from the Review: Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI2008/625); Local Government Finance (New Parishes) Regulations 2008 (SI2008/626). (The 2007 Act has transferred powers to the principal councils which previously, under the Local Government Act 1997, had been shared with the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee for England).
The County Council has also given due consideration and carefully considered the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government published in 2008.
What is a community governance review
A Community Governance Review is a legal process whereby the Council will consult with electors and other interested parties on the most suitable ways of representing the people in the unparished areas of Durham City.
This means making sure that electors and other interested groups have a say in how local services are delivered in their area. Electors will receive an information sheet and questionnaire which can be returned in a freepost envelope or by completing a Governance Review questionnaire online.
A community governance review can consider one or more of the following options:
• creating, merging, altering or abolishing parishes; • the naming of parishes and the style of new parishes and the creation of town councils; • the electoral arrangements for parishes (for instance, the ordinary year of election; council size; the number of councillors to be elected to the council, and parish warding);
Page 79
• grouping parishes under a common parish council or de-grouping parishes; • other types of local arrangements.
The Council is required to ensure that community governance within the area under review:
• will be reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area; • will consider what community governance arrangement is effective and convenient to the community in that area; • will consider what other arrangements there could be for the purpose of community governance or engagement; • will consider the size, population and boundaries of the local community or parish.
Additionally, any proposals to create a parish or parish council which may cover all or part of a charter trustee area need to be judged in particular against the following considerations:
• the effect on the historic cohesiveness of the area • what are the other community interests in the area? • is there a demonstrable sense of community identity encompassing the charter trustee area? • are there smaller areas within it which have a demonstrable community identity and which would be viable as administrative units?
Why is the council undertaking the review
Residents of Durham City have shown significant interest in the possible creation of a town council with the submission of a petition entitled ‘Petition to Create a Durham Town Council’ which states:
“pursuant to Community Guidance Review under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007: we the undersigned, each being a local government elector for the area of the following proposed new Town Council, hereby request the creation of a Town Council, the area of which shall cover the electoral wards of Newton Hall, Framwellgate, Gilesgate, Nevilles Cross, Elvet and Pelaw as outlined on the attached map (marked Proposed Durham Council Map; traced from Ordnance Survey original) and such new Town Council shall be called Durham Town Council”.
The petition submitted for the Durham City area did not include the required number of signatures of eligible electors and was therefore invalid. The County Council does however acknowledge the existence of the petition and the validated signatories provides evidence of the wishes of that section of the community.
This review will consider whether:
Page 80
• a new Durham Town Council should be created (identified within the petition and illustrated on the attached plan) for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City; • more than one new town or parish council should be created in the unparished area of Durham City; • the merging of part of the unparished area with an existing parish council(s) • any other alternative forms of community governance should be created.
Who is undertaking the review
Durham County Council is responsible for undertaking any review within its electoral area. The full Council is responsible for agreeing the terms of reference for the review and agreeing the draft and final recommendations prior to any Community Governance Order being made.
The County Council has delegated a number of functions to a working group which will oversee the review process, propose terms of reference, initial options for consideration and produce recommendations for consideration by the full Council.
Consultation
The Council has drawn up and now publishes these Terms of Reference. This document sets out the aims of the review, the legislation that guides it and some of the policies the Council considers important in the review. In coming to its recommendations in a review, the Council needs to take account of the view of the local people.
The Council recognises that the development of strong, sustainable communities depends on residents’ active participation in decision making and making a positive contribution to improving the place where they live. The Council is therefore committed to engaging effectively with the diverse communities it serves and to enabling local people to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their lives, where all people feel able to take an active part in influencing service delivery.
The Council intends to undertake extensive consultation with electors and stakeholders in the area, including local business, schools and colleges, community associations, local county councillors, tenants and residents associations, voluntary groups and societies. Neighbouring Parish Council’s will also be consulted.
In addition to this the Council will also:
• provide an electronic leaflet and questionnaire and other information on it’s website and other social networking sites;
• produce an information leaflet and questionnaire which will be sent to all households in the review area;
Page 81
• publish an article in the Autumn/Winter edition of the Council’s residents magazine ‘Durham County News’;
• publish relevant statutory notices within the local media;
The initial consultation period (detailed in the review timetable) will end on 31 December 2011. Any representations on the review must be received by that date or they may not be considered.
The Council will also be pleased to receive comments from any other person or body that wishes to make representation during the initial submission.
The Council intends to clearly publish all decisions taken during the review, give reasons for taking such decisions and conduct the process transparently so that local people and local stakeholders who may have an interest are made aware of the outcome of the decisions taken on them and the reason.
How to contact us
Representations should be sent to:-
Freepost RSSZ-SYUS-ERXZ Democratic Services Room 1/142 Durham County Council County Hall DURHAM DH1 5UL
or alternatively, written representation can be submitted by email to [email protected] or can be completed online at www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance
Further information about the review is available on the Council’s website and its social network pages, detailed below: www.durham.gov.uk www.facebook.com/durhamcouncil www.twitter.com/durhamcouncil
Page 82
Timetable for the review
Action Time Dates Span Publication of Terms of 1 November 2011 Reference Invitation of initial submissions Two 1 November 2011 to 31 December months 2011 Analysis/evaluation of Two 1 January 2012 to 21 March 2012 submissions and preparation months of draft proposals Publication of draft proposals 1 April 2012
Consultation on draft Two 1 April 2012 to 30 May 2012 proposals months
Analysis/evaluation of draft 31 July 2012 proposals and preparation of final proposals Publication of final 1 October 2012 recommendations Preparation and publication of Two 1 November 2012 any reorganisation Order months Election date May 2013
When considering its final proposals the Council will, in the event of the creation of (a) new parish/town council(s) being recommended, give consideration to the electoral arrangements to be applied, which will include:
• Council size • Council name • Ordinary year of election • Warding arrangements
Previously unparished areas
The Council is required by law to consider other forms of community governance as alternatives or stages towards establishing parish councils. There may be other arrangements for community representation or community engagement in an area, including area committees, neighbourhood management programmes, tenant management organisations, area or community forums, residents and tenants associations or community associations, which may be more appropriate to some areas than parish councils, or may provide stages building towards the creation of a parish council, which are already successfully creating opportunities for engagement, empowerment and co-ordination in local communities.
Page 83
The Council will be mindful of such other forms of community governance in its consideration of whether parish governance is most appropriate in certain areas. However, the Council also notes that what sets parish councils apart from other kinds of governance is the fact that they are a democratically elected tier of local government with directly elected representatives, independent of other council tiers and budgets, and possessing specific powers for which they are democratically accountable.
Order and commencement
The Review will be completed when the Council publishes its final recommendations.
In the event of a Reorganisation of Community Governance Order being required, the provisions of such an order would take effect from 1 April 2013 for financial and administrative purposes. The electoral arrangements for the possible formation of any new or revised arrangements for an existing town or parish council will come into force at the local town and parish council elections in May 2013.
Publication of terms of reference
These Terms of Reference will be published on the Durham County Council website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance and are available for inspection at the offices of the Council.
Date of publication
1 November 2011.
Page 84
Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 86 Appendix C Community Governance Review Survey
Please see the information leaflet for a map of the unparished area.
1. Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area shown as Crook Central on the map
New parish council for the area of Crook Central Part of a Crook Town Council Part of another parish or town council No change to current arrangements Alternative arrangements
If you have indicated ‘alternative arrangements’, please give details below.
2. Would you like to make any other comments on this community governance review?
3. Please give your postcode below. (Failure to provide your post code will result in your questionnaire being disregarded).
Page 87 Our aim is to involve as many people as possible in local decision making and, as such, we would like to make sure everyone has the opportunity to become involved. We also have specific responsibilities to ensure that certain groups protected by equality legislation are included. If you could answer a few questions about yourself it will help us monitor our performance. Your answers will be confidential and we will only use the information for this consultation. However, these questions are entirely optional.
What is your gender? Male Female
What is your age?
______Years old
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? (This may include any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity which has a substantial effect on your day to day life. Long-standing means that it has lasted, or is likely to last, for over a year.) Yes No
What is your ethnicity?
What is your religion or belief? Christian Muslim Hindu Sikh
Jewish Buddhist None Other, please state
How would you describe your sexuality? Heterosexual/straight Gay woman/lesbian Gay man
Bisexual Other, please state
Following the results of this questionnaire our draft proposals are envisaged to be available for consultation between the 1 March and the 30 April 2012. You will be invited to comment on draft proposals during this period.
Page 88
Community Governance Review Survey
Please see the information leaflet for a map of the unparished area.
1. Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area shown as Crook North on the map
New parish council for the area of Crook North Part of a Crook Town Council Part of another parish or town council No change to current arrangements Alternative arrangements
If you have indicated ‘alternative arrangements’, please give details below.
2. Would you like to make any other comments on this community governance review?
3. Please give your postcode below. (Failure to provide your post code will result in your questionnaire being disregarded).
Page 89 Our aim is to involve as many people as possible in local decision making and, as such, we would like to make sure everyone has the opportunity to become involved. We also have specific responsibilities to ensure that certain groups protected by equality legislation are included. If you could answer a few questions about yourself it will help us monitor our performance. Your answers will be confidential and we will only use the information for this consultation. However, these questions are entirely optional.
What is your gender? Male Female
What is your age?
______Years old
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? (This may include any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity which has a substantial effect on your day to day life. Long-standing means that it has lasted, or is likely to last, for over a year.) Yes No
What is your ethnicity?
What is your religion or belief? Christian Muslim Hindu Sikh
Jewish Buddhist None Other, please state
How would you describe your sexuality? Heterosexual/straight Gay woman/lesbian Gay man
Bisexual Other, please state
Following the results of this questionnaire our draft proposals are envisaged to be available for consultation between the 1 March and the 30 April 2012. You will be invited to comment on draft proposals during this period.
Page 90 Community Governance Review Survey
Please see the information leaflet for a map of the unparished area.
1. Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area shown as Crook South on the map
New parish council for the area of Crook South Part of a Crook Town Council Part of another parish or town council No change to current arrangements Alternative arrangements
If you have indicated ‘alternative arrangements’, please give details below.
2. Would you like to make any other comments on this community governance review?
3. Please give your postcode below. (Failure to provide your post code will result in your questionnaire being disregarded).
Page 91 Our aim is to involve as many people as possible in local decision making and, as such, we would like to make sure everyone has the opportunity to become involved. We also have specific responsibilities to ensure that certain groups protected by equality legislation are included. If you could answer a few questions about yourself it will help us monitor our performance. Your answers will be confidential and we will only use the information for this consultation. However, these questions are entirely optional.
What is your gender? Male Female
What is your age?
______Years old
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? (This may include any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity which has a substantial effect on your day to day life. Long-standing means that it has lasted, or is likely to last, for over a year.) Yes No
What is your ethnicity?
What is your religion or belief? Christian Muslim Hindu Sikh
Jewish Buddhist None Other, please state
How would you describe your sexuality? Heterosexual/straight Gay woman/lesbian Gay man
Bisexual Other, please state
Following the results of this questionnaire our draft proposals are envisaged to be available for consultation between the 1 March and the 30 April 2012. You will be invited to comment on draft proposals during this period.
Page 92
APPENDIX C
Community Governance Review Survey
Please see the information leaflet for a map of the unparished area.
1. Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City?
Parish council Alternative to parish council No additional form of community governance
2. If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged?
One parish for the whole of the unparished area of Durham. Go to Q4 More than one parish council based around neighbourhoods, for example, housing estates such as Newton Hall or areas such as Nevilles Cross. Go to Q3
3. If you think “more than one parish council” is the best option, how many parish councils should be created and what area should they cover?
How many parish councils:
Areas covered:
4. Would you like to make any other comments on this community governance review?
5. Please give your postcode below. (failure to provide your postcode will result in your questionnaire being disregarded).
Page 93
Our aim is to involve as many people as possible in local decision making and, as such, we would like to make sure everyone has the opportunity to become involved. We also have specific responsibilities to ensure that certain groups protected by equality legislation are included. If you could answer a few questions about yourself it will help us monitor our performance. Your answers will be confidential and we will only use the information for this consultation. However, these questions are entirely optional.
What is your gender? Male Female
What is your age?
______Years old
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? (This may include any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity which has a substantial effect on your day to day life. Long-standing means that it has lasted, or is likely to last, for over a year.) Yes No
What is your ethnicity?
What is your religion or belief? Christian Muslim Hindu Sikh
Jewish Buddhist None Other, please state below
How would you describe your sexuality? Heterosexual/straight Gay woman/lesbian Gay man
Bisexual Other, please state
Following the results of this questionnaire our draft proposals are envisaged to be available for consultation between the 1 March and the 30 April 2012. You will be invited to comment on draft proposals during this period.
Page 94 APPE DIX D
Area: Full unparished area of Durham City
Returns: 1,334 Properties: 11,331 Response rate for area: 11.8% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (59.8%, 64.6%)
Fig. 1: A graph showing responses to Q1. 80%
62.2%
40% 28.9%
8.9%
0% Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 2: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 60.0%
More than one 40.0% parish
0% 40% 80%
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 95 Fig. 3: A graph showing the number of parishes suggested.
35% 30.3% 30%
25% 23.2% 20.7% 20%
15% 10.3% 10%
5% 3.0%
0% Two Three Four Five Six + Fig. 4: A map of unparished area of Durham City.
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 96 Area: ewton Hall
Returns: 412 Properties: 3,492 Response rate for area: 11.8% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (48.0%, 57.0%)
Fig. 5: A graph showing responses to Q1. 80%
52.5%
41.1% 40%
6.4%
0% Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 6: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 44.2%
More than one 55.8% parish
0% 40% 80%
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 97 Fig. 7: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
14.4%
8.5% Newton Hall alone North alone Join another parish Other 15.4% 61.7%
Fig. 8: A map of unparished area of Newton Hall.
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 98 Area: orth End
Returns: 92 Properties: 548 Response rate for area: 16.8% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (66.3%, 82.5%)
Fig. 9: A graph showing responses to Q1. 80% 74.4%
40%
15.6% 10.0%
0% Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 10: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 71.4%
More than one 28.6% parish
0% 40% 80%
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 99 Fig. 11: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
17.6%
North End alone 11.7% West alone Join another parish 0.0% Other
70.7%
Fig. 12: A map of unparished area of North End.
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 100 Area: Western Hill
Returns: 26 Properties: 145 Response rate for area: 17.9% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (67.0%, 94.6%)
Fig. 13: A graph showing responses to Q1. 100%
80.8%
50%
15.4%
3.8% 0% Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 14: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 86.4%
More than one 13.6% parish
0% 50% 100%
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 101 Fig. 15: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
0.0%
Western Hill alone 50.0% 50.0% West alone Join another parish Other
0.0%
Fig. 16: A map of unparished area of Western Hill.
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 102 Area: Crossgate
Returns: 66 Properties: 401 Response rate for area: 16.5% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (52.4%, 73.8%)
Fig. 17: A graph showing responses to Q1. 80%
63.1%
40%
26.2%
10.8%
0% Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 18: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 66.7%
More than one 33.3% parish
0% 40% 80%
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 103 Fig. 19: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
7.7% 7.7% 0.0%
Crossgate alone West alone Join another parish Other
84.6%
Fig. 20: A map of unparished area of Crossgate.
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 104 Area: eville’s Cross
Returns: 190 Properties: 1,188 Response rate for area: 16.0% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (53.7%, 66.5%)
Fig. 21: A graph showing responses to Q1. 80%
60.1%
40% 30.3%
9.6%
0% Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 22: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 59.9%
More than one 40.1% parish
0% 40% 80%
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 105 Fig. 23: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
31.9%
Neville's Cross alone West alone Join another parish 59.3% Other
8.8% 0.0%
Fig. 24: A map of unparished area of Neville’s Cross.
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 106 Area: Gilesgate
Returns: 135 Properties: 2,324 Response rate for area: 5.8% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (48.6%, 65.2%)
Fig. 25: A graph showing responses to Q1. 100%
56.9%
50%
32.3%
10.8%
0% Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 26: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 65.9%
More than one 34.1% parish
0% 100%
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 107 Fig. 27: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
32.2% 42.8%
Gilesgate alone East alone Join another parish Other
0.0% 25.0%
Fig. 28: A map of unparished area of Gilesgate.
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 108 Area of contention
ewton Hall
Fig. 29: A graph showing combined responses to Q2 and Q3.
60%
50% 48.4% 44.2%
40%
30%
20%
10% 7.4%
0% Part of Durham City 2+ parishes: Newton 2+ parishes: Newton Parish Hall/North alone Hall/North not alone
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 109 Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 110 Further Information: Proposed Dryburn to Framwellgate Moor.
Returns: 7 Properties: 98 Response rate for area: 7.1% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (60.6%, 100.0%)
Fig. 25: A graph showing responses to Q1.
7 6 6
5
4
3
2 1 1 0 0 Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 26: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 7
More than one 0 parish
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 111 Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 112
Further Information: Proposed Brackenfield to Framwellgate Moor.
Returns: 23 Properties: 331 Response rate for area: 6.9% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (36.6%, 77.6%)
Fig. 25: A graph showing responses to Q1.
14 12 12
10
8 7
6
4 2 2
0 Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 26: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 4
More than one 10 parish
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 113 Fig. 27: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
2
3
Join another parish Other
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 114 Further Information: Aykley Vale to Framwellgate Moor.
Returns: 7 Properties: 30 Response rate for area: 23.3% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘Parish council’: (35.6%, 97.8%)
Fig. 25: A graph showing responses to Q1.
5
4 4
3 3
2
1
0 0 Parish council Alternative to parish No additional council governance
Fig. 26: A graph showing responses to Q2.
One parish 2
More than one 4 parish
0 1 2 3 4 5
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 115 Fig. 27: A pie chart of proposed parish areas.
0
Join another parish Other
2
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 116 APPE DIX E
Area: Full unparished area of Crook
Returns: 860 Properties: 7,340 Response rate for area: 11.7% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (48.9%, 55.3%)
Fig. 1: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
3%
22%
New parish council for the area of Crook North/Central/South Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements 52% Alternative arrangements 20%
3%
Fig. 2: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 50% 45% 41%
25%
6% 7%
0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook town/parish council arrangements North/Central/South
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 117 Fig. 3: A map of unparished area of Crook.
Page 118Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Crook orth
Returns: 94 Properties: 817 Response rate for area: 11.5% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (34.6%, 53.6%)
Fig. 4: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
2%
24%
New parish council for the area of Crook North Crook Town Council
44% Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements 12% Alternative arrangements
18%
Fig. 5: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 50%
42%
33%
25% 21%
4%
0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook North town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 119 Fig. 6: A map of Crook North.
Page 120Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Crook Central
Returns: 567 Properties: 4,953 Response rate for area: 11.4% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (51.2%, 59.0%)
Fig. 7: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
3%
21%
New parish council for the area of Crook Central Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements
55% Alternative arrangements 20%
1%
Fig. 8: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed.
50% 47% 45%
25%
6%
2% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook town/parish council arrangements Central
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 121 Fig. 9: A map of Crook Central.
Page 122Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Crook South
Returns: 199 Properties: 1,570 Response rate for area: 12.7% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (40.8%, 54.0%)
Fig. 10: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
6%
22%
New parish council for the area of Crook South Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements 47% Alternative arrangements
23%
2%
Fig. 11: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 50%
44% 41%
25%
11%
4%
0% New parish council for the Crook Town Council Part of another town/parish Alternative arrangements area of Crook South council
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 123 Fig. 12: A map of Crook South.
Page 124Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Helmington Row
Returns: 10 Properties: 116 Response rate for area: 8.6% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (20.2%, 79.8%)
Fig. 13: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
0%
New parish council for the area of Crook Central Crook Town Council
50% 50% Part of another town/parish council No change to current arrangements
Alternative arrangements
0% 0%
Fig. 14: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 100% 100%
50%
0% 0% 0% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook town/parish council arrangements Central
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 125 Fig. 15: A map of Helmington Row.
Page 126Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Hunwick
Returns: 57 Properties: 595 Response rate for area: 9.6% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (46.6%, 71.2%)
Fig. 16: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
2%
29%
New parish council for the area of Crook South Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements
Alternative arrangements 59% 9%
2%
Fig. 17: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 80%
70%
40%
22%
4% 4% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook South town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 127 Fig. 18: A map of Hunwick.
Page 128Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Hill Top Villages
Returns: 34 Properties: 498 Response rate for area: 6.8% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (49.2%, 80.2%)
Fig. 19: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
3% 15%
New parish council for the area of Crook North 12% Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements 6% Alternative arrangements
65%
Fig. 20: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 50%
42%
33%
25%
17%
8%
0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook North town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 129 Fig. 21: A map of the Hill Top Villages.
Page 130Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Billy Row
Returns: 48 Properties: 346 Response rate for area: 13.9% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (29.4%, 55.8%)
Fig. 22: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
2%
34% New parish council for the area of Crook North Crook Town Council 43% Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements
Alternative arrangements
17% 4%
Fig. 23: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 80%
59%
40%
30%
7% 4% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook North town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 131 Fig. 24: A map of Billy Row
Page 132Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Roddymoor
Returns: 17 Properties: 198 Response rate for area: 8.6% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (13.5%, 57.1%)
Fig. 25: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
0% 18%
35% New parish council for the area of Crook Central Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements
Alternative arrangements
0%
47%
Fig. 26: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 80% 73%
40%
27%
0% 0% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook town/parish council arrangements Central
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 133 Fig. 27: A map of Roddymoor.
Page 134Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: orth Bitchburn
Returns: 6 Properties: 70 Response rate for area: 9.2% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (18.3%, 100.0%)
Fig. 28: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
0% 0%
New parish council for the area of 40% Crook South Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements
60% Alternative arrangements
0%
Fig. 29: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 100% 100%
50%
0% 0% 0% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook South town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 135 Fig. 30: A map of North Bitchburn.
Page 136Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: High Grange
Returns: 10 Properties: 65 Response rate for area: 15.4% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (25.2%, 86.0%)
Fig. 31: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
0% 11%
New parish council for the area of Crook South Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
56% 33% No change to current arrangements
Alternative arrangements
0%
Fig. 32: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed.
80% 75%
40%
25%
0% 0% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook South town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 137 Fig. 33: A map of High Grange.
Page 138Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Fir Tree
Returns: 26 Properties: 138 Response rate for area: 18.8% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (18.1%, 51.1%)
Fig. 34: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
12% 15%
New parish council for the area of Crook South Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements 35% 31% Alternative arrangements
8%
Fig. 35: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 50% 47%
25% 24%
18%
12%
0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook South town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 139 Fig. 36: A map of Fir Tree.
Page 140Population figures quoted (October 2011) Area: Howden le Wear
Returns: 77 Properties: 633 Response rate for area: 12.2% Confidence Interval (properties) for ‘No change’: (32.5%, 53.3%)
Fig. 37: Pie chart showing responses to Q1.
7%
23%
New parish council for the area of Crook South Crook Town Council
Part of another town/parish council
No change to current arrangements 43% Alternative arrangements
26%
1%
Fig. 38: Graph showing responses to Q1 with ‘No change’ removed. 50% 45%
41%
25%
11%
2% 0% New parish council for Crook Town Council Part of another Alternative the area of Crook South town/parish council arrangements
Population figures quoted (October 2011) Page 141 Fig. 39: A map of Howden le Wear.
Page 142Population figures quoted (October 2011) Appendix F
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 830 61.0 62.2 62.2 Alternative to parish council 119 8.8 8.9 71.1 No additional form of 385 28.3 28.9 100.0 governance Total 1334 98.1 100.0 Missing -99 26 1.9 Total 1360 100.0
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 581 42.7 60.0 60.0 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 387 28.5 40.0 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 968 71.2 100.0 Missing -99 392 28.8 Total 1360 100.0
Page 143
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One 18 4.7 6.6 6.6 One or two 1 .3 .4 7.0 Two 82 21.2 30.3 37.3 Two or three 1 .3 .4 37.6 Three 63 16.3 23.2 60.9 Three or four 1 .3 .4 61.3 Four 56 14.5 20.7 81.9 Four or five 6 1.6 2.2 84.1 Five 28 7.2 10.3 94.5 Six 7 1.8 2.6 97.0 Seven 3 .8 1.1 98.2 Twelve 3 .8 1.1 99.3 Sixteen 1 .3 .4 99.6 One hundred 1 .3 .4 100.0 Total 271 70.0 100.0 Missing -99.0 116 30.0 Total 387 100.0
Page 144
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Newton 29 9.1% 9.7% Hall alone Estates picked out: Neville's 10 3.1% 3.3% Cross alone Estates picked out: Newton 4 1.3% 1.3% Hall/Neville's Cross Estates picked out: Newton 11 3.5% 3.7% Hall/Neville's Cross/Gilesgate Two areas: North/South 14 4.4% 4.7% Two areas: East/West 5 1.6% 1.7% Two areas: Newton 38 11.9% 12.7% Hall/Durham City Three areas: 4 1.3% 1.3% North/East/West Three areas: 8 2.5% 2.7% North/Centre/South Three areas: Newton 10 3.1% 3.3% Hall/Centre/South Three areas: Newton 3 .9% 1.0% Hall/Elvet & Gilesgate/South Three areas: Newton 6 1.9% 2.0% Hall/Gilesgate & Centre/West & South
Three areas: Newton 11 3.5% 3.7% Hall/Gilesgate/Durham City Three areas: Newton 16 5.0% 5.3% Hall/Neville's Cross (or NW)/Durham City
Page 145 Four areas: 12 3.8% 4.0% Centre/North/South/East Four areas: 8 2.5% 2.7% Centre/North/West/East Four areas: 19 6.0% 6.3% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/Durham City Four areas: 9 2.8% 3.0% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/South Five areas: 8 2.5% 2.7% Centre/North/South/East/We st Five areas: 12 3.8% 4.0% Gilesgate/Central Durham/Newton Hall/North End/Elsewhere Five areas: 12 3.8% 4.0% Gilesgate/Neville's Cross/Newton Hall/North End/South 6+ areas: 6 1.9% 2.0% Pelaw/Gilesgate/Elvet/Cross gate/Neville's Cross/Claypath/Framwellgat e/Newton Hall/Freeman's Quay/Centre Join outer parish: Newton 8 2.5% 2.7% Hall join Framwellgate/Durham City Join outer parish: Newton 1 .3% .3% Hall/Gilesgate join Sherburn/Durham City Join outer parish: Newton 6 1.9% 2.0% Hall join Framwellgate Moor Other: Church or school 2 .6% .7% areas Other: Similar 1 .3% .3% socio-economic areas Other: Each distinct 26 8.2% 8.7% neighbourhood area
Page 146 Other: Not divided by 2 .6% .7% geographical obstructions Other: Based on population 5 1.6% 1.7% Other: Durham City remain 1 .3% .3% unparished Four areas: 1 .3% .3% North/South/West/Centre Other: Two/three a street 1 .3% .3% 6+ Estates: Newton 1 .3% .3% Hall/North End/Neville's Cross & Crossgate/South/Centre/Gil esgate Estates picked out: North 1 .3% .3% End Estates picked out: 1 .3% .3% Gilesgate/Newton Hall Comment not related to 6 1.9% 2.0% question Total 318 100.0% 106.0% a. Group
Page 147
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 77 12.9% 17.1% personal/taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 56 9.4% 12.4% governance is a waste of money Money: The council should 4 .7% .9% pay extra money required
Money: No subsidising 3 .5% .7% students Favours single: Important to 38 6.4% 8.4% create new city council Favours single: Single 10 1.7% 2.2% parish has more influence Favours single: Single 3 .5% .7% parish more effective Favours multiple: Durham 7 1.2% 1.6% City too large for one parish Favours multiple: Parishes 6 1.0% 1.3% can be split for particular needs Criticisms: Critical of AAP 1 .2% .2% Criticisms: Critical of unitary 6 1.0% 1.3% authority performance Criticisms: Critical of review 21 3.5% 4.7% Criticisms: Critical of 2 .3% .4% repeating unitary process Criticisms: Critical of 33 5.5% 7.3% consultation Criticisms: Critical of 8 1.3% 1.8% previous local governance consultation
Criticisms: Critical of local 7 1.2% 1.6% governance
Page 148 Criticisms: A means for the 8 1.3% 1.8% self-interested to get involved Criticisms: Critical of time to 1 .2% .2% assess status quo Criticisms: Too many 11 1.8% 2.4% councillors already Criticisms: Too high a 1 .2% .2% transient/student population in Durham Criticisms: Reduces unitary 3 .5% .7% authority's powers Criticisms: New level of 46 7.7% 10.2% governance unnecessary Favours process: Local 75 12.6% 16.6% representation/control important Favours process: Review is 36 6.1% 8.0% democratic Favours process: Eases 3 .5% .7% pressure on unitary authority Favours process: Results in 1 .2% .2% officers for local requirements Favours process: 3 .5% .7% Harmonise governance boundaries Other governance: Prefer 13 2.2% 2.9% neighbourhood management Other governance: In favour 12 2.0% 2.7% of community associations Other governance: Unsure 7 1.2% 1.6% what is correct for area Durham City comment: 20 3.4% 4.4% Heritage/tourism important Durham City comment: 19 3.2% 4.2% Need to keep city's identity Criticisms: Abolish all parish 1 .2% .2% councils
Page 149 Other governance: 1 .2% .2% Area/community forums Favours process: County 1 .2% .2% Council too big Critisisms: Residents' 1 .2% .2% associations undemocratic Durham City comment: 2 .3% .4% University need input Other governance: Town 8 1.3% 1.8% council Favours process: Must be 2 .3% .4% democratically elected Money: County to pay for 2 .3% .4% civic duties Money: Should be an upper 2 .3% .4% precept level Other governance: 1 .2% .2% Community based parish council Criticisms: Petition 1 .2% .2% requirements not met Equalities comment 8 1.3% 1.8% Comment unrelated to 24 4.0% 5.3% consultation Total 595 100.0% 131.9% a. Group
Page 150
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Newton Hall 412 30.3 30.3 30.3 North End 92 6.8 6.8 37.1 Western Hill 26 1.9 1.9 39.0 Crossgate 66 4.9 4.9 43.8 Neville's Cross 190 14.0 14.0 57.8 Burn Hall 2 .1 .1 57.9 Gilesgate 135 9.9 9.9 67.9 Elsewhere 437 32.1 32.1 100.0 Total 1360 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 733 53.9 62.5 62.5 Female 440 32.4 37.5 100.0 Total 1173 86.3 100.0 Missing -99 187 13.8 Total 1360 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 35 2.6 3.1 3.1 24-35 47 3.5 4.1 7.2 35-44 93 6.8 8.2 15.4 45-54 171 12.6 15.1 30.5 55-64 281 20.7 24.8 55.3
65+ 506 37.2 44.7 100.0 Total 1133 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 227 16.7 Total 1360 100.0
Page 151
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 178 13.1 15.7 15.7 Not disabled 954 70.1 84.3 100.0 Total 1132 83.2 100.0 Missing -99 228 16.8 Total 1360 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid White: Scottish 4 .3 .4 .4 White: Irish 6 .4 .6 1.0 White: English 235 17.3 23.8 24.8 White: British 589 43.3 59.6 84.3 White: Other 13 1.0 1.3 85.6 Other ethnic 5 .4 .5 86.1 Mixed: other 5 .4 .5 86.7 Asian: Indian 3 .2 .3 87.0 Asian: Chinese 2 .1 .2 87.2 Other Asian 2 .1 .2 87.4 White:Welsh 1 .1 .1 87.5 White 124 9.1 12.5 100.0 Total 989 72.7 100.0 Missing -99 371 27.3 Total 1360 100.0
Page 152
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Buddhist 3 .2 .3 .3 Christian 799 58.8 75.4 75.7 Humanist 6 .4 .6 76.3 Jewish 1 .1 .1 76.4 Muslim 3 .2 .3 76.7 None 234 17.2 22.1 98.8 Sikh 1 .1 .1 98.9 Other, not specified 8 .6 .8 99.6 Agnostic 2 .1 .2 99.8 Baha'i 1 .1 .1 99.9 Pagan 1 .1 .1 100.0 Total 1059 77.9 100.0 Missing -99 301 22.1 Total 1360 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 968 71.2 98.1 98.1 Gay woman/lesbian 3 .2 .3 98.4 Gay man 10 .7 1.0 99.4 Bisexual 3 .2 .3 99.7 Other, not specified 3 .2 .3 100.0 Total 987 72.6 100.0 Missing -99 373 27.4 Total 1360 100.0
Page 153 Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 212 51.5 52.5 52.5 Alternative to parish council 26 6.3 6.4 58.9 No additional form of 166 40.3 41.1 100.0 governance Total 404 98.1 100.0 Missing -99 8 1.9 Total 412 100.0
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 115 27.9 44.2 44.2 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 145 35.2 55.8 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 260 63.1 100.0 Missing -99 152 36.9 Total 412 100.0
Page 154 If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One 4 1.0 3.9 3.9 One or two 1 .2 1.0 4.9 Two 39 9.5 37.9 42.7 Two or three 1 .2 1.0 43.7 Three 31 7.5 30.1 73.8 Four 18 4.4 17.5 91.3 Four or five 1 .2 1.0 92.2 Five 4 1.0 3.9 96.1 Six 3 .7 2.9 99.0 Seven 1 .2 1.0 100.0
Total 103 25.0 100.0 Missing -99.0 309 75.0 Total 412 100.0
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Newton 21 16.2% 16.9% Hall alone Estates picked out: Neville's 4 3.1% 3.2% Cross alone Estates picked out: Newton 1 .8% .8% Hall/Neville's Cross Estates picked out: Newton 5 3.8% 4.0% Hall/Neville's Cross/Gilesgate Two areas: North/South 8 6.2% 6.5%
Two areas: East/West 3 2.3% 2.4% Two areas: Newton 16 12.3% 12.9% Hall/Durham City
Three areas: 1 .8% .8% North/East/West
Three areas: 5 3.8% 4.0% North/Centre/South
Three areas: Newton 4 3.1% 3.2% Hall/Centre/South
Page 155 Three areas: Newton 4 3.1% 3.2% Hall/Gilesgate & Centre/West & South Three areas: Newton 4 3.1% 3.2% Hall/Gilesgate/Durham City Three areas: Newton 9 6.9% 7.3% Hall/Neville's Cross (or NW)/Durham City Four areas: 6 4.6% 4.8% Centre/North/South/East Four areas: 4 3.1% 3.2% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/Durham City Four areas: 3 2.3% 2.4% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/South Five areas: 3 2.3% 2.4% Gilesgate/Central Durham/Newton Hall/North End/Elsewhere Five areas: 1 .8% .8% Gilesgate/Neville's Cross/Newton Hall/North End/South 6+ areas: 4 3.1% 3.2% Pelaw/Gilesgate/Elvet/Cross gate/Neville's Cross/Claypath/Framwellgat e/Newton Hall/Freeman's Quay/Centre Join outer parish: Newton 8 6.2% 6.5% Hall join Framwellgate/Durham City Join outer parish: Newton 1 .8% .8% Hall/Gilesgate join Sherburn/Durham City Join outer parish: Newton 3 2.3% 2.4% Hall join Framwellgate Moor Other: Church or school 1 .8% .8% areas
Page 156 Other: Each distinct 8 6.2% 6.5% neighbourhood area Other: Not divided by 1 .8% .8% geographical obstructions Other: Based on population 2 1.5% 1.6% Total 130 100.0% 104.8% a. Group
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 26 17.9% 23.4% personal/taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 22 15.2% 19.8% governance is a waste of money Money: The council should 1 .7% .9% pay extra money required Money: No subsidising 1 .7% .9% students Favours single: Important to 8 5.5% 7.2% create new city council Favours single: Single 1 .7% .9% parish has more influence Favours single: Single 1 .7% .9% parish more effective Favours multiple: Durham 2 1.4% 1.8% City too large for one parish Favours multiple: Parishes 1 .7% .9% can be split for particular needs
Criticisms: Critical of unitary 3 2.1% 2.7% authority performance
Criticisms: Critical of review 4 2.8% 3.6% Criticisms: Critical of 4 2.8% 3.6% consultation Criticisms: Critical of 3 2.1% 2.7% previous local governance consultation
Page 157 Criticisms: Critical of local 3 2.1% 2.7% governance Criticisms: A means for the 3 2.1% 2.7% self-interested to get involved Criticisms: Critical of time to 1 .7% .9% assess status quo Criticisms: Too many 8 5.5% 7.2% councillors already Criticisms: New level of 17 11.7% 15.3% governance unnecessary Favours process: Local 9 6.2% 8.1% representation/control important Favours process: Review is 7 4.8% 6.3% democratic Favours process: Eases 1 .7% .9% pressure on unitary authority Favours process: 1 .7% .9% Harmonise governance boundaries Other governance: Prefer 2 1.4% 1.8% neighbourhood management Other governance: In favour 3 2.1% 2.7% of community associations Other governance: Unsure 1 .7% .9% what is correct for area Durham City comment: 2 1.4% 1.8% Heritage/tourism important Durham City comment: 2 1.4% 1.8% Need to keep city's identity
Money: Should be an upper 1 .7% .9% precept level Equalities comment 3 2.1% 2.7%
Comment unrelated to 4 2.8% 3.6% consultation Total 145 100.0% 130.6% a. Group
Page 158
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Newton Hall 412 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 237 57.5 64.8 64.8 Female 129 31.3 35.2 100.0 Total 366 88.8 100.0 Missing -99 46 11.2 Total 412 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 3 .7 .8 .8 24-35 9 2.2 2.5 3.4 35-44 30 7.3 8.5 11.8 45-54 56 13.6 15.8 27.6 55-64 98 23.8 27.6 55.2 65+ 159 38.6 44.8 100.0 Total 355 86.2 100.0 Missing -99 57 13.8 Total 412 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 64 15.5 17.9 17.9
Not disabled 293 71.1 82.1 100.0 Total 357 86.7 100.0 Missing -99 55 13.3 Total 412 100.0
Page 159
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: Scottish 1 .2 .3 .3 White: Irish 1 .2 .3 .6 White: English 84 20.4 26.4 27.0 White: British 191 46.4 60.1 87.1 White: Other 2 .5 .6 87.7 Other ethnic 1 .2 .3 88.1 Mixed: other 1 .2 .3 88.4 Asian: Indian 1 .2 .3 88.7 White 36 8.7 11.3 100.0 Total 318 77.2 100.0 Missing -99 94 22.8 Total 412 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 278 67.5 82.0 82.0 Muslim 1 .2 .3 82.3 None 59 14.3 17.4 99.7 Baha'i 1 .2 .3 100.0 Total 339 82.3 100.0 Missing -99 73 17.7 Total 412 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 316 76.7 99.4 99.4
Gay woman/lesbian 1 .2 .3 99.7 Gay man 1 .2 .3 100.0
Total 318 77.2 100.0 Missing -99 94 22.8
Page 160 What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 316 76.7 99.4 99.4 Gay woman/lesbian 1 .2 .3 99.7 Gay man 1 .2 .3 100.0 Total 318 77.2 100.0 Missing -99 94 22.8 Total 412 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 67 72.8 74.4 74.4 Alternative to parish council 9 9.8 10.0 84.4 No additional form of 14 15.2 15.6 100.0 governance Total 90 97.8 100.0 Missing -99 2 2.2 Total 92 100.0
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 50 54.3 71.4 71.4 the unparished area of Durham
More than one parish 20 21.7 28.6 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 70 76.1 100.0 Missing -99 22 23.9 Total 92 100.0
Page 161 If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Two 4 4.3 28.6 28.6 Three 6 6.5 42.9 71.4 Four 3 3.3 21.4 92.9 Five 1 1.1 7.1 100.0 Total 14 15.2 100.0 Missing -99.0 78 84.8 Total 92 100.0
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Newton 1 5.9% 5.9% Hall alone Two areas: Newton 3 17.6% 17.6% Hall/Durham City Three areas: Newton 2 11.8% 11.8% Hall/Centre/South Three areas: Newton 1 5.9% 5.9% Hall/Gilesgate/Durham City Three areas: Newton 1 5.9% 5.9% Hall/Neville's Cross (or NW)/Durham City Four areas: 1 5.9% 5.9% Centre/North/South/East Four areas: 1 5.9% 5.9% Centre/North/West/East Four areas: 1 5.9% 5.9% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/South
Five areas: 1 5.9% 5.9% Gilesgate/Central Durham/Newton Hall/North End/Elsewhere Other: Each distinct 3 17.6% 17.6% neighbourhood area
Page 162 Estates picked out: North 1 5.9% 5.9% End Comment not related to 1 5.9% 5.9% question Total 17 100.0% 100.0% a. Group
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 7 14.3% 18.9% personal/taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 3 6.1% 8.1% governance is a waste of money Money: The council should 2 4.1% 5.4% pay extra money required Favours single: Important to 6 12.2% 16.2% create new city council Favours single: Single 1 2.0% 2.7% parish has more influence Criticisms: Critical of unitary 2 4.1% 5.4% authority performance Criticisms: Critical of review 2 4.1% 5.4% Criticisms: Critical of 2 4.1% 5.4% consultation Criticisms: Critical of 1 2.0% 2.7% previous local governance consultation Criticisms: Reduces unitary 1 2.0% 2.7% authority's powers Favours process: Local 7 14.3% 18.9% representation/control important Favours process: Review is 2 4.1% 5.4% democratic
Page 163 Other governance: Prefer 2 4.1% 5.4% neighbourhood management Other governance: In favour 1 2.0% 2.7% of community associations Durham City comment: 4 8.2% 10.8% Heritage/tourism important Durham City comment: 2 4.1% 5.4% Need to keep city's identity Other governance: 1 2.0% 2.7% Area/community forums Other governance: Town 1 2.0% 2.7% council Comment unrelated to 2 4.1% 5.4% consultation Total 49 100.0% 132.4% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid North End 92 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 54 58.7 65.9 65.9 Female 28 30.4 34.1 100.0 Total 82 89.1 100.0 Missing -99 10 10.9 Total 92 100.0
Page 164 What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 24-35 4 4.3 5.1 5.1 35-44 5 5.4 6.4 11.5 45-54 14 15.2 17.9 29.5 55-64 22 23.9 28.2 57.7 65+ 33 35.9 42.3 100.0 Total 78 84.8 100.0 Missing -99 14 15.2 Total 92 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 11 12.0 13.8 13.8 Not disabled 69 75.0 86.3 100.0 Total 80 87.0 100.0 Missing -99 12 13.0 Total 92 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: Scottish 2 2.2 2.8 2.8 White: English 13 14.1 18.1 20.8 White: British 45 48.9 62.5 83.3 White: Other 1 1.1 1.4 84.7 White 11 12.0 15.3 100.0 Total 72 78.3 100.0 Missing -99 20 21.7 Total 92 100.0
Page 165
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 51 55.4 70.8 70.8 None 21 22.8 29.2 100.0 Total 72 78.3 100.0 Missing -99 20 21.7 Total 92 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Heterosexual/straight 64 69.6 97.0 97.0 Gay man 1 1.1 1.5 98.5 Other, not specified 1 1.1 1.5 100.0 Total 66 71.7 100.0 Missing -99 26 28.3 Total 92 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 21 80.8 80.8 80.8 Alternative to parish council 1 3.8 3.8 84.6 No additional form of 4 15.4 15.4 100.0 governance Total 26 100.0 100.0
Page 166 If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 19 73.1 86.4 86.4 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 3 11.5 13.6 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 22 84.6 100.0 Missing -99 4 15.4 Total 26 100.0
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Two 1 3.8 50.0 50.0 Three 1 3.8 50.0 100.0 Total 2 7.7 100.0 Missing -99.0 24 92.3 Total 26 100.0
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Two areas: Newton 1 50.0% 50.0% Hall/Durham City Three areas: Newton 1 50.0% 50.0% Hall/Neville's Cross (or NW)/Durham City Total 2 100.0% 100.0% a. Group
Page 167 q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 2 9.5% 18.2% personal/taxpayer expenditure Favours single: Important to 1 4.8% 9.1% create new city council Favours single: Single 1 4.8% 9.1% parish has more influence Criticisms: Critical of review 1 4.8% 9.1% Criticisms: Critical of 1 4.8% 9.1% repeating unitary process Criticisms: Critical of 1 4.8% 9.1% consultation Criticisms: A means for the 1 4.8% 9.1% self-interested to get involved Criticisms: New level of 2 9.5% 18.2% governance unnecessary Favours process: Local 6 28.6% 54.5% representation/control important Favours process: Review is 5 23.8% 45.5% democratic Total 21 100.0% 190.9% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Western Hill 26 100.0 100.0 100.0
Page 168 What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 12 46.2 63.2 63.2 Female 7 26.9 36.8 100.0 Total 19 73.1 100.0 Missing -99 7 26.9 Total 26 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 24-35 1 3.8 5.9 5.9
35-44 1 3.8 5.9 11.8 45-54 3 11.5 17.6 29.4 55-64 4 15.4 23.5 52.9 65+ 8 30.8 47.1 100.0 Total 17 65.4 100.0 Missing -99 9 34.6 Total 26 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Not disabled 19 73.1 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 7 26.9 Total 26 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: British 13 50.0 92.9 92.9 White 1 3.8 7.1 100.0
Total 14 53.8 100.0 Missing -99 12 46.2 Total 26 100.0
Page 169
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 8 30.8 50.0 50.0 None 8 30.8 50.0 100.0 Total 16 61.5 100.0 Missing -99 10 38.5 Total 26 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 15 57.7 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 11 42.3 Total 26 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 41 62.1 63.1 63.1 Alternative to parish council 7 10.6 10.8 73.8 No additional form of 17 25.8 26.2 100.0 governance Total 65 98.5 100.0 Missing -99 1 1.5 Total 66 100.0
Page 170 If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 30 45.5 66.7 66.7 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 15 22.7 33.3 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 45 68.2 100.0 Missing -99 21 31.8 Total 66 100.0
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Two 3 4.5 27.3 27.3 Three 2 3.0 18.2 45.5 Four 2 3.0 18.2 63.6 Four or five 1 1.5 9.1 72.7 Five 1 1.5 9.1 81.8 Six 1 1.5 9.1 90.9 Twelve 1 1.5 9.1 100.0 Total 11 16.7 100.0 Missing -99.0 55 83.3 Total 66 100.0
Page 171 q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Newton 1 7.1% 7.7% Hall alone Two areas: Newton 3 21.4% 23.1% Hall/Durham City Three areas: Newton 1 7.1% 7.7% Hall/Neville's Cross (or NW)/Durham City Four areas: 1 7.1% 7.7% Centre/North/South/East Four areas: 1 7.1% 7.7% Centre/North/West/East Five areas: 1 7.1% 7.7% Gilesgate/Central Durham/Newton Hall/North End/Elsewhere Five areas: 1 7.1% 7.7% Gilesgate/Neville's Cross/Newton Hall/North End/South 6+ areas: 1 7.1% 7.7% Pelaw/Gilesgate/Elvet/Cross gate/Neville's Cross/Claypath/Framwellgat e/Newton Hall/Freeman's Quay/Centre Join outer parish: Newton 1 7.1% 7.7% Hall join Framwellgate Moor Other: Church or school 1 7.1% 7.7% areas Other: Each distinct 2 14.3% 15.4% neighbourhood area Total 14 100.0% 107.7%
a. Group
Page 172 q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 6 18.2% 26.1% personal/taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 4 12.1% 17.4% governance is a waste of money Favours single: Important to 1 3.0% 4.3% create new city council Criticisms: Critical of review 1 3.0% 4.3% Criticisms: Critical of local 1 3.0% 4.3% governance Criticisms: Too many 1 3.0% 4.3% councillors already Criticisms: New level of 1 3.0% 4.3% governance unnecessary Favours process: Local 6 18.2% 26.1% representation/control important Favours process: Review is 3 9.1% 13.0% democratic Favours process: Results in 1 3.0% 4.3% officers for local requirements Other governance: Prefer 1 3.0% 4.3% neighbourhood management Other governance: In favour 1 3.0% 4.3% of community associations Durham City comment: 3 9.1% 13.0% Heritage/tourism important Durham City comment: 2 6.1% 8.7% Need to keep city's identity
Equalities comment 1 3.0% 4.3% Total 33 100.0% 143.5% a. Group
Page 173 What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crossgate 66 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 38 57.6 67.9 67.9 Female 18 27.3 32.1 100.0 Total 56 84.8 100.0 Missing -99 10 15.2 Total 66 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 2 3.0 3.7 3.7 35-44 4 6.1 7.4 11.1 45-54 16 24.2 29.6 40.7 55-64 9 13.6 16.7 57.4 65+ 23 34.8 42.6 100.0 Total 54 81.8 100.0 Missing -99 12 18.2 Total 66 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 3 4.5 5.9 5.9 Not disabled 48 72.7 94.1 100.0 Total 51 77.3 100.0 Missing -99 15 22.7 Total 66 100.0
Page 174
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: Irish 1 1.5 2.2 2.2 White: English 9 13.6 20.0 22.2 White: British 29 43.9 64.4 86.7 White 6 9.1 13.3 100.0 Total 45 68.2 100.0 Missing -99 21 31.8 Total 66 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 39 59.1 78.0 78.0 None 10 15.2 20.0 98.0 Agnostic 1 1.5 2.0 100.0 Total 50 75.8 100.0 Missing -99 16 24.2 Total 66 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 44 66.7 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 22 33.3 Total 66 100.0
Page 175 Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 113 59.5 60.1 60.1 Alternative to parish council 18 9.5 9.6 69.7 No additional form of 57 30.0 30.3 100.0 governance Total 188 98.9 100.0 Missing -99 2 1.1 Total 190 100.0
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 82 43.2 59.9 59.9 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 55 28.9 40.1 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 137 72.1 100.0 Missing -99 53 27.9 Total 190 100.0
Page 176 If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One 1 .5 2.4 2.4 Two 8 4.2 19.5 22.0 Three 9 4.7 22.0 43.9 Four 14 7.4 34.1 78.0 Five 7 3.7 17.1 95.1 Six 1 .5 2.4 97.6 One hundred 1 .5 2.4 100.0 Total 41 21.6 100.0 Missing -99.0 149 78.4 Total 190 100.0
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Newton 1 2.1% 2.2% Hall alone Estates picked out: Neville's 5 10.6% 11.1% Cross alone Estates picked out: Newton 1 2.1% 2.2% Hall/Neville's Cross Estates picked out: Newton 2 4.3% 4.4% Hall/Neville's Cross/Gilesgate Two areas: North/South 1 2.1% 2.2% Two areas: East/West 1 2.1% 2.2% Two areas: Newton 3 6.4% 6.7% Hall/Durham City Three areas: Newton 2 4.3% 4.4% Hall/Centre/South
Three areas: Newton 1 2.1% 2.2% Hall/Gilesgate & Centre/West & South Three areas: Newton 4 8.5% 8.9% Hall/Gilesgate/Durham City
Page 177 Three areas: Newton 2 4.3% 4.4% Hall/Neville's Cross (or NW)/Durham City Four areas: 2 4.3% 4.4% Centre/North/West/East Four areas: 3 6.4% 6.7% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/Durham City Four areas: 5 10.6% 11.1% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/South Five areas: 1 2.1% 2.2% Gilesgate/Central Durham/Newton Hall/North End/Elsewhere Five areas: 3 6.4% 6.7% Gilesgate/Neville's Cross/Newton Hall/North End/South 6+ areas: 1 2.1% 2.2% Pelaw/Gilesgate/Elvet/Cross gate/Neville's Cross/Claypath/Framwellgat e/Newton Hall/Freeman's Quay/Centre Other: Each distinct 4 8.5% 8.9% neighbourhood area Other: Not divided by 1 2.1% 2.2% geographical obstructions Other: Based on population 1 2.1% 2.2% Four areas: 1 2.1% 2.2% North/South/West/Centre
Other: Two/three a street 1 2.1% 2.2% 6+ Estates: Newton 1 2.1% 2.2% Hall/North End/Neville's Cross & Crossgate/South/Centre/Gil esgate Total 47 100.0% 104.4% a. Group
Page 178
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 13 13.0% 16.9% personal/taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 10 10.0% 13.0% governance is a waste of money Money: No subsidising 2 2.0% 2.6% students Favours single: Important to 5 5.0% 6.5% create new city council Favours single: Single 3 3.0% 3.9% parish has more influence Favours single: Single 1 1.0% 1.3% parish more effective Favours multiple: Durham 3 3.0% 3.9% City too large for one parish Favours multiple: Parishes 1 1.0% 1.3% can be split for particular needs Criticisms: Critical of unitary 1 1.0% 1.3% authority performance Criticisms: Critical of review 3 3.0% 3.9% Criticisms: Critical of 8 8.0% 10.4% consultation Criticisms: Critical of 1 1.0% 1.3% previous local governance consultation Criticisms: A means for the 1 1.0% 1.3% self-interested to get involved Criticisms: New level of 6 6.0% 7.8% governance unnecessary Favours process: Local 15 15.0% 19.5% representation/control important
Favours process: Review is 9 9.0% 11.7% democratic
Page 179 Favours process: 2 2.0% 2.6% Harmonise governance boundaries Other governance: Prefer 3 3.0% 3.9% neighbourhood management Other governance: In favour 3 3.0% 3.9% of community associations Other governance: Unsure 3 3.0% 3.9% what is correct for area Durham City comment: 1 1.0% 1.3% Need to keep city's identity Durham City comment: 1 1.0% 1.3% University need input Other governance: Town 1 1.0% 1.3% council Money: County to pay for 2 2.0% 2.6% civic duties Equalities comment 1 1.0% 1.3% Comment unrelated to 1 1.0% 1.3% consultation Total 100 100.0% 129.9% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Neville's Cross 190 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 99 52.1 63.1 63.1 Female 58 30.5 36.9 100.0
Total 157 82.6 100.0 Missing -99 33 17.4 Total 190 100.0
Page 180
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 5 2.6 3.4 3.4 24-35 6 3.2 4.0 7.4 35-44 18 9.5 12.1 19.5 45-54 25 13.2 16.8 36.2 55-64 36 18.9 24.2 60.4 65+ 59 31.1 39.6 100.0 Total 149 78.4 100.0 Missing -99 41 21.6 Total 190 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 12 6.3 7.9 7.9 Not disabled 140 73.7 92.1 100.0 Total 152 80.0 100.0 Missing -99 38 20.0 Total 190 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: Irish 2 1.1 1.6 1.6 White: English 29 15.3 22.7 24.2 White: British 73 38.4 57.0 81.3 White: Other 3 1.6 2.3 83.6 Other ethnic 1 .5 .8 84.4 Mixed: other 1 .5 .8 85.2
Asian: Chinese 1 .5 .8 85.9 White 18 9.5 14.1 100.0
Total 128 67.4 100.0 Missing -99 62 32.6
Page 181 What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: Irish 2 1.1 1.6 1.6 White: English 29 15.3 22.7 24.2 White: British 73 38.4 57.0 81.3 White: Other 3 1.6 2.3 83.6 Other ethnic 1 .5 .8 84.4 Mixed: other 1 .5 .8 85.2 Asian: Chinese 1 .5 .8 85.9 White 18 9.5 14.1 100.0 Total 128 67.4 100.0 Missing -99 62 32.6 Total 190 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 97 51.1 71.9 71.9 Humanist 2 1.1 1.5 73.3 Jewish 1 .5 .7 74.1 None 33 17.4 24.4 98.5 Agnostic 1 .5 .7 99.3 Pagan 1 .5 .7 100.0 Total 135 71.1 100.0 Missing -99 55 28.9 Total 190 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Heterosexual/straight 123 64.7 97.6 97.6 Gay man 1 .5 .8 98.4 Bisexual 2 1.1 1.6 100.0 Total 126 66.3 100.0 Missing -99 64 33.7 Total 190 100.0
Page 182
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 2 100.0 100.0 100.0
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid More than one parish 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Two 1 50.0 50.0 50.0 Four 1 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 2 100.0 100.0
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Two areas: North/South 1 50.0% 50.0% Four areas: 1 50.0% 50.0% Centre/North/South/East Total 2 100.0% 100.0% a. Group
Page 183 What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Burn Hall 2 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Female 1 50.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 50.0 Total 2 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 35-44 1 50.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 50.0 Total 2 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Not disabled 1 50.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 50.0 Total 2 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid White: British 1 50.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 50.0 Total 2 100.0
Page 184
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 1 50.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 50.0 Total 2 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 1 50.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 50.0 Total 2 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 74 54.8 56.9 56.9 Alternative to parish council 14 10.4 10.8 67.7 No additional form of 42 31.1 32.3 100.0 governance Total 130 96.3 100.0 Missing -99 5 3.7 Total 135 100.0
Page 185 If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 60 44.4 65.9 65.9 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 31 23.0 34.1 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 91 67.4 100.0 Missing -99 44 32.6 Total 135 100.0
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One 3 2.2 13.6 13.6 Two 4 3.0 18.2 31.8 Three 4 3.0 18.2 50.0 Three or four 1 .7 4.5 54.5 Four 5 3.7 22.7 77.3 Five 3 2.2 13.6 90.9 Six 1 .7 4.5 95.5 Twelve 1 .7 4.5 100.0 Total 22 16.3 100.0 Missing -99.0 113 83.7 Total 135 100.0
Page 186
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Newton 1 3.6% 3.8% Hall alone Estates picked out: Neville's 1 3.6% 3.8% Cross alone Estates picked out: Newton 1 3.6% 3.8% Hall/Neville's Cross Estates picked out: Newton 2 7.1% 7.7% Hall/Neville's Cross/Gilesgate Two areas: North/South 1 3.6% 3.8% Two areas: Newton 2 7.1% 7.7% Hall/Durham City Three areas: 1 3.6% 3.8% North/East/West Three areas: 1 3.6% 3.8% North/Centre/South Three areas: Newton 2 7.1% 7.7% Hall/Elvet & Gilesgate/South Three areas: Newton 1 3.6% 3.8% Hall/Gilesgate/Durham City Four areas: 2 7.1% 7.7% Centre/North/South/East Four areas: 1 3.6% 3.8% Centre/North/West/East Four areas: 4 14.3% 15.4% Gilesgate/Newton Hall/North End/Durham City Five areas: 3 10.7% 11.5% Centre/North/South/East/We st
6+ areas: 1 3.6% 3.8% Pelaw/Gilesgate/Elvet/Cross gate/Neville's Cross/Claypath/Framwellgat e/Newton Hall/Freeman's Quay/Centre
Page 187 Other: Each distinct 2 7.1% 7.7% neighbourhood area Other: Based on population 1 3.6% 3.8% Estates picked out: 1 3.6% 3.8% Gilesgate/Newton Hall Total 28 100.0% 107.7% a. Group
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 5 11.4% 15.2% personal/taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 6 13.6% 18.2% governance is a waste of money Favours single: Important to 2 4.5% 6.1% create new city council Favours single: Single 1 2.3% 3.0% parish has more influence Favours single: Single 1 2.3% 3.0% parish more effective Favours multiple: Parishes 1 2.3% 3.0% can be split for particular needs Criticisms: Critical of review 1 2.3% 3.0% Criticisms: Critical of 3 6.8% 9.1% consultation Criticisms: A means for the 1 2.3% 3.0% self-interested to get involved Criticisms: Too many 1 2.3% 3.0% councillors already Criticisms: New level of 6 13.6% 18.2% governance unnecessary Favours process: Local 4 9.1% 12.1% representation/control important
Page 188 Favours process: Review is 1 2.3% 3.0% democratic Favours process: Eases 1 2.3% 3.0% pressure on unitary authority Other governance: Prefer 1 2.3% 3.0% neighbourhood management Other governance: In favour 1 2.3% 3.0% of community associations Other governance: Unsure 1 2.3% 3.0% what is correct for area Other governance: Town 1 2.3% 3.0% council Equalities comment 1 2.3% 3.0% Comment unrelated to 5 11.4% 15.2% consultation Total 44 100.0% 133.3% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Gilesgate 135 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 70 51.9 56.9 56.9 Female 53 39.3 43.1 100.0 Total 123 91.1 100.0 Missing -99 12 8.9 Total 135 100.0
What is your age?
Page 189 Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 6 4.4 5.0 5.0 24-35 12 8.9 10.0 15.0 35-44 16 11.9 13.3 28.3 45-54 12 8.9 10.0 38.3 55-64 28 20.7 23.3 61.7 65+ 46 34.1 38.3 100.0 Total 120 88.9 100.0 Missing -99 15 11.1 Total 135 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 30 22.2 25.0 25.0 Not disabled 90 66.7 75.0 100.0 Total 120 88.9 100.0 Missing -99 15 11.1 Total 135 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: Scottish 1 .7 1.0 1.0 White: Irish 1 .7 1.0 2.0 White: English 25 18.5 24.5 26.5 White: British 61 45.2 59.8 86.3
White: Other 1 .7 1.0 87.3 Mixed: other 1 .7 1.0 88.2 Asian: Indian 1 .7 1.0 89.2 Other Asian 1 .7 1.0 90.2 White 10 7.4 9.8 100.0 Total 102 75.6 100.0 Missing -99 33 24.4 Total 135 100.0
Page 190
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Buddhist 1 .7 .9 .9 Christian 86 63.7 74.8 75.7 Muslim 1 .7 .9 76.5 None 22 16.3 19.1 95.7 Sikh 1 .7 .9 96.5 Other, not specified 4 3.0 3.5 100.0 Total 115 85.2 100.0 Missing -99 20 14.8 Total 135 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 107 79.3 97.3 97.3 Gay man 2 1.5 1.8 99.1 Other, not specified 1 .7 .9 100.0 Total 110 81.5 100.0 Missing -99 25 18.5 Total 135 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 6 85.7 85.7 85.7 No additional form of 1 14.3 14.3 100.0 governance Total 7 100.0 100.0
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged?
Page 191 Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 the unparished area of Durham
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created?
Frequency Percent Missing -99.0 7 100.0
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 1 25.0% 50.0% personal/taxpayer expenditure Favours single: Important to 1 25.0% 50.0% create new city council Criticisms: New level of 1 25.0% 50.0% governance unnecessary Durham City comment: 1 25.0% 50.0% Heritage/tourism important Total 4 100.0% 200.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Elsewhere 7 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender?
Page 192 Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 4 57.1 66.7 66.7 Female 2 28.6 33.3 100.0 Total 6 85.7 100.0 Missing -99 1 14.3 Total 7 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 24-35 1 14.3 16.7 16.7 35-44 1 14.3 16.7 33.3
45-54 2 28.6 33.3 66.7 65+ 2 28.6 33.3 100.0 Total 6 85.7 100.0 Missing -99 1 14.3 Total 7 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Not disabled 5 71.4 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 28.6 Total 7 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 1 14.3 20.0 20.0
White: British 3 42.9 60.0 80.0 White 1 14.3 20.0 100.0 Total 5 71.4 100.0 Missing -99 2 28.6 Total 7 100.0
Page 193
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 5 71.4 83.3 83.3 None 1 14.3 16.7 100.0 Total 6 85.7 100.0 Missing -99 1 14.3 Total 7 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Heterosexual/straight 5 71.4 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 28.6 Total 7 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 12 52.2 57.1 57.1 Alternative to parish council 2 8.7 9.5 66.7 No additional form of 7 30.4 33.3 100.0 governance Total 21 91.3 100.0 Missing -99 2 8.7 Total 23 100.0
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged?
Page 194 Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 10 43.5 71.4 71.4 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 4 17.4 28.6 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 14 60.9 100.0 Missing -99 9 39.1 Total 23 100.0
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Two 1 4.3 25.0 25.0 Three 2 8.7 50.0 75.0 Four 1 4.3 25.0 100.0 Total 4 17.4 100.0 Missing -99.0 19 82.6 Total 23 100.0
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Neville's 1 20.0% 25.0% Cross alone Three areas: Newton 1 20.0% 25.0% Hall/Gilesgate/Durham City Four areas: 1 20.0% 25.0% Centre/North/South/East
Join outer parish: Newton 1 20.0% 25.0% Hall join Framwellgate/Durham City Join outer parish: Newton 1 20.0% 25.0% Hall join Framwellgate Moor Total 5 100.0% 125.0%
Page 195 q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Estates picked out: Neville's 1 20.0% 25.0% Cross alone Three areas: Newton 1 20.0% 25.0% Hall/Gilesgate/Durham City Four areas: 1 20.0% 25.0% Centre/North/South/East Join outer parish: Newton 1 20.0% 25.0% Hall join Framwellgate/Durham City Join outer parish: Newton 1 20.0% 25.0% Hall join Framwellgate Moor Total 5 100.0% 125.0% a. Group
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 1 11.1% 16.7% personal/taxpayer expenditure Favours single: Important to 1 11.1% 16.7% create new city council Favours single: Single 1 11.1% 16.7% parish has more influence Favours single: Single 1 11.1% 16.7% parish more effective Criticisms: Critical of review 1 11.1% 16.7%
Criticisms: A means for the 1 11.1% 16.7% self-interested to get involved Favours process: Local 1 11.1% 16.7% representation/control important Favours process: Review is 1 11.1% 16.7% democratic
Page 196 Comment unrelated to 1 11.1% 16.7% consultation Total 9 100.0% 150.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Newton Hall 23 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 17 73.9 73.9 73.9 Female 6 26.1 26.1 100.0 Total 23 100.0 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 35-44 1 4.3 4.3 4.3 45-54 8 34.8 34.8 39.1 55-64 4 17.4 17.4 56.5 65+ 10 43.5 43.5 100.0 Total 23 100.0 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 13 56.5 56.5 56.5 Not disabled 10 43.5 43.5 100.0 Total 23 100.0 100.0
Page 197 What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 5 21.7 26.3 26.3 White: British 10 43.5 52.6 78.9 White 4 17.4 21.1 100.0 Total 19 82.6 100.0 Missing -99 4 17.4 Total 23 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 20 87.0 87.0 87.0 None 3 13.0 13.0 100.0 Total 23 100.0 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 20 87.0 90.9 90.9 Gay woman/lesbian 1 4.3 4.5 95.5 Gay man 1 4.3 4.5 100.0 Total 22 95.7 100.0 Missing -99 1 4.3 Total 23 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parish council 4 57.1 57.1 57.1 No additional form of 3 42.9 42.9 100.0 governance Total 7 100.0 100.0
Page 198
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid One parish for the whole of 4 57.1 66.7 66.7 the unparished area of Durham More than one parish 2 28.6 33.3 100.0 council based around neighbourhoods Total 6 85.7 100.0 Missing -99 1 14.3 Total 7 100.0
If you think 'more than one parish council' is the best option, how many parish councils should be created? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Two 2 28.6 100.0 100.0 Missing -99.0 5 71.4 Total 7 100.0
q3ball Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Two areas: North/South 2 100.0% 100.0%
Page 199 Total 2 100.0% 100.0% a. Group
q4all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 1 50.0% 50.0% personal/taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 1 50.0% 50.0% governance is a waste of money Total 2 100.0% 100.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Elsewhere 7 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 5 71.4 71.4 71.4 Female 2 28.6 28.6 100.0 Total 7 100.0 100.0
Page 200 What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 24-35 1 14.3 14.3 14.3 55-64 4 57.1 57.1 71.4 65+ 2 28.6 28.6 100.0 Total 7 100.0 100.0
Are you disabled? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Disabled 1 14.3 16.7 16.7 Not disabled 5 71.4 83.3 100.0 Total 6 85.7 100.0 Missing -99 1 14.3 Total 7 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: British 5 71.4 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 28.6 Total 7 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 3 42.9 60.0 60.0 None 2 28.6 40.0 100.0 Total 5 71.4 100.0 Missing -99 2 28.6 Total 7 100.0
Page 201 What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/straight 5 71.4 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 28.6 Total 7 100.0
Page 202 Appendix G
What is your gender? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Alternative to Parish council parish council What is your gender? Male Count 441 58 % within What is your 61.2% 8.0% gender? Adjusted Residual -1.7 -1.0 Female Count 284 42 % within What is your 66.2% 9.8% gender? Adjusted Residual 1.7 1.0 Total Count 725 100 % within What is your 63.0% 8.7% gender?
What is your gender? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. No additional form of governance Total What is your gender? Male Count 222 721 % within What is your 30.8% 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual 2.5 Female Count 103 429
Page 203 % within What is your 24.0% 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual -2.5 Total Count 325 1150 % within What is your 28.3% 100.0% gender?
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square 6.401 2 .041 Likelihood Ratio 6.482 2 .039 Linear-by-Linear 4.737 1 .030 Association N of Valid Cases 1150 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 37.30.
What is your age? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Alternative to Parish council parish council What is your age? Under 55 Count 177 42 % within What is your age? 51.6% 12.2% Adjusted Residual -5.5 2.8
55+ Count 527 55 % within What is your age? 68.7% 7.2% Adjusted Residual 5.5 -2.8 Total Count 704 97 % within What is your age? 63.4% 8.7%
Page 204 What is your age? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. No additional form of governance Total What is your age? Under 55 Count 124 343 % within What is your age? 36.2% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual 4.1 55+ Count 185 767 % within What is your age? 24.1% 100.0% Adjusted Residual -4.1 Total Count 309 1110 % within What is your age? 27.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square 30.242 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 29.714 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear 25.578 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 1110 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 29.97.
Page 205 Are you disabled? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Alternative to Parish council parish council Are you disabled? Disabled Count 107 13 % within Are you disabled? 61.8% 7.5% Adjusted Residual -.3 -.7 Not disabled Count 590 85 % within Are you disabled? 63.0% 9.1% Adjusted Residual .3 .7 Total Count 697 98 % within Are you disabled? 62.8% 8.8%
Are you disabled? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. No additional form of governance Total Are you disabled? Disabled Count 53 173 % within Are you disabled? 30.6% 100.0% Adjusted Residual .7
Not disabled Count 262 937 % within Are you disabled? 28.0% 100.0% Adjusted Residual -.7 Total Count 315 1110 % within Are you disabled? 28.4% 100.0%
Page 206 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square .798 2 .671 Likelihood Ratio .808 2 .668 Linear-by-Linear .264 1 .607 Association N of Valid Cases 1110 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.27.
What is your gender? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? One parish for More than one the whole of the parish council unparished area based around of Durham neighbourhoods What is your gender? Male Count 332 193 % within What is your 63.2% 36.8% gender? Adjusted Residual 2.5 -2.5 Female Count 175 145 % within What is your 54.7% 45.3% gender? Adjusted Residual -2.5 2.5 Total Count 507 338 % within What is your 60.0% 40.0% gender?
Page 207 What is your gender? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
Total What is your gender? Male Count 525 % within What is your 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual Female Count 320 % within What is your 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual Total Count 845 % within What is your 100.0% gender?
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square 6.057 1 .014 b Continuity Correction 5.706 1 .017 Likelihood Ratio 6.032 1 .014 Fisher's Exact Test .017 .009 Linear-by-Linear 6.050 1 .014 Association N of Valid Cases 845 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 128.00. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Page 208
What is your age? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? One parish for More than one the whole of the parish council unparished area based around of Durham neighbourhoods What is your age? Under 55 Count 140 102 % within What is your age? 57.9% 42.1% Adjusted Residual -.5 .5 55+ Count 346 235 % within What is your age? 59.6% 40.4% Adjusted Residual .5 -.5 Total Count 486 337 % within What is your age? 59.1% 40.9%
What is your age? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
Total What is your age? Under 55 Count 242 % within What is your age? 100.0% Adjusted Residual
55+ Count 581 % within What is your age? 100.0% Adjusted Residual Total Count 823 % within What is your age? 100.0%
Page 209
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square .204 1 .651 b Continuity Correction .140 1 .708 Likelihood Ratio .204 1 .651 Fisher's Exact Test .697 .353 Linear-by-Linear .204 1 .651 Association N of Valid Cases 823 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 99.09. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Are you disabled? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? One parish for More than one the whole of the parish council unparished area based around of Durham neighbourhoods Are you disabled? Disabled Count 75 46 % within Are you disabled? 62.0% 38.0% Adjusted Residual .7 -.7 Not disabled Count 410 287 % within Are you disabled? 58.8% 41.2% Adjusted Residual -.7 .7 Total Count 485 333
% within Are you disabled? 59.3% 40.7%
Page 210
Are you disabled? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
Total Are you disabled? Disabled Count 121 % within Are you disabled? 100.0% Adjusted Residual Not disabled Count 697 % within Are you disabled? 100.0% Adjusted Residual Total Count 818 % within Are you disabled? 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square .427 1 .514 b Continuity Correction .306 1 .580 Likelihood Ratio .429 1 .512 Fisher's Exact Test .548 .291 Linear-by-Linear .426 1 .514 Association N of Valid Cases 818 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 49.26. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Page 211
What is your gender? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Alternative to Parish council parish council What is your gender? Male Count 127 14 % within What is your 55.0% 6.1% gender? Adjusted Residual .3 -.4 Female Count 68 9 % within What is your 53.5% 7.1% gender? Adjusted Residual -.3 .4 Total Count 195 23 % within What is your 54.5% 6.4% gender?
Page 212
What is your gender? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. No additional form of governance Total What is your gender? Male Count 90 231 % within What is your 39.0% 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual -.1 Female Count 50 127 % within What is your 39.4% 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual .1 Total Count 140 358 % within What is your 39.1% 100.0% gender?
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square .169 2 .919 Likelihood Ratio .167 2 .920 Linear-by-Linear .030 1 .861 Association N of Valid Cases 358
Page 213 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square .169 2 .919 Likelihood Ratio .167 2 .920 Linear-by-Linear .030 1 .861 Association N of Valid Cases 358 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.16.
What is your age? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Alternative to Parish council parish council What is your age? Under 55 Count 42 10 % within What is your age? 42.9% 10.2% Adjusted Residual -2.9 1.7 55+ Count 150 13 % within What is your age? 60.0% 5.2% Adjusted Residual 2.9 -1.7 Total Count 192 23 % within What is your age? 55.2% 6.6%
What is your age? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Total
Page 214 No additional form of governance What is your age? Under 55 Count 46 98 % within What is your age? 46.9% 100.0% Adjusted Residual 2.1 55+ Count 87 250 % within What is your age? 34.8% 100.0% Adjusted Residual -2.1 Total Count 133 348 % within What is your age? 38.2% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square 9.132 2 .010 Likelihood Ratio 9.003 2 .011 Linear-by-Linear 6.650 1 .010 Association N of Valid Cases 348 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.48.
Are you disabled? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Alternative to Parish council parish council Are you disabled? Disabled Count 37 5 % within Are you disabled? 59.7% 8.1% Adjusted Residual .9 .5 Not disabled Count 154 18 % within Are you disabled? 53.5% 6.3%
Adjusted Residual -.9 -.5
Page 215 Total Count 191 23 % within Are you disabled? 54.6% 6.6%
Are you disabled? * Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. Crosstabulation
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City. No additional form of governance Total Are you disabled? Disabled Count 20 62 % within Are you disabled? 32.3% 100.0% Adjusted Residual -1.2
Not disabled Count 116 288 % within Are you disabled? 40.3% 100.0% Adjusted Residual 1.2 Total Count 136 350 % within Are you disabled? 38.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided)
Page 216 a Pearson Chi-Square 1.460 2 .482 Likelihood Ratio 1.479 2 .477 Linear-by-Linear 1.132 1 .287 Association N of Valid Cases 350 a. 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.07.
What is your gender? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? One parish for More than one the whole of the parish council unparished area based around of Durham neighbourhoods What is your gender? Male Count 75 78 % within What is your 49.0% 51.0% gender? Adjusted Residual 1.8 -1.8 Female Count 30 51 % within What is your 37.0% 63.0% gender?
Adjusted Residual -1.8 1.8 Total Count 105 129 % within What is your 44.9% 55.1% gender?
What is your gender? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
Total
Page 217 What is your gender? Male Count 153 % within What is your 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual Female Count 81 % within What is your 100.0% gender? Adjusted Residual Total Count 234 % within What is your 100.0% gender?
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square 3.074 1 .080 b Continuity Correction 2.609 1 .106 Likelihood Ratio 3.100 1 .078 Fisher's Exact Test .097 .053 Linear-by-Linear 3.061 1 .080 Association N of Valid Cases 234 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 36.35. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
What is your age? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? One parish for More than one the whole of the parish council unparished area based around of Durham neighbourhoods What is your age? Under 55 Count 27 37
% within What is your age? 42.2% 57.8%
Page 218 Adjusted Residual -.4 .4 55+ Count 76 92 % within What is your age? 45.2% 54.8% Adjusted Residual .4 -.4 Total Count 103 129 % within What is your age? 44.4% 55.6%
What is your age? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
Total What is your age? Under 55 Count 64 % within What is your age? 100.0% Adjusted Residual 55+ Count 168 % within What is your age? 100.0% Adjusted Residual Total Count 232 % within What is your age? 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square .175 1 .676 b Continuity Correction .073 1 .787 Likelihood Ratio .175 1 .676 Fisher's Exact Test .768 .394 Linear-by-Linear .174 1 .677 Association N of Valid Cases 232 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 28.41. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Page 219
Are you disabled? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? One parish for More than one the whole of the parish council unparished area based around of Durham neighbourhoods Are you disabled? Disabled Count 22 19 % within Are you disabled? 53.7% 46.3% Adjusted Residual 1.3 -1.3 Not disabled Count 81 109 % within Are you disabled? 42.6% 57.4% Adjusted Residual -1.3 1.3 Total Count 103 128 % within Are you disabled? 44.6% 55.4%
Are you disabled? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
Total Are you disabled? Disabled Count 41 % within Are you disabled? 100.0% Adjusted Residual Not disabled Count 190 % within Are you disabled? 100.0%
Adjusted Residual Total Count 231
Page 220 Are you disabled? * If a parish council is the preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham and its surroundings how should it be arranged? Crosstabulation
Total Are you disabled? Disabled Count 41 % within Are you disabled? 100.0% Adjusted Residual Not disabled Count 190 % within Are you disabled? 100.0% Adjusted Residual Total Count 231 % within Are you disabled? 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) a Pearson Chi-Square 1.660 1 .198 b Continuity Correction 1.243 1 .265 Likelihood Ratio 1.650 1 .199 Fisher's Exact Test .227 .133 Linear-by-Linear 1.652 1 .199 Association N of Valid Cases 231 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.28. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Page 221 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 222 Appendix H
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook North 94 10.9 10.9 10.9 Crook Central 567 65.9 65.9 76.9 Crook South 199 23.1 23.1 100.0 Total 860 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 183 21.3 21.6 21.6 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 168 19.5 19.9 41.5 Council Part of another parish or 25 2.9 3.0 44.4 town council No change to current 441 51.3 52.1 96.6 arrangements Alternative arrangements 29 3.4 3.4 100.0 Total 846 98.4 100.0 Missing -99 14 1.6 Total 860 100.0
Page 223
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Community forum 3 .3 6.0 6.0 Neighbourhood 8 .9 16.0 22.0 Management Team Community Association 2 .2 4.0 26.0 Residents'/Tenants' 2 .2 4.0 30.0 Association Bring back district council 4 .5 8.0 38.0 North or Crook North in with 1 .1 2.0 40.0 East Hedleyhope Parish Council Crook North & 2 .2 4.0 44.0 Central/Crook South split As long as it is free 1 .1 2.0 46.0 One council for each three 7 .8 14.0 60.0 areas Join with Tow Law Council 2 .2 4.0 64.0 Crook Central to include 1 .1 2.0 66.0 HLW/Fir Tree/Valley Terrace/N Bitchburn/High Grange Join to Wolsingham Town 1 .1 2.0 68.0 Council Whole of Crook & outer area 2 .2 4.0 72.0 in one parish Stanley/Sunniside/Billy Row 12 1.4 24.0 96.0 join Tow Law Comment regarding one of 1 .1 2.0 98.0 arrangements in question Comment not applicable to 1 .1 2.0 100.0 'alternative arrangements' Total 50 5.8 100.0 Missing -99 810 94.2 Total 860 100.0
Page 224 If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Community forum 3 10.3 10.3 10.3 Neighbourhood 8 27.6 27.6 37.9 Management Team Community Association 2 6.9 6.9 44.8 Residents'/Tenants' 2 6.9 6.9 51.7 Association Bring back district council 3 10.3 10.3 62.1 North or Crook North in with 1 3.4 3.4 65.5 East Hedleyhope Parish Council As long as it is free 1 3.4 3.4 69.0 One council for each three 7 24.1 24.1 93.1 areas Whole of Crook & outer area 2 6.9 6.9 100.0 in one parish Total 29 100.0 100.0
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 55 17.0% 23.2% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 47 14.5% 19.8% governance is a waste of money Money: The council should 2 .6% .8% pay for extra money required Consultation/Review: 9 2.8% 3.8% Critical of consultation Consultation/Review: 21 6.5% 8.9% Critical of review
Consultation/Review: 29 9.0% 12.2% Council ignores consultation results
Page 225 Favours no change: Only 37 11.4% 15.6% require one level of governance Favours no change: Why 6 1.9% 2.5% change back to two tiers after just changing to one? Favours no change: Change 9 2.8% 3.8% motivated by personal interests Favours town council: 7 2.2% 3.0% Centralisation of local costs/governance Favours town council: Town 7 2.2% 3.0% council increases prominance within county Favours more than town 5 1.5% 2.1% council: Local reform helps local people Favours more than town 4 1.2% 1.7% council: Reform to help outlying villages Favours more than town 7 2.2% 3.0% council: Each area should have its own representation/identity Other: Unitary authority bad 3 .9% 1.3% for west of county Other: Local Government 2 .6% .8% should be sorted by now Other: Area closely 3 .9% 1.3% associated with other parish council
Favours no change: Petition 1 .3% .4% doesn't represent population Favours no change: AAPs 1 .3% .4% meet local requirements Favours no change: Durham 6 1.9% 2.5% CC unfamiliar with area Favours Town Council: 3 .9% 1.3% Crook needs to stay as one (all three areas)
Page 226 Favours more than Town 1 .3% .4% Council: Outer villages may be better off with other councils Other: Why were the old 1 .3% .4% Parish Councils dissolved Other: Current set up 3 .9% 1.3% making Crook worse Consultation/Review: 10 3.1% 4.2% Praises/in favour of review Favours no change: 5 1.5% 2.1% Services already cut Favours no change: Change 2 .6% .8% would hae no affect on local area Favours no change: No 3 .9% 1.3% overall fundamental change Money: Precept in line with 3 .9% 1.3% other parishes Centralises surrounding 3 .9% 1.3% villages Favours more than town 2 .6% .8% council: Would organise local organisations Consultation/Review: 6 1.9% 2.5% Equalities comment Comment unrelated to 21 6.5% 8.9% consultation Total 324 100.0% 136.7% a. Group
What is your locality
Page 227 Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Helmington Row 10 1.2 1.2 1.2 Hunwick 57 6.6 6.6 7.8 Hill Top Villages 34 4.0 4.0 11.7 Billy Row 48 5.6 5.6 17.3 Roddymoor 17 2.0 2.0 19.3 Rest of Crook 575 66.9 66.9 86.2 North Bitchburn 6 .7 .7 86.9 High Grange 10 1.2 1.2 88.0 Fir Wood 26 3.0 3.0 91.0 Howden le Wear 77 9.0 9.0 100.0 Total 860 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 402 46.7 53.8 53.8 Female 345 40.1 46.2 100.0 Total 747 86.9 100.0 Missing -99 113 13.1 Total 860 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 7 .8 1.0 1.0 25-34 38 4.4 5.2 6.1 35-44 78 9.1 10.6 16.7 45-54 104 12.1 14.1 30.9 55-64 198 23.0 26.9 57.8
65+ 309 35.9 42.0 99.9 Under 18 1 .1 .1 100.0 Total 735 85.5 100.0 Missing -99 125 14.5 Total 860 100.0
Page 228
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 190 22.1 26.2 26.2 No 534 62.1 73.8 100.0 Total 724 84.2 100.0 Missing -99 136 15.8 Total 860 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 226 26.3 34.8 34.8 White: British 345 40.1 53.1 87.8 Other ethnic group 3 .3 .5 88.3 White: Irish 3 .3 .5 88.8 Other White group 1 .1 .2 88.9 White 72 8.4 11.1 100.0 Total 650 75.6 100.0 Missing -99 210 24.4 Total 860 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 600 69.8 85.0 85.0 None 98 11.4 13.9 98.9 Buddhist 1 .1 .1 99.0 Pagan 2 .2 .3 99.3 Other, not specified 1 .1 .1 99.4 Jewish 2 .2 .3 99.7
Spiritualist 2 .2 .3 100.0 Total 706 82.1 100.0 Missing -99 154 17.9 Total 860 100.0
Page 229
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 654 76.0 98.1 98.1 Gay man 8 .9 1.2 99.3 Bisexual 2 .2 .3 99.6 Gay woman/lesbian 1 .1 .1 99.7 Other, unspecified 2 .2 .3 100.0 Total 667 77.6 100.0 Missing -99 193 22.4 Total 860 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook North 94 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 22 23.4 23.7 23.7 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 11 11.7 11.8 35.5 Council Part of another parish or 17 18.1 18.3 53.8 town council No change to current 41 43.6 44.1 97.8 arrangements Alternative arrangements 2 2.1 2.2 100.0 Total 93 98.9 100.0 Missing -99 1 1.1 Total 94 100.0
Page 230
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Residents'/Tenants' 1 1.1 6.3 6.3 Association North or Crook North in with 1 1.1 6.3 12.5 East Hedleyhope Parish Council Join with Tow Law Council 2 2.1 12.5 25.0 Stanley/Sunniside/Billy Row 12 12.8 75.0 100.0 join Tow Law Total 16 17.0 100.0 Missing -99 78 83.0 Total 94 100.0
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 2 6.7% 8.0% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 4 13.3% 16.0% governance is a waste of money Consultation/Review: 1 3.3% 4.0% Critical of consultation Consultation/Review: 2 6.7% 8.0% Critical of review Consultation/Review: 3 10.0% 12.0% Council ignores consultation results Favours no change: Change 1 3.3% 4.0% motivated by personal interests Favours town council: 2 6.7% 8.0% Centralisation of local costs/governance
Page 231 Favours town council: Town 1 3.3% 4.0% council increases prominance within county Favours more than town 3 10.0% 12.0% council: Local reform helps local people Favours more than town 3 10.0% 12.0% council: Each area should have its own representation/identity Other: Area closely 2 6.7% 8.0% associated with other parish council Favours no change: Change 1 3.3% 4.0% would hae no affect on local area Favours no change: No 1 3.3% 4.0% overall fundamental change Money: Precept in line with 2 6.7% 8.0% other parishes Consultation/Review: 2 6.7% 8.0% Equalities comment Total 30 100.0% 120.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Hill Top Villages 34 36.2 36.2 36.2 Billy Row 44 46.8 46.8 83.0 Rest of Crook 16 17.0 17.0 100.0
Total 94 100.0 100.0
Page 232 What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 38 40.4 52.1 52.1 Female 35 37.2 47.9 100.0 Total 73 77.7 100.0 Missing -99 21 22.3 Total 94 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 25-34 3 3.2 4.2 4.2
35-44 6 6.4 8.5 12.7 45-54 11 11.7 15.5 28.2 55-64 17 18.1 23.9 52.1 65+ 34 36.2 47.9 100.0 Total 71 75.5 100.0 Missing -99 23 24.5 Total 94 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 18 19.1 26.5 26.5 No 50 53.2 73.5 100.0 Total 68 72.3 100.0 Missing -99 26 27.7 Total 94 100.0
Page 233 What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 23 24.5 36.5 36.5 White: British 33 35.1 52.4 88.9 Other ethnic group 1 1.1 1.6 90.5 White: Irish 1 1.1 1.6 92.1 White 5 5.3 7.9 100.0 Total 63 67.0 100.0 Missing -99 31 33.0 Total 94 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 53 56.4 74.6 74.6 None 18 19.1 25.4 100.0 Total 71 75.5 100.0 Missing -99 23 24.5 Total 94 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 65 69.1 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 29 30.9 Total 94 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook Central 567 100.0 100.0 100.0
Page 234 Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 119 21.0 21.3 21.3 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 112 19.8 20.0 41.3 Council Part of another parish or 4 .7 .7 42.0 town council No change to current 308 54.3 55.1 97.1 arrangements Alternative arrangements 16 2.8 2.9 100.0 Total 559 98.6 100.0 Missing -99 8 1.4 Total 567 100.0
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Neighbourhood 5 .9 26.3 26.3 Management Team Community Association 2 .4 10.5 36.8 Residents'/Tenants' 1 .2 5.3 42.1 Association Crook North & 1 .2 5.3 47.4 Central/Crook South split As long as it is free 1 .2 5.3 52.6 One council for each three 7 1.2 36.8 89.5 areas Comment regarding one of 1 .2 5.3 94.7 arrangements in question Comment not applicable to 1 .2 5.3 100.0 'alternative arrangements' Total 19 3.4 100.0 Missing -99 548 96.6 Total 567 100.0
Page 235
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 44 20.3% 28.6% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 35 16.1% 22.7% governance is a waste of money Consultation/Review: 3 1.4% 1.9% Critical of consultation Consultation/Review: 11 5.1% 7.1% Critical of review Consultation/Review: 20 9.2% 13.0% Council ignores consultation results Favours no change: Only 31 14.3% 20.1% require one level of governance Favours no change: Why 4 1.8% 2.6% change back to two tiers after just changing to one? Favours no change: Change 6 2.8% 3.9% motivated by personal interests Favours town council: 3 1.4% 1.9% Centralisation of local costs/governance Favours town council: Town 6 2.8% 3.9% council increases prominance within county
Favours more than town 1 .5% .6% council: Reform to help outlying villages Other: Unitary authority bad 1 .5% .6% for west of county Other: Local Government 1 .5% .6% should be sorted by now
Favours no change: Petition 1 .5% .6% doesn't represent population
Page 236 Favours no change: AAPs 1 .5% .6% meet local requirements Favours no change: Durham 6 2.8% 3.9% CC unfamiliar with area Favours Town Council: 3 1.4% 1.9% Crook needs to stay as one (all three areas) Favours more than Town 1 .5% .6% Council: Outer villages may be better off with other councils Other: Why were the old 1 .5% .6% Parish Councils dissolved Other: Current set up 3 1.4% 1.9% making Crook worse Consultation/Review: 10 4.6% 6.5% Praises/in favour of review Favours no change: 1 .5% .6% Services already cut Favours no change: Change 1 .5% .6% would hae no affect on local area Consultation/Review: 2 .9% 1.3% Equalities comment Comment unrelated to 21 9.7% 13.6% consultation Total 217 100.0% 140.9% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Helmington Row 10 1.8 1.8 1.8
Billy Row 3 .5 .5 2.3 Roddymoor 17 3.0 3.0 5.3 Rest of Crook 536 94.5 94.5 99.8 Howden le Wear 1 .2 .2 100.0 Total 567 100.0 100.0
Page 237
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 266 46.9 52.3 52.3 Female 243 42.9 47.7 100.0 Total 509 89.8 100.0 Missing -99 58 10.2 Total 567 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 18-24 6 1.1 1.2 1.2 25-34 29 5.1 5.7 6.9 35-44 54 9.5 10.6 17.5 45-54 67 11.8 13.2 30.6 55-64 134 23.6 26.3 57.0 65+ 218 38.4 42.8 99.8 Under 18 1 .2 .2 100.0 Total 509 89.8 100.0 Missing -99 58 10.2 Total 567 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 128 22.6 25.7 25.7
No 370 65.3 74.3 100.0 Total 498 87.8 100.0 Missing -99 69 12.2 Total 567 100.0
What is your ethnicity?
Page 238 Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 167 29.5 37.3 37.3 White: British 224 39.5 50.0 87.3 White: Irish 2 .4 .4 87.7 Other White group 1 .2 .2 87.9 White 54 9.5 12.1 100.0 Total 448 79.0 100.0 Missing -99 119 21.0 Total 567 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 426 75.1 88.0 88.0 None 53 9.3 11.0 99.0 Pagan 1 .2 .2 99.2 Jewish 2 .4 .4 99.6 Spiritualist 2 .4 .4 100.0 Total 484 85.4 100.0 Missing -99 83 14.6 Total 567 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 445 78.5 97.4 97.4 Gay man 8 1.4 1.8 99.1
Bisexual 1 .2 .2 99.3 Gay woman/lesbian 1 .2 .2 99.6 Other, unspecified 2 .4 .4 100.0 Total 457 80.6 100.0 Missing -99 110 19.4 Total 567 100.0
Page 239
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook South 199 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 42 21.1 21.6 21.6 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 45 22.6 23.2 44.8 Council Part of another parish or 4 2.0 2.1 46.9 town council No change to current 92 46.2 47.4 94.3 arrangements Alternative arrangements 11 5.5 5.7 100.0 Total 194 97.5 100.0 Missing -99 5 2.5 Total 199 100.0
Page 240
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Community forum 3 1.5 20.0 20.0 Neighbourhood 3 1.5 20.0 40.0 Management Team Bring back district council 4 2.0 26.7 66.7 Crook North & 1 .5 6.7 73.3 Central/Crook South split Crook Central to include 1 .5 6.7 80.0 HLW/Fir Tree/Valley Terrace/N Bitchburn/High Grange Join to Wolsingham Town 1 .5 6.7 86.7 Council Whole of Crook & outer area 2 1.0 13.3 100.0 in one parish Total 15 7.5 100.0 Missing -99 184 92.5 Total 199 100.0
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 9 11.7% 15.5% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 8 10.4% 13.8% governance is a waste of money Money: The council should 2 2.6% 3.4% pay for extra money required Consultation/Review: 5 6.5% 8.6% Critical of consultation Consultation/Review: 8 10.4% 13.8% Critical of review
Page 241 Consultation/Review: 6 7.8% 10.3% Council ignores consultation results Favours no change: Only 6 7.8% 10.3% require one level of governance Favours no change: Why 2 2.6% 3.4% change back to two tiers after just changing to one? Favours no change: Change 2 2.6% 3.4% motivated by personal interests Favours town council: 2 2.6% 3.4% Centralisation of local costs/governance Favours more than town 2 2.6% 3.4% council: Local reform helps local people Favours more than town 3 3.9% 5.2% council: Reform to help outlying villages Favours more than town 4 5.2% 6.9% council: Each area should have its own representation/identity Other: Unitary authority bad 2 2.6% 3.4% for west of county Other: Local Government 1 1.3% 1.7% should be sorted by now Other: Area closely 1 1.3% 1.7% associated with other parish council
Favours no change: 4 5.2% 6.9% Services already cut Favours no change: No 2 2.6% 3.4% overall fundamental change Money: Precept in line with 1 1.3% 1.7% other parishes Centralises surrounding 3 3.9% 5.2% villages
Page 242 Favours more than town 2 2.6% 3.4% council: Would organise local organisations Consultation/Review: 2 2.6% 3.4% Equalities comment Total 77 100.0% 132.8% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Hunwick 57 28.6 28.6 28.6 Billy Row 1 .5 .5 29.1 Rest of Crook 23 11.6 11.6 40.7 North Bitchburn 6 3.0 3.0 43.7 High Grange 10 5.0 5.0 48.7 Fir Wood 26 13.1 13.1 61.8 Howden le Wear 76 38.2 38.2 100.0 Total 199 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 98 49.2 59.4 59.4 Female 67 33.7 40.6 100.0 Total 165 82.9 100.0 Missing -99 34 17.1 Total 199 100.0
Page 243 What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 1 .5 .6 .6 25-34 6 3.0 3.9 4.5 35-44 18 9.0 11.6 16.1 45-54 26 13.1 16.8 32.9 55-64 47 23.6 30.3 63.2 65+ 57 28.6 36.8 100.0 Total 155 77.9 100.0 Missing -99 44 22.1 Total 199 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 44 22.1 27.8 27.8 No 114 57.3 72.2 100.0 Total 158 79.4 100.0 Missing -99 41 20.6 Total 199 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 36 18.1 25.9 25.9 White: British 88 44.2 63.3 89.2 Other ethnic group 2 1.0 1.4 90.6 White 13 6.5 9.4 100.0 Total 139 69.8 100.0 Missing -99 60 30.2 Total 199 100.0
Page 244 What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 121 60.8 80.1 80.1 None 27 13.6 17.9 98.0 Buddhist 1 .5 .7 98.7 Pagan 1 .5 .7 99.3 Other, not specified 1 .5 .7 100.0 Total 151 75.9 100.0 Missing -99 48 24.1 Total 199 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 144 72.4 99.3 99.3 Bisexual 1 .5 .7 100.0 Total 145 72.9 100.0 Missing -99 54 27.1 Total 199 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook Central 10 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid New parish council for the 5 50.0 50.0 50.0 are of Crook North/Central/South No change to current 5 50.0 50.0 100.0 arrangements
Total 10 100.0 100.0
Page 245
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook North & 1 10.0 100.0 100.0 Central/Crook South split Missing -99 9 90.0 Total 10 100.0
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 2 33.3% 66.7% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 1 16.7% 33.3% governance is a waste of money Favours no change: Only 2 33.3% 66.7% require one level of governance Favours more than town 1 16.7% 33.3% council: Reform to help outlying villages Total 6 100.0% 200.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Helmington Row 10 100.0 100.0 100.0
Page 246 What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 6 60.0 75.0 75.0 Female 2 20.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 80.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 35-44 1 10.0 12.5 12.5
45-54 3 30.0 37.5 50.0 55-64 2 20.0 25.0 75.0 65+ 2 20.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 80.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 8 80.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 1 10.0 14.3 14.3 White: British 6 60.0 85.7 100.0 Total 7 70.0 100.0 Missing -99 3 30.0 Total 10 100.0
Page 247
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 7 70.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 3 30.0 Total 10 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 7 70.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 3 30.0 Total 10 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook South 57 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 16 28.1 28.6 28.6 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 5 8.8 8.9 37.5 Council Part of another parish or 1 1.8 1.8 39.3 town council No change to current 33 57.9 58.9 98.2 arrangements Alternative arrangements 1 1.8 1.8 100.0 Total 56 98.2 100.0 Missing -99 1 1.8
Page 248 Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 16 28.1 28.6 28.6 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 5 8.8 8.9 37.5 Council Part of another parish or 1 1.8 1.8 39.3 town council No change to current 33 57.9 58.9 98.2 arrangements Alternative arrangements 1 1.8 1.8 100.0 Total 56 98.2 100.0 Missing -99 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Neighbourhood 1 1.8 33.3 33.3 Management Team Bring back district council 1 1.8 33.3 66.7 Crook North & 1 1.8 33.3 100.0 Central/Crook South split Total 3 5.3 100.0 Missing -99 54 94.7 Total 57 100.0
Page 249 q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 5 21.7% 33.3% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 4 17.4% 26.7% governance is a waste of money Money: The council should 1 4.3% 6.7% pay for extra money required Consultation/Review: 4 17.4% 26.7% Critical of review Favours no change: Why 1 4.3% 6.7% change back to two tiers after just changing to one? Favours more than town 2 8.7% 13.3% council: Local reform helps local people Favours more than town 2 8.7% 13.3% council: Reform to help outlying villages Favours more than town 1 4.3% 6.7% council: Each area should have its own representation/identity Other: Area closely 1 4.3% 6.7% associated with other parish council Favours no change: 1 4.3% 6.7% Services already cut Consultation/Review: 1 4.3% 6.7% Equalities comment Total 23 100.0% 153.3%
a. Group
Page 250 What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Hunwick 57 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 28 49.1 62.2 62.2 Female 17 29.8 37.8 100.0 Total 45 78.9 100.0 Missing -99 12 21.1 Total 57 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 25-34 1 1.8 2.4 2.4 35-44 6 10.5 14.6 17.1 45-54 7 12.3 17.1 34.1 55-64 15 26.3 36.6 70.7 65+ 12 21.1 29.3 100.0 Total 41 71.9 100.0 Missing -99 16 28.1 Total 57 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 8 14.0 19.5 19.5 No 33 57.9 80.5 100.0 Total 41 71.9 100.0 Missing -99 16 28.1 Total 57 100.0
Page 251
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 5 8.8 12.8 12.8 White: British 29 50.9 74.4 87.2 White 5 8.8 12.8 100.0 Total 39 68.4 100.0 Missing -99 18 31.6 Total 57 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 33 57.9 80.5 80.5 None 7 12.3 17.1 97.6 Pagan 1 1.8 2.4 100.0 Total 41 71.9 100.0 Missing -99 16 28.1 Total 57 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 40 70.2 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 17 29.8 Total 57 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook North 34 100.0 100.0 100.0
Page 252
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 5 14.7 14.7 14.7 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 4 11.8 11.8 26.5 Council Part of another parish or 2 5.9 5.9 32.4 town council No change to current 22 64.7 64.7 97.1 arrangements Alternative arrangements 1 2.9 2.9 100.0 Total 34 100.0 100.0
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid North or Crook North in with 1 2.9 100.0 100.0 East Hedleyhope Parish Council Missing -99 33 97.1 Total 34 100.0
Page 253
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 1 7.7% 8.3% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 1 7.7% 8.3% governance is a waste of money Consultation/Review: 1 7.7% 8.3% Critical of review Favours no change: Change 1 7.7% 8.3% motivated by personal interests Favours town council: 2 15.4% 16.7% Centralisation of local costs/governance Favours town council: Town 1 7.7% 8.3% council increases prominance within county Favours more than town 1 7.7% 8.3% council: Local reform helps local people Favours more than town 1 7.7% 8.3% council: Each area should have its own representation/identity Other: Area closely 1 7.7% 8.3% associated with other parish council Favours no change: Change 1 7.7% 8.3% would hae no affect on local area Favours no change: No 1 7.7% 8.3% overall fundamental change Consultation/Review: 1 7.7% 8.3% Equalities comment Total 13 100.0% 108.3%
a. Group
Page 254 What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Hill Top Villages 34 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 11 32.4 37.9 37.9 Female 18 52.9 62.1 100.0 Total 29 85.3 100.0 Missing -99 5 14.7 Total 34 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 25-34 2 5.9 6.9 6.9 35-44 4 11.8 13.8 20.7 45-54 6 17.6 20.7 41.4 55-64 6 17.6 20.7 62.1 65+ 11 32.4 37.9 100.0 Total 29 85.3 100.0 Missing -99 5 14.7 Total 34 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 8 23.5 28.6 28.6 No 20 58.8 71.4 100.0
Total 28 82.4 100.0 Missing -99 6 17.6 Total 34 100.0
Page 255
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 6 17.6 24.0 24.0 White: British 15 44.1 60.0 84.0 Other ethnic group 1 2.9 4.0 88.0 White 3 8.8 12.0 100.0 Total 25 73.5 100.0 Missing -99 9 26.5 Total 34 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 21 61.8 72.4 72.4 None 8 23.5 27.6 100.0 Total 29 85.3 100.0 Missing -99 5 14.7 Total 34 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 28 82.4 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 6 17.6 Total 34 100.0
Page 256 Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook North 44 91.7 91.7 91.7 Crook Central 3 6.3 6.3 97.9 Crook South 1 2.1 2.1 100.0 Total 48 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 16 33.3 34.0 34.0 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 8 16.7 17.0 51.1 Council Part of another parish or 2 4.2 4.3 55.3 town council No change to current 20 41.7 42.6 97.9 arrangements Alternative arrangements 1 2.1 2.1 100.0 Total 47 97.9 100.0 Missing -99 1 2.1 Total 48 100.0
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Residents'/Tenants' 1 2.1 50.0 50.0 Association Join with Tow Law Council 1 2.1 50.0 100.0 Total 2 4.2 100.0 Missing -99 46 95.8 Total 48 100.0
Page 257
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 1 5.9% 7.7% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 4 23.5% 30.8% governance is a waste of money Consultation/Review: 1 5.9% 7.7% Critical of consultation Consultation/Review: 1 5.9% 7.7% Critical of review Consultation/Review: 4 23.5% 30.8% Council ignores consultation results Favours more than town 2 11.8% 15.4% council: Local reform helps local people Favours more than town 2 11.8% 15.4% council: Each area should have its own representation/identity Other: Area closely 1 5.9% 7.7% associated with other parish council Money: Precept in line with 1 5.9% 7.7% other parishes Total 17 100.0% 130.8% a. Group
Page 258
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Billy Row 48 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 28 58.3 63.6 63.6 Female 16 33.3 36.4 100.0 Total 44 91.7 100.0 Missing -99 4 8.3 Total 48 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 25-34 1 2.1 2.4 2.4 35-44 2 4.2 4.8 7.1 45-54 4 8.3 9.5 16.7 55-64 10 20.8 23.8 40.5 65+ 25 52.1 59.5 100.0 Total 42 87.5 100.0 Missing -99 6 12.5 Total 48 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 11 22.9 27.5 27.5 No 29 60.4 72.5 100.0 Total 40 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 8 16.7
Page 259 Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 11 22.9 27.5 27.5 No 29 60.4 72.5 100.0 Total 40 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 8 16.7 Total 48 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 17 35.4 44.7 44.7
White: British 18 37.5 47.4 92.1 White: Irish 1 2.1 2.6 94.7 White 2 4.2 5.3 100.0 Total 38 79.2 100.0 Missing -99 10 20.8 Total 48 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 33 68.8 76.7 76.7 None 10 20.8 23.3 100.0 Total 43 89.6 100.0 Missing -99 5 10.4 Total 48 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 38 79.2 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 10 20.8 Total 48 100.0
Page 260
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook Central 17 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 3 17.6 17.6 17.6 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 8 47.1 47.1 64.7 Council No change to current 6 35.3 35.3 100.0 arrangements Total 17 100.0 100.0
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below.
Frequency Percent Missing -99 17 100.0
Page 261 q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 1 16.7% 25.0% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 2 33.3% 50.0% governance is a waste of money Consultation/Review: 1 16.7% 25.0% Council ignores consultation results Consultation/Review: 1 16.7% 25.0% Praises/in favour of review Comment unrelated to 1 16.7% 25.0% consultation Total 6 100.0% 150.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Roddymoor 17 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 8 47.1 47.1 47.1 Female 9 52.9 52.9 100.0
Total 17 100.0 100.0
Page 262
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 45-54 1 5.9 5.9 5.9 55-64 7 41.2 41.2 47.1 65+ 9 52.9 52.9 100.0 Total 17 100.0 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 4 23.5 23.5 23.5 No 13 76.5 76.5 100.0 Total 17 100.0 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 3 17.6 20.0 20.0 White: British 11 64.7 73.3 93.3 White 1 5.9 6.7 100.0 Total 15 88.2 100.0 Missing -99 2 11.8 Total 17 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 16 94.1 94.1 94.1 None 1 5.9 5.9 100.0 Total 17 100.0 100.0
Page 263 What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 15 88.2 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 2 11.8 Total 17 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook South 6 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Part of a Crook Town 2 33.3 40.0 40.0 Council No change to current 3 50.0 60.0 100.0 arrangements Total 5 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7 Total 6 100.0
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below.
Frequency Percent Missing -99 6 100.0
Page 264 q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: More local 1 25.0% 50.0% governance is a waste of money Consultation/Review: 1 25.0% 50.0% Critical of consultation Favours no change: Change 1 25.0% 50.0% motivated by personal interests Favours town council: 1 25.0% 50.0% Centralisation of local costs/governance Total 4 100.0% 200.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid North Bitchburn 6 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 3 50.0 60.0 60.0 Female 2 33.3 40.0 100.0
Total 5 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7 Total 6 100.0
Page 265
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 45-54 1 16.7 20.0 20.0 55-64 2 33.3 40.0 60.0 65+ 2 33.3 40.0 100.0 Total 5 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7 Total 6 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 2 33.3 40.0 40.0 No 3 50.0 60.0 100.0 Total 5 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7 Total 6 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 2 33.3 40.0 40.0 White: British 3 50.0 60.0 100.0 Total 5 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7 Total 6 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 4 66.7 80.0 80.0 None 1 16.7 20.0 100.0
Total 5 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7
Page 266 What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 4 66.7 80.0 80.0 None 1 16.7 20.0 100.0 Total 5 83.3 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7 Total 6 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 5 83.3 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 16.7 Total 6 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook South 10 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 1 10.0 11.1 11.1 are of Crook North/Central/South
Part of a Crook Town 3 30.0 33.3 44.4 Council
No change to current 5 50.0 55.6 100.0 arrangements Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
Page 267
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below.
Frequency Percent Missing -99 10 100.0
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Consultation/Review: 1 33.3% 33.3% Council ignores consultation results Favours no change: No 2 66.7% 66.7% overall fundamental change Total 3 100.0% 100.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid High Grange 10 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Female 9 90.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
Page 268
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 25-34 1 10.0 11.1 11.1 35-44 2 20.0 22.2 33.3 45-54 3 30.0 33.3 66.7 55-64 2 20.0 22.2 88.9 65+ 1 10.0 11.1 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 2 20.0 22.2 22.2 No 7 70.0 77.8 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing -99 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 2 20.0 28.6 28.6 White: British 4 40.0 57.1 85.7 White 1 10.0 14.3 100.0 Total 7 70.0 100.0 Missing -99 3 30.0 Total 10 100.0
Page 269 What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 5 50.0 71.4 71.4 None 2 20.0 28.6 100.0 Total 7 70.0 100.0 Missing -99 3 30.0 Total 10 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 7 70.0 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 3 30.0 Total 10 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook South 26 100.0 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 4 15.4 15.4 15.4 are of Crook North/Central/South
Part of a Crook Town 8 30.8 30.8 46.2 Council
Part of another parish or 2 7.7 7.7 53.8 town council No change to current 9 34.6 34.6 88.5 arrangements Alternative arrangements 3 11.5 11.5 100.0
Total 26 100.0 100.0
Page 270
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Community forum 3 11.5 75.0 75.0 Join to Wolsingham Town 1 3.8 25.0 100.0 Council Total 4 15.4 100.0 Missing -99 22 84.6 Total 26 100.0
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: The council should 1 10.0% 12.5% pay for extra money required Consultation/Review: 1 10.0% 12.5% Critical of consultation Consultation/Review: 1 10.0% 12.5% Critical of review Consultation/Review: 1 10.0% 12.5% Council ignores consultation results Favours no change: Only 2 20.0% 25.0% require one level of governance Favours no change: Why 1 10.0% 12.5% change back to two tiers after just changing to one? Other: Unitary authority bad 1 10.0% 12.5% for west of county Favours no change: 1 10.0% 12.5% Services already cut Money: Precept in line with 1 10.0% 12.5% other parishes Total 10 100.0% 125.0% a. Group
Page 271
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Fir Wood 26 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 16 61.5 72.7 72.7 Female 6 23.1 27.3 100.0 Total 22 84.6 100.0 Missing -99 4 15.4 Total 26 100.0
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 25-34 1 3.8 4.8 4.8 35-44 3 11.5 14.3 19.0 45-54 2 7.7 9.5 28.6 55-64 8 30.8 38.1 66.7 65+ 7 26.9 33.3 100.0 Total 21 80.8 100.0 Missing -99 5 19.2 Total 26 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 5 19.2 22.7 22.7 No 17 65.4 77.3 100.0 Total 22 84.6 100.0 Missing -99 4 15.4
Page 272 Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 5 19.2 22.7 22.7 No 17 65.4 77.3 100.0 Total 22 84.6 100.0 Missing -99 4 15.4 Total 26 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 4 15.4 25.0 25.0
White: British 11 42.3 68.8 93.8 White 1 3.8 6.3 100.0 Total 16 61.5 100.0 Missing -99 10 38.5 Total 26 100.0
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 15 57.7 71.4 71.4 None 5 19.2 23.8 95.2 Buddhist 1 3.8 4.8 100.0 Total 21 80.8 100.0 Missing -99 5 19.2 Total 26 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 19 73.1 95.0 95.0
Bisexual 1 3.8 5.0 100.0
Total 20 76.9 100.0 Missing -99 6 23.1
Page 273 What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 19 73.1 95.0 95.0 Bisexual 1 3.8 5.0 100.0 Total 20 76.9 100.0 Missing -99 6 23.1 Total 26 100.0
Which unparished area of crook are you from? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Crook Central 1 1.3 1.3 1.3
Crook South 76 98.7 98.7 100.0 Total 77 100.0 100.0
Please state which is your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid New parish council for the 18 23.4 23.4 23.4 are of Crook North/Central/South Part of a Crook Town 20 26.0 26.0 49.4 Council Part of another parish or 1 1.3 1.3 50.6 town council No change to current 33 42.9 42.9 93.5 arrangements Alternative arrangements 5 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 77 100.0 100.0
Page 274
If you have indicated 'alternative arrangements', please give details below. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Bring back district council 3 3.9 50.0 50.0 Crook Central to include 1 1.3 16.7 66.7 HLW/Fir Tree/Valley Terrace/N Bitchburn/High Grange Whole of Crook & outer area 2 2.6 33.3 100.0 in one parish Total 6 7.8 100.0 Missing -99 71 92.2 Total 77 100.0
q3all Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases a All responses combined Money: Against increase in 3 13.0% 15.0% personal/local taxpayer expenditure Money: More local 1 4.3% 5.0% governance is a waste of money Consultation/Review: 1 4.3% 5.0% Critical of consultation Consultation/Review: 1 4.3% 5.0% Critical of review Consultation/Review: 3 13.0% 15.0% Council ignores consultation results Favours no change: Only 4 17.4% 20.0% require one level of governance Favours town council: 1 4.3% 5.0% Centralisation of local costs/governance
Page 275 Favours more than town 1 4.3% 5.0% council: Reform to help outlying villages Favours more than town 2 8.7% 10.0% council: Each area should have its own representation/identity Other: Local Government 1 4.3% 5.0% should be sorted by now Centralises surrounding 3 13.0% 15.0% villages Favours more than town 2 8.7% 10.0% council: Would organise local organisations Total 23 100.0% 115.0% a. Group
What is your locality Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Howden le Wear 77 100.0 100.0 100.0
What is your gender? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 41 53.2 64.1 64.1 Female 23 29.9 35.9 100.0 Total 64 83.1 100.0 Missing -99 13 16.9 Total 77 100.0
Page 276
What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18-24 1 1.3 1.7 1.7 25-34 3 3.9 5.0 6.7 35-44 2 2.6 3.3 10.0 45-54 11 14.3 18.3 28.3 55-64 13 16.9 21.7 50.0 65+ 30 39.0 50.0 100.0 Total 60 77.9 100.0 Missing -99 17 22.1 Total 77 100.0
Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 21 27.3 33.9 33.9 No 41 53.2 66.1 100.0 Total 62 80.5 100.0 Missing -99 15 19.5 Total 77 100.0
What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid White: English 17 22.1 31.5 31.5 White: British 33 42.9 61.1 92.6 Other ethnic group 2 2.6 3.7 96.3 White 2 2.6 3.7 100.0 Total 54 70.1 100.0 Missing -99 23 29.9 Total 77 100.0
Page 277
What is your religion or belief? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Christian 47 61.0 81.0 81.0 None 10 13.0 17.2 98.3 Other, not specified 1 1.3 1.7 100.0 Total 58 75.3 100.0 Missing -99 19 24.7 Total 77 100.0
What is your sexuality? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Heterosexual/Straight 55 71.4 100.0 100.0 Missing -99 22 28.6 Total 77 100.0
Page 278 Appendix I Crook Stats
Area Polling Properties Electors Districts
North NWDSA BA 186 281 NWDSB BB 295 484 NWDSC BC 341 822 625 1390
Roddymoor NWDUA BD 218 218 378 378
Central NWDUB BE 604 1004 NWDVA BF 767 1230 NWDVB BG 244 371 NWDVC BH 1573 2740 NWDWA BO 607 973 NWDWB BP 633 980 NWDWC BW 192 4620 336 7634
South NWDTA BQ 147 242 NWDTB BR 686 1207 NWDZA BT 191 338 NWDZB BU1 79 1103 130 1917
Hunwick NWDZC BV 606 606 1057 1057
Totals 7369 12376
Page 279 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 280 Durham Stats
Area Polling Properties Electors Districts
Newton Hall DAA AA 1404 2594 * DBA AB 1740 3150 DND DVA 330 3474 525 6269
Nevilles DCA AC 730 1467 ** 700/1398 Cross DFA AK 889 1679 DFB AL 616 1211 DCC AM 744 2037 * DGA(Pt) AN (Pt) 42 3021 1404 7798 2991/7729
Elvet & DCB AD 140 217 Lower Gilesgate ** DDB(Pt) AF(Pt) 279 523 DEA AG 880 3001 * DGA(Pt) AN(Pt) 801 2353 DCD AP 541 2641 1223 7317
Upper Gilesgate DDA AE 705 1196 & Sherburn Road ** DDB(Pt) AF(Pt) 329 571 DDC AH 400 655 DDD AI 305 538 DDE AJ 352 2091 531 3491
Durham * DGA(Pt) AN(Pt) 39 1067 South DGB AO 17 56 28 1095
Totals 11283 25970
Framwellgate Moor DNE DVB 61 61 118 118
Newton Hall DAA AA 1404 2594 * DBA AB 1740 3144 3150 5744
DND DVA 330 525 * DNE DVB 61 118 DCA(Pt) AC(Pt) 30 421 69 712 **
Framwellgate Moor Parish (11 Members): Brasside DNA DT 231 417 Pity Me DNB DU 925 1,649 Framwellgate Moor DNC DV 1,287 2443 2,104 4170
Page 281 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 282
APPENDIX J
Duties
The Duties of a Parish Council are as follows in so much as a parish council must:
Provide allotments if the council considers that there is a demand for them from local residents and if it is reasonable to do so Comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 Comply with employment law Consider the impact of their decisions on reducing crime and disorder in their area Have regard to the protection of biodiversity in carrying out their functions Decide whether to adopt a churchyard when it is closed, if asked to do so by the Parochial Church Council
A local council also has a duty that all the rules for the administration of the council are followed. A council must therefore:-
Appoint a chairman of the council Appoint officers as appropriate for carrying out its functions Appoint a responsible financial officer (RFO) to manage the councils financial affairs; the RFO is often the clerk especially in smaller councils. Appoint an independent and competent internal auditor Hold a minimum number of four meetings per year one of which must be the Annual Meeting of the Council in May.
Function Powers and Duties Statutory Provision Duty to appoint a Responsible Financial Accounts LGA 1972, s. 151 Officer to manage the council's accounts Acceptance of Duty to sign declaration of acceptance of LGA 1972, s. 83 office office (councillors and chairman) Agency Power to arrange for the discharge of LGA 1972, s.101 arrangements functions by another local authority Smallholdings & Power to provide allotments duty to provide Allotments Allotments Act 1908, allotment gardens if demand exist ss. 23, 26 & 42 Baths and Power to provide public baths and Public Health Act washhouses washhouses 1936, ss. 221-223, 227 Borrowing Power to borrow money for statutory functions LGA 1972, Sch 13 Open Spaces Act Power to acquire and maintain 1906, ss. 9 & 10 Power to provide LGA 1972, s. 214 Burial grounds, Parish Councils and cemeteries and Power to agree to maintain memorials and Burial Authorities crematoria* monuments (Misc. Prov.) Act 1970, s 1 Power to contribute to expenses of LGA1972, s. 214(6) maintaining cemeteries
Page 283 Local Government Bus shelters* Power to provide and maintain bus shelters (Misc. Prov.) Act 1953, s. 4 Power to make byelaws for public walks and Public Health Act pleasure grounds 1875, s. 164 Road Traffic Cycle parks Regulation Act 1984, Byelaws s. 57(7) Public Health Act, Baths and Washhouses 1936 s. 233 Open Spaces Act, Open spaces and burial grounds 1906, s. 15 Power to appoint trustees of parochial Charities Act 1993, s. Charities charities 79 Christmas lights Power to provide to attract visitors LGA 1972 s.144 Citizens Advice Power to support LGA 1972 s.142 Bureau Parish Councils Act Clocks* Power to provide public clocks 1957 s. 2 Closed churchyards Power (and sometimes duty) to maintain LGA 1972 s. 215 Inclosure Act 1845; Local Government Act Powers in relation to enclosure, regulation Commons and 1894, s.8(4); and management, and providing common common pastures Smallholdings & pasture Allotments Act 1908, s.34 Power to provide and equip community LGA 1972 s.133 buildings Community centres Power to provide buildings for use of clubs Local Government having athletic, social or educational (Misc. Prov.) Act 1976, objectives s. 19 Conference Power to provide and encourage the use LGA 1997, s. 144 Facilities* conference facilities Right to be consulted by principal councils if Local Government and Consultation directed by Secretary of State (England) or by Rating Act 1997, s. 21 Welsh Assembly (Wales) LGA 1972, s. 33A Power to spend money on various crime Local Government and Crime prevention* prevention measures Rating Act 1997, s. 31 Public Health Act Drainage Power to deal with ditches and ponds 1936, s. 260 Entertainment and Provision of entertainment and support for the LGA 1972, s. 145 the Arts* arts including festivals and celebrations Highways Act 1980, s. Flagpoles Power to erect flagpoles in the highways 144 Power to incur expenditure not otherwise authorised on anything which in the council's Free Resource LGA 1972, s. 137 opinion is in the interests of the area or part of it or all or some of the inhabitants Gifts Power to accept gifts LGA 1972, s. 139
Page 284 Highways Act 1980, Power to maintain footpaths & bridleways ss. 43 & 50 Parish Councils Act Power to light roads and public places 1957 s.3 Road Traffic Power to provide parking places for vehicles, Regulation Act 1984 bicycles and motor-cycles s.57 Power to make a dedication agreement for a Highways Act 1980, new highway or widening of an existing ss. 30 & 72 highway Right to veto application to magistrates court Highways Act 1980, Highways to stop up, divert or cease to maintain a public ss. 47 & 116 highway Power to complain to a local highway Highways Act 1908, s. authority that a highway is unlawfully stopped 130 up or obstructed Power to plant trees etc. and maintain Highways Act 1980, s. roadside verges 96 Power to prosecute for unlawful ploughing of Highways Act 1980, s. a footpath or bridleway 134 Road Traffic Power to provide traffic signs and other Regulation Act, 1984, notices s. 72 Interests Duty to declare an interest LGA 1972, s. 94 Power to participate in schemes of collective Investments Trustee Act 1961 s.11 investment Power to acquire land by agreement, to LGA 1972, ss. 124, appropriate land and to dispose of land 126 & 127 Power to acquire land by compulsory LGA 1972, s. 125 purchase Land Power to accept gifts of land LGA 1972, s. 139 Local Government Power to obtain particulars of persons (Misc. Prov.) Act 1976, interested in land s. 16 Parish Councils Act Lighting Power to light roads and public places 1957, s.3 & Highways Act 1980, s. 301 Power to provide litter bins in streets and Litter Act 1983, ss. 5 & Litter* public places 6 Lotteries and Lotteries Power to promote lotteries Amusements Act 1976, s. 7 LGA 1972, Sch. 12 Duty to hold annual parish meeting para.23 LGA 1972, Sch. 12 Meetings Duty to hold annual parish council meeting para. 7 LGA 1972, Sch. 12 Power to convene a parish meeting para. 14 Mortuaries and Power to provide mortuaries and post-mortem Public Health Act
Page 285 post-mortem rooms rooms 1936, s. 198 Power to provide information relating to Newsletters LGA 1972 s.142 matters affecting local government Power to deal with offensive ponds, ditches Public Health Act Nuisances* and gutters 1936, s. 260 Public Health Act 1875, s. 164 Open Spaces Power to acquire and maintain open spaces Open Spaces Act 1906, ss.9,10 Power to give directions as to custody of Parish documents LGA 1972, s. 226 parish documents Road Traffic Power to provide parking places for motor Parking facilities Regulation Act 1984, vehicles and bicycles ss. 57 & 63 Public Health Act 1875 s.164; LGA 1972 sch. Power to acquire land or to provide recreation Parks and pleasure 14 para. 27; Public grounds, public walks, pleasure grounds and grounds Health Acts open spaces and to manage and control them Amendment Act 1890 s.44 Public buildings and Power to provide buildings for offices and for LGA 1972, s. 133 village halls public meetings and assemblies Public Public Health Act Power to provide public conveniences conveniences 1936, s. 87 Power to provide information about matters Publicity LGA 1972, s. 142 affecting local government Local Government Power to collect, exhibit and purchase local Records (Records) Act 1962, records ss. 1 & 2 Open Spaces Act 1906, s. 9-10 Power to provide a wide range of recreational Local Government facilities Recreation* (Misc. Prov.) Act 1976, s. 19 Public Health Act 1961 Provision of boating pools s.54 Parish Councils Act Seats and shelters* Power to provide roadside seats and shelters 1957, s. 1 Town & Country Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Right to be notified of planning applications planning para. 8 of sch. 1; para. 2 of Sch. 1A (Wales) LGA 1972, ss. 245, Town status Power to adopt town status 245B Power to contribute to encouragement of Tourism* LGA 1972, s. 144 Tourism Power to contribute to the cost of traffic Highways Act 1980, s. Traffic calming calming measures 274A Transport* Power to (a) establish car-sharing schemes; Local Government and
Page 286 (b) make grants for bus services; (c) provide Rating Act 1997, s. 26 taxi-fare concessions; (d) investigate public Transport Act 1985 transport, road use needs; (e) provide s106A information about public transport services Power to use decorative signs to inform Village signs LGA 1972 s.144 visitors Open Spaces Act 1906, s. 15; Power to maintain, to make bylaws for and to Inclosure Act 1857, s. Village greens* prosecute for interference with village greens 12; Commons Act 187 6, s. 29 Village Halls* (see Community centres and Public buildings) War Memorials (Local Authorities Powers) Power to maintain, repair and protect war War memorials Act 1923, s. 1 as memorials extended by LGA 1948, s. 133 Power to utilise any well, spring or stream to Public Health Act Water supply provide facilities for obtaining water from them 1936, s. 125
Page 287 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 APPENDIX L Electorate No of Cllrs Ratio of as @ Feb per Ward/ electors Parish (Ward) 2012 Parish per Cllr Barnard Castle (East) 1,314 4 329 Barnard Castle (North) 1,088 3 363 Barnard Castle (West) 2,061 5 412 Bearpark Parish Council 1,663 11 151 Belmont (Belmont) 2,951 5 590 Belmont (Carrville) 2,182 5 436 Belmont (Gilesgate Moor) 2,287 5 457 Bishop Auckland (Bishop Auckland Town) 2,580 2 1290 Bishop Auckland (Cockton Hill) 3,739 3 1246 Bishop Auckland (Henknowle) 3,014 3 1005 Bishop Auckland (Woodhouse Close) 3,466 3 1155 Bishop Middleham Parish Council 1,076 9 120 Bournmoor 1,696 9 188 Bowes 351 7 50 Brancepeth Parish Council 344 7 49 Brandon & Byshottles (Central) 4,739 4 1185 Brandon & Byshottles (East) 1,104 3 368 Brandon & Byshottles (North) 992 3 331 Brandon & Byshottles (South) 1,677 3 559 Brandon & Byshottles (Ushaw Moor) 3,500 4 875 Brandon & Byshottles (West) 2,730 4 683 Brignall 45 5 9 Burnhope 1,220 11 111 Cassop cum Quarrington (East) 968 4 242 Cassop cum Quarrington (West) 3,120 11 284 Castle Eden 518 7 74 Chilton Town Council 2,987 12 249 Cockfield 1,270 11 115 Cornforth Parish Council 2,075 15 138 Cornsay (Cornsay) 73 3 24 Cornsay (Hamsteels Estate) 825 8 103 Cotherstone (Briscoe) 51 1 51 Cotherstone (Cotherstone) 434 6 72 Coxhoe (Coxhoe) 2,784 8 348 Coxhoe (Quarrington Hill) 530 3 177 Croxdale & Hett (Hett) 205 3 68 Croxdale & Hett (Sunderland Bridge) 561 6 94 Dalton Le Dale (Dalton Urban) 1,081 5 216 Dalton Le Dale (Dalton Village) 246 4 62 Dene Valley 1,861 9 207 Easington Colliery 3,951 12 329 Easington Village 1,769 9 197 Edmondsley (Edmondsley) 485 10 49 Edmondsley (Twizell) 17 1 17 Eggleston 365 7 52 Egglestone Abbey 13 2 7 Eldon 308 5 62 Esh (Esh) 402 2 201 Esh (Langley Park) 3,296 10 330 Page 293 Esh (Quebec) 176 2 88 APPENDIX L Esh (Ushaw) 33 2 17 Etherley 1,704 11 155 Evenwood & Barony (Evenwood) 1,413 6 236 Evenwood & Barony (Lands) 159 3 53 Evenwood & Barony (Ramshaw) 198 3 66 Evenwood & Barony (Toft Hill) 50 1 50 Evenwood & Barony (Witton) 192 2 96 Ferryhill (Broom) 3,907 8 488 Ferryhill (Ferryhill & Dean Bank) 3,471 7 496 Ferryhill (Ferryhill Station) 756 2 378 Fishburn Parish Council 2,039 11 185 Forest & Frith 136 7 19 Framwellgate Moor Parish Council 4,174 11 379 Gainford 1,053 9 117 Great Aycliffe (Aycliffe Village) 793 1 793 Great Aycliffe (Byerley Park, Horndale & Cobblers Hall) 3,960 6 660 Great Aycliffe (Neville) 1,575 3 525 Great Aycliffe (Shafto St Marys) 2,645 3 882 Great Aycliffe (Simpasture) 1,408 2 704 Great Aycliffe (West) 4,336 6 723 Great Aycliffe (Woodham North) 4,678 6 780 Great Aycliffe (Woodham South) 1,673 3 558 Great Lumley 2,995 12 250 Greater Willington 4,424 9 492 Greencroft 152 11 14 Hamsterley 362 7 52 Haswell 1,496 9 166 Hawthorn 414 7 59 Healeyfield 1,286 7 184 Hedleyhope 141 9 16 Horden (North) 3,737 8 467 Horden (South) 2,784 7 398 Hunderthwaite 105 7 15 Hutton Henry (Hutton Henry) 401 3 134 Hutton Henry (Station Town) 904 9 100 Ingleton 376 7 54 Kelloe Parish Council 1,191 9 132 Kimblesworth & Plawsworth (Kimblesworth) 300 2 150 Kimblesworth & Plawsworth (Plawsworth) 835 7 119 Kimblesworth & Plawsworth (West Nettlesworth) 248 2 124 Lanchester 3,402 15 227 Langton 26 1 26 Lartington 108 7 15 Little Lumley (North) 594 4 149 Little Lumley (South) 705 5 141 Lunedale 76 5 15 Lynesack & Softley (Butterknowle) 596 6 99 Lynesack & Softley (Copley Lane) 399 5 80 Marwood (Oval) 98 1 98 Marwood (Rural) 179 4 45 Marwood (Urban) 163 2 82 Mickleton 351 7 50 Page 294 Middleton-In-Teesdale 962 8 120 APPENDIX L Middridge Parish Council 265 5 53 Monk Hesleden (Blackhall Colliery) 2,441 10 244 Monk Hesleden (Blackhall Rocks) 1,787 8 223 Monk Hesleden (Hesleden) 614 3 205 Muggleswick 100 7 14 Murton (East) 3,142 12 262 Murton (West) 2,807 9 312 Newbiggin 122 4 31 North Lodge 1,974 11 179 Ouston 2,340 7 334 Ovington 128 5 26 Pelton (Grange Villa) 873 3 291 Pelton (Handenhold) 79 1 79 Pelton (Pelton) 3,939 11 358 Peterlee (Acre Rigg) 3,007 4 752 Peterlee (Dene House) 2,973 4 743 Peterlee (Eden Hill) 3,005 4 751 Peterlee (Howletch) 2,729 4 682 Peterlee (Passfield) 4,559 6 760 Pittington (Littletown) 114 3 38 Pittington (Pittington) 1,089 6 182 Rokeby 73 5 15 Romaldkirk 156 7 22 Sacriston 4,026 15 268 Satley 247 7 35 Seaham (Dawdon) 4,437 5 887 Seaham (Deneside) 3,164 5 633 Seaham (Seaham Harbour North) 3,023 4 756 Seaham (Seaham Harbour South) 1,163 2 582 Seaham (Seaham North) 2,860 3 953 Seaham (Westlea) 1,334 2 667 Seaton with Slingley 1,097 11 100 Sedgefield Town Council 4,190 15 279 Shadforth (Ludworth) 514 4 129 Shadforth (Shadforth) 341 3 114 Shadforth (Sherburn Hill) 816 5 163 Sherburn Village Parish Council 2,552 9 284 Shildon (Byerley) 2,915 5 583 Shildon (Sunnydale) 2,436 6 406 Shildon (Thickley) 2,579 6 430 Shincliffe Parish Council 1,468 7 210 Shotton 3,439 15 229 South Bedburn 148 7 21 South Hetton 2,351 9 261 Spennymoor (Byers Green) 670 1 670 Spennymoor (Low Spennymoor & Tudhoe Grange) 4,363 6 727 Spennymoor (Merrington) 984 1 984 Spennymoor (Middlestone) 2,733 4 683 Spennymoor (Spennymoor) 4,310 6 718 Spennymoor (Tudhoe) 2,844 4 711 Staindrop 1,003 9 111 Page 295 Stanhope (Eastgate) 131 1 131 APPENDIX L Stanhope (Frosterly) 692 2 346 Stanhope (Lanehead) 151 1 151 Stanhope (Rookhope) 252 1 252 Stanhope (St Johns) 547 2 274 Stanhope (Stanhope Rural) 401 1 401 Stanhope (Stanhope Urban) 1,138 3 379 Stanhope (Wearhead) 217 1 217 Stanhope (Westgate) 313 1 313 Stanley (Annfield Plain) 3,693 3 1231 Stanley (Catchgate) 2,408 2 1204 Stanley (Craghead & South Stanley) 3,242 3 1081 Stanley (Havannah) 4,400 3 1467 Stanley (South Moor) 3,679 3 1226 Stanley (Stanley Hall) 3,851 3 1284 Stanley (Tanfield) 3,601 3 1200 Startforth 765 7 109 Streatlam & Stainton 375 8 47 Thornley Parish Council 2,023 10 202 Tow Law 1,602 10 160 Trimdon (New Trimdon & Trimdon Grange) 1,485 8 186 Trimdon (Old Trimdon) 2,396 13 184 Trimdon Foundry Parish Council 1,224 7 175 Urpeth (Pelton Lane Ends) 88 1 88 Urpeth (Urpeth) 2,536 9 282 Urpeth (West Pelton) 372 1 372 Waldridge 3,410 10 341 West Auckland (West Auckland 1) 1,075 6 179 West Auckland (West Auckland 2) 916 6 153 West Rainton Parish Council 1,926 11 175 Westwick 55 2 28 Wheatley Hill Parish Council 2,456 9 273 Whorlton 167 5 33 Windlestone Parish Council 185 5 37 Wingate Parish Council 3,273 9 364 Winston 369 7 53 Witton Gilbert Parish Council 2,096 9 233 Witton Le Wear 562 8 70 Wolsingham (Thornley) 214 1 214 Wolsingham (Wolsingham) 1,959 10 196 Woodland 215 7 31
Page 296 APPENDIX M
ORGANISATION
3 Towns AAP
Cornerstone Supported Housing & Counselling Ltd
Peases West Primary School
Billy Row Residents Association
Wear Valley Arthritis Support Group
Hill Top Villages
Stanley Way Residents Association
Billy Row Community Association
West Lodge Care Homes Ltd
Willington Blind & Partially Sighted Club
Howden le Wear Youth Club
Lintons Printers Limited
Glenholme Theatre Club
Hartside Primary
St Catherines Community Centre
Crook Primary
St.Cuthbert's RCVA Primary
Crook Disabled Club
Crook Salvation Army
2D Chief Executive Officer
Crook & District Parent Carers
Crook & District Parents Carers Support
High Grange Village Trust Ltd
West Durham Youth and Community Resource
Billy Row Homing Society
Village Tots - Mother and Toddler
St Andrews Dawson Street Methodist / UR Church
Crook Police Station
Durham County Council
Crook Town Cricket Club
Crook for Chernobyl Children
Watergate Residents Action Group
Wear Valley Mercury
Watergate Warriors
Parklands Residential Home
Crook Community Partnership
Watergate Residents Association
Welcome Club
Crook and District Local History Society
Stanley Way Residents Association
Wear Valley Basketball Club/SLAM
Page 297 APPENDIX M
Crook Community Partnership
Wear Valley Centre
Signpost Advice and Information Centre
3rd Crook Brownies/Guides
St Catherine's Community Association & Craft Fayre
Watergate Action Group
Individual Member
North House Surgery
Crook Writers Group
DCC/Crook Carnival Committee
Crook Mothers Club
High Jobs Hill Allotment Association
Bradbury House Cheshire Home
Rainbow Trust
Crook Golf Club
Crook & Willington Methodist Church
Crook Town AFC
Mohan Jujitsu
Mohan Community Services
Durham County Councillor
Jack Drum Arts
Tow Law Parish Council
Howden le Wear Community Partnership/DCC
Hargill Haven Youth Drop-in
Howden le Wear Community Association
Durham County Council
Howden-le-Wear Parent & Toddler Group
Howden le Wear Local History Society
Customer Panel/H-l-Wear Residents Ass
Howden-le-Wear Primary School
North Bitchburn Community Association
Stanley Village Hall Association
Stanley (Crook) Primary
Stanley Village Hall Association
Tow Law, Deernes & District History Society
Jackass Youth Theatre
Sunniside C.A/Hilltop Villages Part.
Thornley Village Community Association/Group
Tow Law Youth Club
Blessed John Duckett Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary
Tow Law Parish Council
Weardale Community Supported Agriculture
Page 298 APPENDIX M
Tow Law Recreation Exercise Club (TREX)
Tow Law Community Association
Tow Law Millennium Primary
Scrapbank
North East Theatre Organ Association (Howden le Wear)
Page 299 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 300 Appendix N Durham County Council – Altogether Better Equality Impact Assessment Form
NB: Equality Impact Assessment is a legal requirement for all strategies, plans, functions, policies, procedures and services. We are also legally required to publish our assessments. You can find help and prompts on completing the assessment in the guidance from page 7 onwards.
Section one: Description and initial screening Section overview: this section provides an audit trail.
Service/team or section : Democratic Services, Resources
Lead Officer: Sharon Spence Start date: 16.9.2011 Subject of the Impact Assessment: (please also include a brief description of the aims, outcomes, operational issues as appropriate) The Council has received a petition requesting a Parish/Town Council for Crook. To consider this the Council needs to carry out a Community Governance Review. This is a review of the way decisions are made on local issues. A review will look at the best ways of enabling the public to influence decisions affecting them and represent the interests of their area. The County Council must undertake to consult local government electors and any other persons or organisations with an interest in the area under review. It must also ensure that community governance arrangements reflect the identities and interests of the community in that area and that the proposals for community governance review are effective and convenient. The Council must take account of arrangements for representing and involving the local community along with any suggestions and views it receives.
Who are the main stakeholders: General Public/Employees/Elected Members/Partners/Specific Audiences/Other (please specify) – General public within Crook and surrounding area who may be affected by the proposals. Local businesses, voluntary organisations, schools, health bodies, parish council already existing, residents’ associations, Community Forums, Community Groups, Partners.
Page 301 Is a copy of the subject attached? Yes/No
If not, where could it be viewed? Democratic/SS4 Page 302
Democratic/SS4
Initial screening
Prompts to help you: Who is affected by it? Who is intended to benefit and how? Could there be a different impact or outcome for some groups? Is it likely to affect relations between different communities or groups, for example if it is thought to favour one particular group or deny opportunities for others? Is there any specific targeted action to promote equality?
Is there an actual/potential negative or positive impact on specific groups within these headings? Indicate :Y = Yes, N = No, ?=Unsure Gender No Disability Yes Age Yes Race/ethnicity Yes Religion No Sexual No or belief orientation
How will this support our commitment to promote equality and meet our legal responsibilities? Reminder of our legal duties: o Eliminating unlawful discrimination & harassment o Promoting equality of opportunity o Promoting good relations between people from different groups o Promoting positive attitudes towards disabled people and taking account of someone’s disability, even where that involves treating them more favourably than other people o Involving people, particularly disabled people, in public life and decision making
What evidence do you have to support your findings? The proposals for consultation involve sending a survey and background information to every household in the affected area. Copies will be available in different size print. Documents checked for being easy to read. Seeking views of all the community including disabled people. People will not be treated differently because of their gender, race, religion or belief.
Page 303 Decision: Proceed to full impact assessment – Yes/No Date: If you have answered ‘No’ you need to pass the completed form for approval & sign off.
Democratic/SS4 Page 304 Section two: Identifying impacts and evidence- Equality and Diversity Section overview: this section identifies whether there are any impacts on equality/diversity/cohesion, what evidence is available to support the conclusion and what further action is needed.
Identify the impact: does this Explain your conclusion, including What further increase differences or does relevant evidence and consultation you action is required? it aim to reduce gaps for have considered. (Include in Sect. 3 particular groups? action plan)
Gender People will not be treated None differently because of their gender. Age People will not be treated None differently because of their age.
Disability People will not be treated Large print on documents will be provided if Large print differently because of their required. Contact Disability Access Forum. documents disability. Easy to read documents Race/Ethnicity People will not be treated Documents will be available in different Documents provided differently because of their languages if required. in different languages race/ethnicity. Religion or belief People will not be treated None differently because of religion or belief. Sexual People will not be treated None orientation differently because of their sexual orientation.
How will this promote positive relationships between different communities? Provide facility should people not understand the documentation. Providing on-line facility – letter to every household . Press release. Democratic/SS4
Section three: Review and Conclusion Summary: please provide a brief overview, including impact, changes, improvements and any gaps in evidence. Producing easy to read document Various means to consult – by letter, questionnaire – online Promote awareness of activity – through websites and media Produce documentation in large print and other languages.
Action to be taken Officer Target In which plan will this responsible Date action appear? Produce easy to read documents available in large print CT Working Group Minutes. and different languages.
Consultation many formats and range of organisations. CT Working Group Minutes.
Contacting wide range of local groups, including MT Working Group Minutes. disabled.
When will this assessment be reviewed? Date: March 2012
Are there any additional assessments that need to be undertaken in relation to this assessment? No Lead officer - sign off: Date:
Service equality representative - sign off: Date:
Please email your completed Impact Assessment to the Equality team - [email protected]. Page 305
Democratic/SS4 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 306 Appendix O COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW FOR CROOK CENTRAL AND SURROUNDING AREA
Background
The County Council has a legal duty to carry out a community governance review if a valid petition is submitted. A petition was received asking for a town or parish council to be set up in the Crook area, detailed on map no. 1 XXX (attached).
That meant that the governance arrangements for this area had to be considered, and in doing so the Council took into account the areas to the north and south of the petition area, which are also unparished. An initial consultation phase was launched on 1 November 2011 following the publication of a Terms of Reference for the Review, and concluded on 31 December 2011. This sought your initial views on governance arrangements for your area.
What you said
We have analysed all of the responses received during the initial consultation phase. Your responses have been used to produce draft recommendations which are basically a suggestion of final options for you to consider and have your say on.
We asked you to give us your views on your preferred form of community governance in your area.
People in the unparished area of Crook Central responded as follows:
55 % wanted no change to the current arrangements 21% wanted a new parish council for the area of Crook Central
From the responses we received, the above 2 options proved to be the most popular for the future governance arrangements in your area.
The responses we received for the other options consulted on were as follows:
1% wanted to form part of another parish or town council 20% wanted to be part of a Crook Town Council 3% wanted to see some form of alternative arrangements
People in Roddymoor responded as follows
18% wanted to see a new parish council for the area of Crook Central 35 % wanted no change to the current arrangements 47% wanted to be part of a Crook Town Council 0% wanted to see some form of alternative arrangements
Page 307 0% wanted to form part of another parish or town council In respect of North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree, Helmington Row and Howden le Wear, the first preference was for no change. The second was to be part of any Crook Parish Council.
We have taken all the above responses into account. There appears to be little community support to join with another Parish or Town Council or to see some form of alternative arrangements.
Your responses indicate that many of you do wish to see the formation of a Parish Council for Crook as such it is proposed that one option for consultation in your area is to be part of any Crook Parish Council. The second option is for there to be no change to current arrangements.
What happens now?
You now have a final opportunity to tell us what you believe to be the best arrangements for your area. Based on what you have already told us you now need to choose one of the following two options.
Your choices now
Option one – No change to the current governance arrangements in your area
This means that you will see no changes in the way your area is run. Durham County Council will continue to be the only local authority which will provide services to your area and your views will continue to be represented by the County Councillors within your area.
The Three Towns Partnership, Crook Community Partnership, 2D and all other community/residents groups which operate within your area will continue as normal.
Option two – The formation of a Parish Council for your area which we propose to be named Crook Parish Council
This means that a Parish Council will be established and will cover the areas of Crook Central, Roddymoor, North Bitchburn, High Grange, Howden le Wear, Helmington Row and Fir Tree. An election will be held on 2 May 2013 (alongside the County Council elections). We propose that the new Parish Council will be called Crook Parish Council. The Parish Council, if established, would be able to change its name or status should it wish to do so.
Page 308 In order to ensure a consistent Councillor spread across the area of a Crook Parish Council, we propose that the area be split into wards. As such each area would be represented by the following number of Councillors:
Roddymoor Ward – 1 Councillor
Crook Central Ward – 12 Councillors
Crook South Ward – 3 Councillors
If the Parish Council is divided into wards then an election is held in each ward, the same way in which elections are held in county electoral divisions.
These Parish Councillors will represent you in addition to the County Councillors for your area. The Three Towns Partnership, Crook Community Partnership, 2D and all other community/residents groups will not be affected by these changes.
What are Parish and Town Councils and what do they do?
Parish, Community and Town Councils have powers to do a number of things, including providing allotments, bus shelters, supporting local crime prevention initiatives and local highways matters such as street lighting and maintenance of roadside verges. They can be involved in transport, sport and recreation facilities and tourism. They can also provide a focus for representing local issues and identity, and are also consulted on planning applications in their area.
A Parish or Town Council does not replace the County Council – it provides an additional layer of government. Any new Town or Parish Council would be in addition to Durham County Council and could provide extra services as described above, the cost of which would depend on the range and level of services it decided to provide. . Further information about Parish, Community and Town Council’s can be found on the County Durham Association of Local Council’s website www.cdalc.info
How would a Parish Council be paid for?
The County Council would have to meet most of the initial costs of establishing a Parish or Town Council, the new Council itself would then be responsible for meeting all its expenditure, including the cost of premises, staffing and providing services.
Town and Parish Councils are funded through a charge added to your Council Tax. This is known as a precept. The amount of this is something that the Town or Parish Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services and facilities it wants to provide. The precept also depends on the size of the Town or Parish Council and the number of properties across
Page 309 which it is spread. We have suggested that should a Crook Parish Council be created it would require XXXXXXXXXXXXX (details to follow).
If you do not have to pay Council Tax you will also be exempt from the precept.
What’s hap pening with the rest of Crook?
Like you, electors and stakeholders throughout the rest of Crook and the surrounding unparished areas, have told us what future governance arrangements they would like to see in their area.
Based on what they have said, we are now contacting them with draft proposals which they too have the opportunity to choose between.
Electors and stakeholders in Hunwick are now being asked whether they would like to see the formation of a Hunwick Parish Council or whether they would like to see no change to the current governance arrangements in their area.
Electors and stakeholders in the Crook North area are now being asked whether they would like to see the formation of a Hill Top Villages Parish Council or whether they would like to see no change to the current governance arrangements in their area.
What happens next?
This consultation will run until 30 May 2012. The County Council will take the responses to the consultation into account when making a decision on potential changes to governance in your area. A set of final recommendation will then be published later on in the year. Once a decision has been made you will receive written confirmation of the proposals.
Have Your Say!
Your view is important to us, we want to know what you think about our draft proposals for your area. As such, please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you require further paper copies for other members of your household please call Democratic Services on 0191 383 3679.
Should you wish to make any additional comments on this stage of the review, please submit them separately by email to [email protected] or in writing to Democratic Services, Durham County Council, Room 1/14, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL.
If you have any questions about this process and the options available, or if you require more information, you can contact us on 0191 383 3679.
Page 310
We will also be holding drop in sessions in the Civic Centre, Crook on XXXXXXXXXXXX. No appointment is necessary and people will be there to help you.
Further information is also available on the County Council’s website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance where you can also find a full copy of the draft recommendations for your area. Full guidance on community governance reviews can be found at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1527635.pdf .
Page 311 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 312 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW FOR CROOK NORTH
Background
The County Council has a legal duty to carry out a community governance review if a valid petition is submitted. A petition was received asking for a town or parish council to be set up in the Crook area, detailed on map XXX (attached).
This meant that the governance arrangements for this area had to be considered, and in doing so the Council took into account the areas to the north and south of the petition area, which are also unparished. An initial consultation phase was launched on 1 November 2011 following the publication of a Terms of Reference for the Review, and concluded on 31 December 2011. This sought your initial views on governance arrangements for your area.
What you said
We have analysed all of the responses received during the initial consultation phase. Your responses have been used to produce draft recommendations which are basically a suggestion of final options for you to consider and have your say on.
We asked you to give us your views on your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Crook North
44 % wanted no change to the current arrangements 24 % wanted a new parish council for the area of Crook North
From the responses we received, the above two options proved to be the most popular for the future governance arrangements in your area.
The responses we received for the other options consulted on were as follows:
18% wanted to form part of another parish or town council 12% wanted to be part of a Crook Town Council 2% wanted to see some form of alternative arrangements
There appears to be little community support for these options and they will not be pursued further.
What happens now?
You now have a final opportunity to tell us what you believe to be the best arrangements for your area. Based on what you have already told us you now need to choose one of the following two options.
Page 313 Your choices now
Option one - No change to the current governance arrangements in Crook North.
This means that you will see no changes in the way your area is run. Durham County Council will continue to be the only local authority which will provide services to Crook North and your views will continue to be represented by the County Councillors within your area.
The Three Towns Partnership, Crook Community Partnership, Hill Top Villages Association, 2D and all other community/residents groups which operate within your area will continue as normal.
Option two - The formation of a Parish Council for your area which we propose to be named Hill Top Villages Parish Council.
This means that a Parish Council for the area of Crook North will be established. An election will be held on 2 May 2013 (alongside the County Council elections). We propose that the new Parish Council will be called the Hill Top Villages Parish Council. The Parish Council, if established, would be able to change its name or status should it wish to do so.
It is proposed that an appropriate councillor number for the Hill Top Villages Parish Council is 8 Members. These Parish Councillors will represent you in addition to the County Councillors for your area. The Three Towns Partnership, Crook Community Partnership, Hill Top Villages Association, 2D and all other community/residents groups will not be affected by these changes.
What are Parish and Town Councils and what do they do?
Parish, Community and Town Councils have powers to do a number of things, including providing allotments, bus shelters, supporting local crime prevention initiatives and local highways matters such as street lighting and maintenance of roadside verges. They can be involved in transport, sport and recreation facilities and tourism. They can also provide a focus for representing local issues and identity, and are also consulted on planning applications in their area.
A Parish or Town Council does not replace the County Council, instead it provides an additional layer of government. Any new Town or Parish Council would be in addition to Durham County Council and could provide extra services as described above, the cost of which would depend on the range and level of services it decided to provide. Further information about Parish, Community and Town Council’s can be found on the County Durham Association of Local Council’s website www.cdalc.info
Page 314
How would a Parish Council be paid for?
The County Council would have to meet most of the initial costs of establishing a Parish or Town Council, the new Council itself would then be responsible for meeting all its expenditure, including the cost of premises, staffing and providing services.
Town and Parish Councils are funded through a charge added to your Council Tax. This is known as a precept. The amount of this is something that the Town or Parish Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services and facilities it wants to provide. The precept also depends on the size of the Town or Parish Council and the number of properties across which it is spread. We have suggested that should a Hill Top Villages Parish Council be created it would require XXXXXXXXXXXXX (details to follow).
If you do not have to pay Council Tax you will also be exempt from the precept.
What’s happening with the rest of Crook?
Like you, electors and stakeholders throughout the rest of Crook and the surrounding unparished areas, have told us what future governance arrangements they would like to see in their area.
Based on what they have said, we are now contacting them with draft proposals which they too have the opportunity to choose between.
The electors and stakeholders in Hunwick are now being asked whether they would like to see the formation of a Hunwick Parish Council or whether they would like to see no change to the current governance arrangements in their area.
Electors and stakeholders within Crook, North Bitchburn, Howden Le Wear, Fir Tree, Roddymoor, High Grange and Helmington Row are now being asked whether they would like to see the formation of a Crook Parish Council or whether they would like to see no change to the current governance arrangements in their area.
What happens next?
This consultation will run until 30 May 2012. The County Council will take the responses to the consultation into account when making a decision on potential changes to governance in your area. A set of final recommendations will then be published later on in the year. Once a decision has been made you will receive written confirmation of the proposals.
Page 315
Have Your Say!
Your view is important to us, we want to know what you think about the draft proposals for your area. As such, please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you require further paper copies for other members of your household please call Democratic Services on 0191 383 3679.
Should you wish to make any additional comments on this stage of the review, please submit them separately by email to [email protected] or in writing to Democratic Services, Durham County Council, Room 1/14, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL.
If you have any questions about this process and the options available, or if you require more information, you can contact us on 0191 383 3679.
We will also be holding drop in sessions in the Civic Centre, Crook on XXXXXXXXXXXX. No appointment is necessary and people will be there to help you.
Further information is also available on the County Council’s website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance where you can also find a full copy of the draft recommendations for your area. Full guidance on community governance reviews can be found at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1527635.pdf .
Page 316 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW FOR HUNWICK
Background
The County Council has a legal duty to carry out a community governance review if a valid petition is submitted. A petition was received asking for a town or parish council to be set up in the Crook area, detailed on map XXX (attached).
That meant that the governance arrangements for this area had to be considered, and in doing so the Council took into account the areas to the north and south of the petition area, which are also unparished. An initial consultation phase was launched on 1 November 2011 following the publication of a Terms of Reference for the Review, and concluded on 31 December 2011. This sought your initial views on governance arrangements for your area.
What you said
We have analysed all of the responses received during the initial consultation phase. Your responses have been used to produce draft recommendations which are basically a suggestion of final options for you to consider and have your say on.
We asked you to give us your views on your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Hunwick
59 % wanted no change to the current arrangements 29 % told us that you would like to see a new parish council for the area of Crook South
From the responses we received, the above 2 options proved to be the most popular for the future governance arrangements in your area.
The responses we received for the other options consulted on were as follows:
2% told us you wanted to form part of another parish or town council 9% told us you wanted to be part of a Crook Town Council 2% told us you wanted to see some form of alternative arrangements
There appears to be little community support for these options and they will not be pursued further.
We also had to take into account the responses received from electors and stakeholders throughout the rest of Crook and surrounding unparished areas to make sure that any proposals we put forward are viable.
Page 317 Residents in North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree, Helmington Row and Howden le Wear all expressed an interest to be part of a Crook Central parish, and there was little interest expressed in the creation of a Parish Council for the area of Crook South. As such it is proposed that Hunwick be consulted on two options - No Change to current arrangements and a parish for Hunwick.
What happens now?
You now have a final opportunity to tell us what you believe to be the best arrangements for your area. Based on what you have already told us you now need to choose one of the following two options.
Your choices now
Option one – No change to the current governance arrangements in Hunwick
This means that you will see no changes in the way your area is run. Durham County Council will continue to be the only local authority which will provide services to Hunwick and your views will continue to be represented by the County Councillors within your area.
The Three Towns Partnership and all community/residents groups which operate within your area will continue as normal.
Option two – The formation of a Parish Council for your area which we propose to be named Hunwick Parish Council.
This means that a Parish Council for the area of Hunwick will be established. An election will be held on 2 May 2013 (alongside the County Council elections). We propose that the new Parish Council will be called the Hunwick Parish Council. The Parish Council, if established, would be able to change its name or status should it wish to do so.
It is proposed that an appropriate councillor number for the Hunwick Parish Council is 7 Members. These Parish Councillors will represent you in addition to the County Councillors for your area. The Three Towns Partnership and all other community/residents groups will not be affected by these changes.
What are Pa rish and Town Councils and what do they do?
Parish, Community and Town Councils have powers to do a number of things, including providing allotments, bus shelters, supporting local crime prevention initiatives and local highways matters such as street lighting and maintenance
Page 318 of roadside verges. They can be involved in transport, sport and recreation facilities and tourism. They can also provide a focus for representing local issues and identity, and are also consulted on planning applications in their area.
A Parish or Town Council does not replace the County Council – it provides an additional layer of government. Any new Town or Parish Council would be in addition to Durham County Council and could provide extra services as described above, the cost of which would depend on the range and level of services it decided to provide. Further information about Parish, Community and Town Council’s can be found on the County Durham Association of Local Council’s website www.cdalc.info
How would a Parish Council be paid for?
The County Council would have to meet most of the initial costs of establishing a Parish or Town Council, the new Council itself would then be responsible for meeting all its expenditure, including the cost of premises, staffing and providing services.
Town and Parish Councils are funded through a charge added to your Council Tax. This is known as a precept. The amount of this is something that the Town or Parish Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services and facilities it wants to provide. The precept also depends on the size of the Town or Parish Council and the number of properties across which it is spread. We have suggested that should a Hunwick Parish Council be created it would require XXXXXXXXXXXXX (details to follow).
If you do not have to pay Council Tax you will also be exempt from the precept.
What’s happening with the rest of Crook?
Like you, electors and stakeholders throughout the rest of Crook and the surrounding unparished areas, have told us what future governance arrangements they would like to see in their area.
Based on what they have said, we are now contacting them with draft proposals which they too have the opportunity to choose between.
Electors and stakeholders in the Crook North are now being asked whether they would like to see the formation of a Hill Top Villages Parish Council or whether they would like to see no change to the current governance arrangements in their area.
Electors and stakeholders within Crook, North Bitchburn, Howden Le Wear, Fir Tree, Roddymoor and High Grange are now being asked whether they would like to see the formation of a Crook Parish Council or whether they
Page 319 would like to see no change to the current governance arrangements in their area.
What happens next?
This consultation will run until 30 May 2012. The County Council will take the responses to the consultation into account when making a decision on potential changes to governance in your area. A set of final recommendations will then be published later on in the year. Once a decision has been made you will receive written confirmation of the proposals.
Have Your Say!
Your view is important to us, we want to know what you think about our draft proposals for your area. As such, please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you require further paper copies for other members of your household please call Democratic Services on 0191 383 3679.
Should you wish to make any additional comments on this stage of the review, please submit them separately by email to [email protected] or in writing to Democratic Services, Durham County Council, Room 1/14, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL.
If you have any questions about this process and the options available, or if you require more information, you can contact us on 0191 383 3679.
We will also be holding drop in sessions in the Civic Centre, Crook on XXXXXXXXXXXX. No appointment is necessary and people will be there to help you.
Further information is also available on the County Council’s website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygoverance where you can also find a full copy of the draft recommendations for your area. Full guidance on community governance reviews can be found at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1527635.pdf .
Page 320 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW
Background
The County Council has a legal duty to carry out a community governance review if a valid petition is submitted. We received a petition asking for a Parish or Town Council to be set up in the unparished area of Durham City. Whilst the petition for the area did not include the required number of signatures of eligible electors we were of the opinion that it provided evidence of the wishes of people living in the area to undertake a community governance review. The area under review is detailed on map no. 1
We published terms of reference for the review on 1 November 2011 and launched an initial consultation phase. This concluded on 31 December 2011 and sought your initial views on governance arrangements for your area.
What you said
We have analysed all of the responses received during the initial consultation phase and we are really grateful for the feedback received. Your responses have been used to produce draft recommendations which are basically a suggestion of final options for you to consider and have your say on.
In our questionnaire we asked you to give us your views on your preferred form of community governance for the unparished area of Durham City.
• 62% wanted a new parish council for the area of Durham City • 29% wanted no change to the current arrangements • 9% wanted to see some form of alternative arrangements
From the responses received, the first two options proved to be the most popular for the future governance arrangements in the area. There was little community support for alternative arrangements which will not be pursued further.
Of those from Durham City that wanted a new parish council, 60% wanted a single parish council. However, many from the Newton Hall area were in favour of a parish council separate from Durham City.
What happens now?
You now have a final opportunity to tell us what you believe to be the best arrangement is for your area. Based on what you have already told us you now need to choose one of the following options.
Page 321
Option A - No change to the current arrangements
This means that you will see no changes in the way your area is run. Durham County Council will continue to be the only Council which will provide services to the unparished area. You will continue to be represented by the County Councillors for your area. The Charter Trustee arrangement for the Durham City area will remain in place. Durham Area Action Partnership and all other community/residents groups will which operate within your area will continue as normal. Durham Area Action Partnership and all other community/residents groups will not be affected by these changes.
Option B - For the areas of Dryburn Park/Dryburn Hill, Aykley Vale/Dunholme Close and Priory Road back to Caterhouse Road and Frankland Road to join Framwellgate Moor Parish Council (Map B attached).
This means that we would seek to extend the boundary of the current Parish Council for the area of Framwellgate Moor. The electoral arrangements for the Parish Council would remain unchanged. This means an election will be held on 2 May 2013 (as part of the County Council elections). The Parish Council will continue to be called Framwellgate Moor Parish Council. The number of Councillors on the Parish Council would remain unchanged (11 Councillors). These Parish Councillors will represent you in addition to the County Councillors for your area.
What is/who are the Charter Trustees?
When Durham County Council became a unitary authority, the Charter Trustees were created by a statutory instrument. This was to ensure the preservation of historic and ceremonial traditions in the area because there was no obvious successor parish council. If a Parish Council is created for the whole unparished area of Durham City (map no. 1), then by law, the Charter Trustees will be dissolved and the positions of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the City of Durham shall cease to hold office and end. If a Durham Parish Council, was created, it could appoint a Chair and Deputy Chair for the Parish Council. The new Council could decide to be called a Town Council and to call its Chair and Deputy Chair their Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively.
Page 322
What are Parish, Community and Town Councils and what do they do?
Parish, Community and Town The County Council would have to Councils have powers to do a number meet most of the costs of establishing of things, including providing a Parish or Town Council, the Council allotments, bus shelters, supporting itself would then be responsible for local crime prevention initiatives and meeting all its expenditure, including local highways matters such as street the cost of premises, staffing and lighting and maintenance of roadside providing services. verges. They can be involved in transport, sport and recreation Town and Parish Councils are funded facilities and tourism. They can also through a charge added to your provide a focus for representing local Council Tax. This is known as a issues and identity, and are also precept. The amount of this is consulted on planning applications in something that the Town or Parish their area. Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services A Parish or Town Council does not and facilities it wants to provide. The replace the County Council – it precept also depends on the size of provides an additional layer of the Town or Parish Council and the government. Any new Town or number of properties across which it Parish Council would be in addition to is spread. Further information about Durham County Council and could Parish, Community and Town provide extra services as described Council’s can be found on the County above, the cost of which would Durham Association of Local depend on the range and level of Council’s website (www.cdalc.info ) services it decided to provide.
How would a Parish Council be paid for?
A Parish Council itself is responsible for meeting all its expenditure, including the cost of premises, staffing and providing services.the new Council itself would then be responsible for meeting all its expenditure, including the cost of premises, staffing and providing services.
Town and Parish Councils are funded through a charge added to your Council Tax. This is known as a precept. The amount of this is something that the Town or Parish Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services and facilities it wants to provide. The precept also depends on the size of the Town or Parish Council and the number of properties across which it is spread. The 2011/12 precept for Framwellgate Moor Parish Council was £XX.YY.
If you do not have to pay council tax you will also be exempt from the precept.
Page 323 What’s happening with the rest of Durham Ci ty ?
All residents in the unparished area of Durham City have told us what future governance arrangements they would like to see in their area. Based on what they have said, we are now contacting them with draft proposals which they too have the opportunity to choose between.
Households in Durham are being asked whether they would like to see the formation of a Durham Parish Council. They have the option of ‘no change’ to the current governance arrangements in their area which will mean that the Charter Trustees arrangements will remain in place.
Households in Newton Hall are being asked whether they would like to see community governance in their area. They are then being asked if they wish to have a Newton Hall Parish Council or to be part of a larger Durham Parish Council.
What happens next?
This consultation will run until 30 May 2012. The county council will take the responses to the consultation into account when making a decision on potential changes to governance in the area. They will then publish a set of final recommendations later on in the year. Once a decision has been made you will receive written confirmation of the proposals.
Have Your Say!
Your views are really important to us, we want to know what you think about our draft proposals for your area. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you require further paper copies for other members of your household please call Democratic Services (0191) 383 3861, or email [email protected]
Should you wish to make any additional comments on this stage of the review, please submit them separately by email to [email protected] or in writing to Democratic Services, Durham County Council, Room 1/14, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL.
We will also be holding drop-in sessions at Durham Town Hall, Durham City on XXXXXXXXXXXX and in Committee Room X, County Hall, Durham. No appointment is necessary and people will be on hand to help you. Further information is also available on the County Council’s website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance where you can also find a full copy of the draft recommendations for your area. Full guidance on community governance reviews can be found at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1527635.pdf
Page 324 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW – DURHAM CITY
Background
The County Council has a legal duty to carry out a community governance review if a valid petition is submitted. We received a petition asking for a Parish or Town Council to be set up in the unparished area of Durham City. Whilst the petition for the area did not include the required number of signatures of eligible electors we were of the opinion that it provided evidence of the wishes of people living in the area to undertake a community governance review. The area under review is detailed on map no. 1
We published terms of reference for the review on 1 November 2011 and launched an initial consultation phase. This concluded on 31 December 2011 and sought your initial views on governance arrangements for your area.
What you said
We have analysed all of the We broke down the responses to see responses received during the initial if there were any emerging themes consultation phase and we are really from specific areas of the unparished grateful for the feedback received. area. Your responses have been used to produce draft recommendations 52.5% of you told us that you would which are basically a suggestion of like to see a Parish Council created final options for you to consider and for your area. have your say on. 55.8% of those responses favoured In our questionnaire we asked you to more than one Parish Council for the give us your views on your preferred area. We gave you the opportunity to form of community governance for the tell us where the proposed Parish unparished area of Durham City. Council should be.
62% of you told us that you would like 61.7% of you told us that you would to see a new Parish Council for your prefer to see a Parish Council for the area. Newton Hall area on its own.
60% of those suggested that one 14.4% proposed another area and Parish Council should be created. 15.4% of you told us that you would like a Parish Council for the ‘north’ 29% of you told us that you wanted alone. no additional form of community governance. There appeared to be little appetite We asked if you wanted an (8.5%) to join with another Parish alternative to a Parish Council. There Council in the area. appeared to be little appetite for an alternative with only 8.9% choosing this option and on reflection we don’t propose to pursue these further.
Page 325 Your responses have made it quite clear that whilst most households within Durham City have focussed an identity with Durham City, the residents of Newton Hall appear to favour an arrangement for the Newton Hall area alone.
We know that both Durham City and Newton Hall have recognised communities with local shops and amenities such as public houses, churches, libraries, leisure centres, doctors, schools and post offices. Newton Hall also has strong local identities including its own Community Association and Community Centre. Durham City has a number of residents associations in the areas of St. Nicholas, Claypath, Crossgate, Whinney Hill and Elvet. Durham City also has a particular identity focussed upon the City Centre including the World Heritage Site, Cathedral, Castle and University. Durham Area Action Partnership covers both areas. That is why we have to look at both of these areas and offer options for both, given that there appears to be support for either one or two Parish Council’s created for these areas.
What are Parish, Community and Town Councils and what do they do?
Parish, Community and Town The County Council would have to Councils have powers to do a number meet most of the costs of establishing of things, including providing a Parish or Town Council, the Council allotments, bus shelters, supporting itself would then be responsible for local crime prevention initiatives and meeting all its expenditure, including local highways matters such as street the cost of premises, staffing and lighting and maintenance of roadside providing services. verges. They can be involved in transport, sport and recreation Town and Parish Councils are funded facilities and tourism. They can also through a charge added to your provide a focus for representing local Council Tax. This is known as a issues and identity, and are also precept. The amount of this is consulted on planning applications in something that the Town or Parish their area. Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services A Parish or Town Council does not and facilities it wants to provide. The replace the County Council – it precept also depends on the size of provides an additional layer of the Town or Parish Council and the government. Any new Town or number of properties across which it Parish Council would be in addition to is spread. Further information about Durham County Council and could Parish, Community and Town provide extra services as described Council’s can be found on the County above, the cost of which would Durham Association of Local depend on the range and level of Council’s website (www.cdalc.info ) services it decided to provide.
Page 326 Ho w would a Parish Council be paid for?
The County Council would have to meet most of the initial costs of establishing a Parish or Town Council, the new Council itself would then be responsible for meeting all its expenditure, including the cost of premises, staffing and providing services.
Town and Parish Councils are funded through a charge added to your Council Tax. This is known as a precept. The amount of this is something that the Town or Parish Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services and facilities it wants to provide. The precept also depends on the size of the Town or Parish Council and the number of properties across which it is spread.
What happens now?
You now have a final opportunity to tell us what you believe to be the best arrangement is for your area. Based on what you have already told us you now need to choose one of the following options.
Option A - A Parish Council for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City – excluding Newton Hall (See Map No. 2)
This means that we will establish a Parish Council for the whole of the unparished area excluding Newton Hall. An election will be held on 2 May 2013 (alongside the County Council elections) and you will have the opportunity to vote for the Councillors who will represent you on the Parish Council. We propose that the new Parish Council be called ‘Durham Parish Council’. The Parish Council, if established, would be able to change its name or status should it wish to do so. The Parish Council would have an electorate of 25376. We would suggest this area would have 19 Councillors. Because the area of the Parish Council is large and contains lots of electors we would need to split the area into 10 wards. The suggested arrangement is illustrated on map no 2. Durham Area Action Partnership and all other community/residents groups will not be affected by these changes. The Charter Trustee arrangement would remain in place.
Option B - No change to th e current arrangements
This means that you will see no changes in the way your area is run. Durham County Council will continue to be the only Council which will provide services to the unparished area. You will continue to be represented by the County Councillors for your area. The Charter Trustee arrangement for the Durham City area will remain in place. Durham Area Action Partnership and all other community/residents groups will which operate within your area will continue as normal. Durham Area Action Partnership and all other community/residents groups will not be affected by these changes.
Page 327
What’s happening with Newton Hall?
Like you, residents for the Newton Hall area, have told us what future governance arrangements they would like to see in their area. Based on what they have said, we are now contacting them with draft proposals which they too have the opportunity to choose between.
Households in Newton Hall are being asked whether they would like to see the formation of Newton Hall Parish Council or whether they would like to join with the rest of the unparished area of Durham City. They will also have an option of ‘no change’ to the current governance arrangements in their area which will mean that the Charter Trustee arrangement will remain in place.
What is/who are the Charter Trustees?
When Durham County Council became a unitary authority, the Charter Trustees were created by a statutory instrument. This was to ensure the preservation of historic and ceremonial traditions in the area because there was no obvious successor parish council. If a Parish Council is created for the whole unparished area of Durham City (map no. 1), then by law, the Charter Trustees will be dissolved and the positions of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the City of Durham shall cease to hold office and end. If a Durham Parish Council, was created, it could appoint a Chair and Deputy Chair for the Parish Council. The new Council could decide to be called a Town Council and to call its Chair and Deputy Chair their Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively.
What happens next?
This consultation will run until 30 May 2012. The County Council will take the responses to the consultation into account when making a decision on potential changes to governance in your area. A set of final recommendations will then be published later on in the year. Once a decision is made you will receive written confirmation of the proposals.
Have Your Say!
Your views are really important to us, we want to know what you think about our draft proposals for your area. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you require further paper copies for other members of your household please call Democratic Services (0191) 383 3861, or email [email protected]
Should you wish to make any additional comments on this stage of the review, please submit them separately by email to [email protected] or in writing to Democratic Services, Durham County Council, Room 1/14, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL.
We will also be holding drop-in sessions at Durham Town Hall, Durham City on XXXXXXXXXXXX and in Committee Room X, County Hall, Durham. No
Page 328 appointment is necessary and people will be on hand to help you. Further information is also available on the County Council’s website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance where you can also find a full copy of the draft recommendations for your area. Full guidance on community governance reviews can be found at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1527635.pdf
Page 329 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 330 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW – NEWTON HALL
Background
The County Council has a legal duty to carry out a community governance review if a valid petition is submitted. We received a petition asking for a Parish or Town Council to be set up in the unparished area of Durham City. Whilst the petition for the area did not include the required number of signatures of eligible electors we were of the opinion that it provided evidence of the wishes of people living in the area to undertake a community governance review. The area under review is detailed on map no. 1.
We published terms of reference for the review on 1 November 2011 and launched an initial consultation phase. This concluded on 31 December 2011 and sought your initial views on governance arrangements for your area.
What you said
We have analysed all of the We broke down the responses to see responses received during the initial if there were any emerging themes consultation phase and we are really from specific areas of the unparished grateful for the feedback received, area both good and bad. In our questionnaire we asked you to give 52.5% of you told us that you would us your views on your preferred form like to see a Parish Council created of community governance for the for your area unparished area of Durham City 55.8% of those responses favoured 62% of you told us that you would like more than one Parish Council for the to see a new Parish Council for your area. We gave you the opportunity to area tell us where the proposed Parish Council should be 60% of those suggested that one Parish Council should be created 61.7% of you told us that you would prefer to see a Parish Council for the 29% of you told us that you wanted Newton Hall area on its own no additional form of community governance 14.4% proposed another area and We asked if you wanted an 15.4% of you told us that you would alternative to a Parish Council such like a Parish Council for the ‘north’ as an area/community forum or a alone. neighbourhood management type of arrangement. There appeared to be There appeared to be little appetite to little appetite for an alternative with join with another Parish Council in the only 8.9% choosing this option and on area with 8.5% of you telling us that reflection we don’t propose to pursue you favoured this option. these further.
Page 331 Your responses have made it quite Durham City has a number of clear that whilst most households residents associations in the areas of within Durham City have focussed an St. Nicholas, Claypath, Crossgate, identity with Durham City, the Whinney Hill and Elvet. Durham City residents of Newton Hall appear to also has a particular identity focussed favour an arrangement for the upon the City Centre including the Newton Hall area alone. World Heritage Site, Cathedral, Castle and University. We know that both Durham City and Newton Hall have recognised Durham Area Action Partnership communities with local shops and covers both areas. That is why we amenities such as public houses, have to look at both of these areas churches, libraries, leisure centres, and offer options for both, given that doctors, schools and post offices. there appears to be support for either Newton Hall also has strong local one or two Parish Council’s created identities including its own for these areas. Community Association and Community Centre.
What are Parish, Community and Town Councils and what do they do?
Parish, Community and Town The County Council would have to Councils have powers to do a number meet most of the costs of establishing of things, including providing a Parish or Town Council, the Council allotments, bus shelters, supporting itself would then be responsible for local crime prevention initiatives and meeting all its expenditure, including local highways matters such as street the cost of premises, staffing and lighting and maintenance of roadside providing services. verges. They can be involved in transport, sport and recreation Town and Parish Councils are funded facilities and tourism. They can also through a charge added to your provide a focus for representing local Council Tax. This is known as a issues and identity, and are also precept. The amount of this is consulted on planning applications in something that the Town or Parish their area. Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services A Parish or Town Council does not and facilities it wants to provide. The replace the County Council – it precept also depends on the size of provides an additional layer of the Town or Parish Council and the government. Any new Town or number of properties across which it Parish Council would be in addition to is spread. Further information about Durham County Council and could Parish, Community and Town provide extra services as described Council’s can be found on the County above, the cost of which would Durham Association of Local depend on the range and level of Council’s website www.cdalc.info services it decided to provide.
Page 332 How would a Par ish Council be paid for?
The County Council would have to meet most of the initial costs of establishing a Parish or Town Council, the new Council itself would then be responsible for meeting all its expenditure, including the cost of premises, staffing and providing services.
Town and Parish Councils are funded through a charge added to your Council Tax. This is known as a precept. The amount of this is something that the Town or Parish Council has to decide for itself every year and depends on what services and facilities it wants to provide. The precept also depends on the size of the Town or Parish Council and the number of properties across which it is spread. < PRECEPT INFORMATION TO BE INSERTED HERE>
What happens now?
You now have a final opportunity to tell us what you believe to be the best arrangement is for your area. Based on what you have already told us you now need to choose one of the following options.
Option A – A Parish Council for Newton Hall only (See Map No. 2) This means we will establish a Parish Council for Newton Hall only. An election will be held on 2 May 2013 (alongside the County Council elections) and you will have the opportunity to vote for the Councillors who will represent you on the Parish Council. This will be in addition to the County Councillors you vote for in your area. We propose that the new Parish Council be called ‘Newton Hall Parish Council’. The Parish Council, if established, would be able to change its name or status should it wish to do so. The Parish Council would have an electorate of 5744. We would suggest this area would have 7 Councillors. Because the area of the Parish Council is large and contains lots of electors we would need to split the area into two wards. The suggested warding arrangement is illustrated on map no. 2.
Option B – A Parish Council of the whole of the unparished area of Durham City – including Newton Hall (See Map No.3)
This means that we will establish a Parish Council for the whole of the unparished area (covering Durham City and Newton Hall). An election will be held on 2 May 2013 (alongside the County Council elections) and you will have the opportunity to vote for the Councillors who will represent you on the Parish Council. We propose that the new Parish Council be called ‘Durham Parish Council’. The Parish Council, if established, would be able to change its name or status should it wish to do so. The Parish Council would have an electorate of 25376. We would suggest this area would have 19 Councillors. Because the area of the Parish Council is large and contains lots of electors we would need to split the area into 10 wards. The suggested warding arrangement is illustrated on map no. 3.
Page 333 Option C - No change to the current arrangements
This means that you will see no changes in the way your area is run. Durham County Council will continue to be the only Council which will provide services to the unparished area. You will continue to be represented by the County Councillors for your area. The Charter Trustee arrangement for the Durham City area will remain in place. Durham Area Action Partnership and all other community/residents groups will which operate within your area will continue as normal.
What is/who are the Charter Trustees? When Durham County Council became a unitary authority, the Charter Trustees were created by a statutory instrument. This was to ensure the preservation of historic and ceremonial traditions in the area because there was no obvious successor parish council. If a Parish Council is created for the whole unparished area of Durham City (map no. 1), then by law, the Charter Trustees will be dissolved and the positions of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the City of Durham shall cease to hold office and end. If a Durham Parish Council, was created, it could appoint a Chair and Deputy Chair for the Parish Council. The new Council could decide to be called a Town Council and to call its Chair and Deputy Chair their Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively.
What’s happening with the rest of Durham City?
Like you, residents for the rest of the unparished area of Durham City have told us what future governance arrangements they would like to see in their area. Based on what they have said, we are now contacting them with draft proposals which they too have the opportunity to choose between.
Households in Durham City are now being asked whether they would like to see the formation of Durham Parish Council. The size of any Durham Parish Council will depend on what type of response we obtain from you. Households in Durham City will also have an option of ‘no change’ to the current governance arrangements in their area which will mean that the Charter Trustee arrangements will remain in place.
There is an area which we have had to pay particular attention to indicated on map no. 4. This contains properties on Priory Road back to Caterhouse Road and Frankland Road.
If we were to create a Parish Council for Newton Hall, we wouldn’t be inclined to include these areas within a Newton Hall Parish Council. This area is separated from Newton Hall by an area of non developed land which could be used as a natural boundary. The properties contained in the area form a continuous development into Framwellgate Moor Parish. Links to Newton Hall are less obvious and all the properties have a Framwellgate Moor postal
Page 334 address. It would appear logical to re-draw the boundary of Framwellgate Moor Parish to include this area and would reflect better community identity.
What happens next?
This consultation will run until 30 May 2012. The County Council will take the responses to the consultation into account when making a decision on potential changes to governance in your area. A set of final recommendations will then be published later on in the year. Once a decision is made you will receive written confirmation of the proposals.
Have Your Say!
Your views are really important to us, we want to know what you think about our draft proposals for your area. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you require further paper copies for other members of your household please call Democratic Services (0191) 383 3861, or email [email protected]
Should you wish to make any additional comments on this stage of the review, please submit them separately by email to [email protected] or in writing to Democratic Services, Durham County Council, Room 1/14, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL.
We will also be holding drop-in sessions at Durham Town Hall, Durham City on XXXXXXXXXXXX and in Committee Room X, County Hall, Durham. No appointment is necessary and people will be on hand to help you. Further information is also available on the County Council’s website www.durham.gov.uk/communitygovernance where you can also find a full copy of the draft recommendations for your area. Full guidance on community governance reviews can be found at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1527635.pdf
Page 335 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 336 Appendix P Review of Community Governance in the Un-parished Area of Crook carried out by Durham County Council
Draft Recommendations
On 26 October 2011, the County Council approved terms of reference for the conduct of a Community Governance Review in the unparished area of Crook (Map D identifies the area under review). The terms of reference were published on 1 November and included the terms of the petition which has been received from residents requesting the establishment of a Crook Town Council. The petition was compliant with the legislation.
The Review
The Council carried out this review under the Local Government Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (‘the Act’). It was known to the Council that there was a wish in the area by some residents to have the review with a view to establishing parish council arrangements. The review was however delayed whilst the Council was waiting for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommendations in relation to electoral arrangements for County Durham, following Local Government Reorganisation in 2009. The review was commenced before final recommendations were published by the Boundary Commission in order to enable the Council to put in place electoral arrangements for any parish council established by the review in time for the County Council elections in May 2013.
Following resolution of the Council on 26 October, the terms of reference were published on 1 November 2011.
Under the terms of reference, the Council was to consider whether:
• A new Crook Parish Council should be created for the area identified within the petition and illustrated on an attached Map D.
• More than one parish council should be created in the unparished area of Crook.
• The merging of part of the unparished area with an existing Parish Council.
• Any other alternative forms of community governance should be created.
Following the publication of the terms of reference, consultation took place with electors and stakeholders in the area including local businesses, schools and colleges, community associations, local County Councillors, tenants and residents associations, voluntary groups and societies. Neighbouring parish councils were also consulted.
Page 337 In addition to this the Council:
• Provided an electronic leaflet and questionnaire and other information on its website and other social networking sites.
• Produced an information leaflet and questionnaire sent to all households in the review area.
• Published an article in the autumn/winter edition of the Council’s Residents Magazine ‘Durham County News’.
• Published relevant statutory notices within the local media.
The consultation period (stage 1 consultations) ended on 31 December 2011.
Town and Villages descriptions
Crook is a market town situated about 10 miles (16km) south-west of Durham. It lies a couple of miles north of the River Wear, on the A690 from Durham.
Billy Row is a village situated a short distance to the north of Crook.
Sunniside is a small rural village to the east of Town Law and north of Crook. Sunniside is one of the highest villages within the County of Durham, at 1,000 feet (300m) above sea level.
Stanley Crook is a village situated to the north of Crook and Billy Row. The area is rural, surrounded by open farm land and woodland.
Billy Row, Sunniside and Stanley are part of the Hill Top Villages Association.
Hunwick is a semi-rural village, dating from Saxon times. Hunwick stands between Bishop Auckland and Crook.
Fir Tree is a village situated 2 miles to the west of Crook, near the River Wear.
Howden le Wear is a village approximately 1 mile south of Crook.
High Grange is a village situated on the A689 between Bishop Auckland and Crook.
North Bitchburn is a village situated to the north west of Bishop Auckland, near Howden-le-Wear.
Helmington Row is a small village situation between Crook and Willington.
Page 338 Submissions Received
There were 860 responses out of 7,340 properties for the full un-parished Crook and surrounding area (as identified on Map D as Crook North, Crook Central and Crook South). 52% of responses requested no change to current arrangements. (See Appendix E). Royal Mail returned 24 envelopes as being undelivered. 55% of residents in Crook Central requested no change – this was the area covered by the petition requesting a Town Council for Crook.
Mindful of the percentage of responses requesting no change it is felt appropriate that no change should be one of the options consulted upon at stage 2.
Having identified Option 1 as no change consideration was given to the second preference identified by respondents.
In respect of Crook North (Crook North being the area identified on Map C as Crook North), the next preference of those who responded (24%) requested a new parish for the Crook North Area. Only 18% expressed the preference of becoming part of another parish. Tow Law Town Council had requested that their boundary be amended to include the hill top villages (Stanley, Sunniside and Billy Row) within Tow Law parish. However, from the results of the stage 1 consultation, it can be noted from responses from the hill top villages that they do not appear to support merging with another parish. It has subsequently been identified that the appropriate alternative option for Crook North is a Crook North Parish.
In respect of Crook Central, the petition area, 55% of responses sought no change. Their second preference was for a new parish for Crook Central.
Roddymoor was part of the area which was the subject of Crook Central petition requesting the establishment of a town council for Crook. However, as a result of the final recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) review, Roddymoor is now in the electoral division of Crook North (previously Crook Central). If Roddymoor is to be included in a Crook Central Parish it will be necessary to ward that area. Warding arrangements are covered later in this report. In respect of Roddymoor, 17 returns were received out of 198 properties. It is proposed that as a second option Roddymoor be included in the Crook Central area as identified on Map F.
In respect of North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear, the first preference was for no change. The second was to be part of any Crook Parish. It is proposed that the first option for consultation in this area at stage 2 be no change and the second to be part of a Crook Central parish.
Page 339 Thus, it is proposed that Crook Central include the areas of Crook, Helmington Row, Roddymoor, North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear and this be the second option for consultation in this area.
In respect of Hunwick 59% of responses requested no change. The second preference was for a Crook South parish. Taking into account the second preference expressed by North Bitchburn, High Grange, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear to be part of a Crook Central parish, it is proposed that Hunwick be consulted on two options - No Change and a parish for Hunwick.
Consideration has been given as to whether households in Crook North, South and Central (as identified on Map D) should be offered a third option of one parish covering the whole of these three areas. However, taking into account the comments received during the stage 1 consultations this proposal was not supported by Crook North or Hunwick and it could be considered undemocratic to impose one parish for the whole un-parished area, should the outcome of the second consultation be affected by the high density of residents in Crook Central compared to Crook North and Hunwick. Likewise, it could be considered undemocratic if Hunwick or Crook North were seen to influence the decision as to whether or not a parish council should be created for Crook Central.
Consideration has been given to the impact on community cohesion when deciding whether or not to set up a parish. Setting up parishes and parish councils clearly offers the opportunity to strengthen community engagement and participation, and generate a positive impact on community cohesion.
The Council recognises that communities have expert knowledge about their own circumstances and that actions at the local level contribute to achieving integration and cohesion, with local authorities well placed to identify any pressures. Community governance arrangements should reflect, and be sufficiently representative of, people living across the whole community and not just a discrete cross-section or small part of it.
The Council should be able to decline to set up such community governance arrangements where they judge that to do so would not be in the interests of either the local community or surrounding communities, and where the effect is likely to damage community cohesion. With this in mind it is felt that consulting the three areas on two options each is the most appropriate way forward. Consulting on a third option for one parish for the whole un-parished area, for which there was little support, would reduce clarity and be unduly complex to those being consulted.
Mindful of respondents second preferences, the grouping of Roddymoor, Howden le Wear, North Bitchburn, Fir Tree and High Grange with Crook may be explained in that Crook is the main provider of mixed retail outlets, doctors, dentists, chemists, schools, industrial units, council offices, library, market, nursery schools and garage services for the area. Regular bus services link these villages with Crook.
Page 340 In the grouping of these villages the Council believes that the wishes of local inhabitants should be a primary consideration in this review.
An issue has arisen in relation to the electoral division boundary effective from 2013 which would isolate one property “the Kennels” between 2 parish boundaries. The result is “the Kennels” will be between the 2 parish boundaries of Wolsingham parish and the Crook Central parish, should the latter be created. Should the results of the second stage of consultations propose a Crook Parish (Map F) then discussions take place with Wolsingham Parish Council in respect of land referred to as “the Kennels”. The remainder of this report assumes that this course of action is supported.
Discussions have also taken place with local County Councillors for this area and they supported the proposals for consultation at stage 2.
Further representations received
Attached at Appendix H is the statistical representation received in respect of Crook.
As previously stated, Tow Law Town Council had requested that the hill top villages be included within Tow Law parish. However, following consultation, it can be noted from responses from the hill top villages that they do not appear to support merging with an existing parish council.
A letter of support for a Crook Town Council has been received from the local MP for North West Durham.
Electorate Forecasts
The Council has used the Register of Electors of February 2011 in providing the electorate figures for the un-parished Crook and surrounding area. Consideration has also been given to the change in the number / distribution of the electors which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends. Polling District electorate forecasts for the un- parished Crook and surrounding area up to and including 2017 are attached at Appendix A.
Proposals and Recommendations for Crook
Having considered these projections it can be established that population levels would sustain:
• A Crook North parish (Crook north as identified on Map E)
• Crook Central – including Crook, Helmington Row, Roddymoor, Fir Tree, North Bitchburn, Howden le Wear and High Grange as identified on Map F.
• A Hunwick parish as identified on Map G.
Page 341
Consideration has been given as to whether parishes of the size proposed would produce an effective parish Council i.e. they have the capacity to deliver better services and to represent the community’s interests. Issues to consider here include whether their size would raise a precept that would enable them to actively and effectively promote the well-being of their residents and to contribute to the real provision of services in their areas in an effective and efficient manner.
The Council recognises that, in rural areas, a strong sense of community can prevail over an extensive but otherwise sparsely populated area. Parishes in these areas may have limited capacity to facilitate service provision and effective local government. Even so, arrangements in these areas, when they accord with the wishes of the inhabitants of the parish, will at least represent convenient local government. This has been considered when more rural villages (i.e. High Grange, North Bitchburn) have expressed a second preference of being linked with Crook under one parish council.
Whether there should be a Parish Council
Under the Act , the Review must recommend that the Parish should have a Council given that there are more than 1,000 local government electors.
The electors/properties for the three proposed parishes are set out below: Crook North – 1390 electors – 822 properties Crook Central – 9929 electors – 5941 properties Hunwick – 1057 electors – 606 properties
The breakdown into polling districts is attached at Appendix I.
Under this option, for the un-parished area of Crook and surrounding villages (Map D), the Council would propose the formation of 3 parish councils. If a Parish Council is formed, then, following elections, there will be one or more democratically elected Parish Council in the area whose powers and duties are set out in Appendix J.
Under the Localism Act 2011, “eligible” Parish Councils may also have the general power of competence which has been given to other local authorities by the Act. This is a power to do anything that individuals generally may do, although with some restrictions set out in the legislation. What makes a parish council eligible will depend upon whether it meets conditions yet to be set out in an Order from the Secretary of State.
The present structure of parishes and their electoral arrangements
Consideration has been given to the present parish structure in the County, including parishes, parish wards, ward representation, overall representation, ratios of electors to councillors and rural/urban designation.
Page 342 Mindful that the Council is required by law to consider other forms of community governance as alternatives to parish councils, consideration has been given to other arrangements for community representation or community engagement which already exist in the area, including the Area Action Partnerships, tenants associations, community associations, resident association. A list of these bodies is attached at Appendix M.
The Council is mindful of such other forms of community governance in its consideration of whether parish governance is most appropriate in unparished Crook and the surrounding area. It also notes that what sets parish councils apart from other kinds of governance is the fact that they are a democratically elected tier of local government with directly elected representatives, independent of other council tiers and budgets, and possessing specific powers for which they are democratically accountable.
Other forms of Community Governance Considered
Other forms of community governance consulted upon during the stage 1 consultations included:
• Area/community forums
• Community associations
• Neighbourhood Management
Consideration has been given to the pattern of community representation and community engagement already operating in the area.
In respect of the whole un-parished area of Crook (Crook North, South and Central as identified on Map D) only 3% expressed an interest in other forms of community governance.
Boundaries
The Council in drawing up its proposals has tried to ensure that the boundaries between parishes reflect the ‘no-man’s land’ between communities represented by areas of low population or pronounced physical barriers.
The consideration of demographic trends and influences on them, such as new development, has resulted in the realignment of the southern boundary of any Crook Central parish to allow for further housing development
Names and styles of parishes
With regard to the names of parishes, the Council will always endeavour to reflect existing local or historic place-names.
Page 343 Should parishes be created it is suggested that the names be as follows:
• Hill Top Villages Parish Council
• Crook Parish Council (once established the parish council can resolve to become a town council).
• Hunwick Parish Council
Warding arrangements of the parish councils
Consideration has been given to the following:
• Whether the number, or distribution of the electorate for the parish would make a single election of councillor impracticable or inconvenient.
• Whether it is desirable that any area or areas of the parish should be separately represented on the council
• Whether governance is effective and convenient i.e. whether the cost of separate ward elections in some cases would represent an ineffective use of the parish’s limited resources.
In respect of the size and boundaries of wards, consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors for the parish
• Any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors which is likely to occur in the 5 years beginning with the day when the review ends.
• The desirability of fixing boundaries which are, and will remain easily identifiable.
• Any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundaries.
Consideration has also been given to the advice of the Local Government Boundary Commission:
• No unwarded parish should be divided by county division boundaries and no parish should be split by such a boundary.
• The number of councillors should be proportional to electoral sizes across parish wards (each persons vote should be of equal weight so far as possible)
Page 344 Mindful of the size of any Crook North parish it is not considered appropriate or necessary to apply warding arrangements. Although Sunniside, Billy Row and Stanley are distinct villages, the overall electorate would not make a single election of councillors impracticable and inconvenient. This will be a smaller parish with 1390 electors and the cost of separate ward elections may represent an ineffective use of the parish’s limited resources. The villages are collectively known locally as the Hill Top Villages with a Hill Top Villages Association.
However, as a result of the final recommendations of the LGBCE’s review, Roddymoor is now in the electoral division of Crook North (previously Crook Central). If Roddymoor is to be included in a Crook Central Parish it will be necessary to ward that area.
It is also considered appropriate to ward the area covering High Grange, North Bitchburn, Fir Tree and Howden le Wear to ensure the Councillor spread across the whole area is, as far as possible, consistent. High Grange, Fir Tree and North Bitchburn are small semi-rural villages The larger village of Howden-le-Wear compares to the urban area of Crook Town. Furthermore, the number of electors and the proposed number of councillors would make an election for the whole of Crook parish impractical and inconvenient.
Hunwick has its own identity and given its size no proposals are put forward to ward that parish council should one be created. A single election for the parish would be practicable and convenient.
Electoral Arrangements
Ordinary year of election
It is proposed that the next ordinary election of parish councillors is 2013, and every 4 years thereafter. This cycle coincides with the cycle for Durham County Council Unitary elections; this enables the costs of elections to be shared.
Size of the parish councils
The minimum legal number of parish councillors for each parish council is five. There is no maximum number and no other legislative guidance in this respect.
Subsequently, in respect of the number of electors consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors of the proposed parish
• Any change in that number which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends
Page 345 • NALC guidance
• Aston Business School research (1992)
• The Councillor to elector ratios that currently exists across existing parish/town councils in County Durham. See Appendix L.
Electoral forecasts are attached at Appendix A.
The NALC guidance indicates that local council business does not usually require a large body of councillors but to ensure business convenience it is considered appropriate to suggest the following as practicable councillor numbers per parish council:
• Hill Top Villages Parish Council – 8 members
• Crook Parish (Town) Council – 16 members
• Hunwick Parish Council – 7 members
In respect of Crook parish, three wards are proposed:
• Roddymoor Ward – 1 Member
• Crook Central Ward – 12 Members
• Crook South Ward – 3 Members
Setting precepts for new parish Councils
Parish Councils have the power to levy a precept. This means that it requests the County Council to collect from each household an additional sum to the Council Tax to help fund the Parish Council. Whilst the County Council may make recommendations for the size of the initial precept and will arrange to and adopt the initial parish precept on behalf of the new parish or parishes, thereafter, the size of the precept will be decided by the Parish Council as an elected body.
The Group is considering what would be an appropriate precept for the new parish councils and these are set out below:
Hill Top Villages Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
Crook Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
Hunwick Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
Page 346 In subsequent years it will be for the elected Parish Council to set its own precept.
Suggested commencement dates:
• 1 April 2013 for administrative and financial purposes
• 2 May 2013 ordinary elections for the election of a council and every 4 years thereafter.
Proposals and Recommendations for Consultations for Crook
Given the complexities in the responses received, the Council does not propose to consult on one option alone but consultation is taking place as following:-
For residents of the area identified as Crook North on Map E:
1. No change.
2. On the formation of a Hill Top Villages Parish Council.
For residents of the area identified as Crook Central on Map F:
1. No change
2. Crook Parish Council including Crook, Roddymoor, Howden le Wear, Helmington Row, North Bitchburn, Fir tree and High Grange with appropriate warding arrangements.
For residents of Hunwick as identified on Map G.
1. No change
2. A Hunwick Parish Council
Further, should the results of the second stage of consultation propose a Crook Parish Council (Map F) then discussions take place with Wolsingham Parish Council in respect of land referred to as “the Kennels”
In summary, the Council is of the view that the alternative arrangements proposed are viable. They reflect the identities and interests of the community in that area and are effective and convenient.
Page 347 Timetable for the review
Action Time Dates Span Publication of Terms of 1 November 2011 Reference Invitation of initial submissions Two 1 November 2011 to 31 December months 2011 Analysis/evaluation of Two 1 January 2012 to 21 March 2012 submissions and preparation months of draft proposals Publication of draft proposals 1 April 2012
Consultation on draft Two 1 April 2012 to 30 May 2012 proposals months
Analysis/evaluation of draft 31 July 2012 proposals and preparation of final proposals Publication of final 1 October 2012 recommendations Preparation and publication of Two 1 November 2012 any reorganisation Order months Election date May 2013
In addition to a questionnaire and information leaflet being delivered to every household in the area, further information will be displayed on the Council’s website and sent to residents when requested.
“Drop In” sessions are also to be held in the area where residents can to speak to Officers direct to seek further clarifications on the options available.
Page 348 Review of Community Governance in the Unparished Area of Durham City carried out by Durham County Council
Draft Recommendations
On 26 October 2011, the County Council approved terms of reference for the conduct of a Community Governance Review in the area of Durham City. The terms of reference were published on 1 November and included the terms of the petition which had been received from residents requesting the establishment of a town council. Although the petition was not compliant with the legislation the Council decided to undertake the review.
The Review
The Council is carrying out this review under the Local Government Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (‘the Act’). It was known to the Council that there was a wish in the area by some residents to have the review with a view to establishing parish council arrangements. The review was however delayed whilst the Council was waiting for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommendations in relation to electoral arrangements for County Durham, following Local Government Reorganisation in 2009. The review was commenced before final recommendations were published by the Boundary Commission in order to enable the Council to put in place any electoral arrangements for any parish council established by the review in time for the County Council elections on 2 May 2013.
Following resolution of the Council on 26 October, the terms of reference were published on 1 November 2011.
The terms of reference were to consider:
• Whether a new Durham Town Council should be created (identified within the petition and illustrated on a plan) for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City.
• Whether more than one Town or Parish Council should be created in the unparished area of Durham City.
• The merging of part of the unparished areas within existing parish council.
• Whether any other alternative forms of Community Governance should be created.
Following the publication of the terms of reference, consultation took place with electors and stake holders in the area including local businesses, schools and colleges, community associations, local county councillors, tenants and residents associations, voluntary groups and societies. Neighbouring parish councils were also consulted .
1 Page 349
In addition to this the Council:
• provided an electronic leaflet and questionnaire and other information on its website and other social networking sites.
• produced an information leaflet and questionnaire sent to all households in the review area.
• published an article in the autumn/winter edition of the Council’s Residents Magazine ‘Durham County News’.
• published relevant statutory notices within the local media.
Electronic communications and questionnaires were sent to the University for completion by students.
The consultation period (stage 1 consultation) ended on 31 December 2011.
Durham – history
Durham City is based around the River Wear which meanders through an incised valley as it flows north with steeply wooded banks on the peninsula creating a picturesque setting that is enjoyed by many thousands of visitors every year. Main transport arteries include the A1 (M) and London-Newcastle railway with an important station and, arguably the finest view in the country.
Durham City owes its origin to the shrine of St. Cuthbert. The alleged miraculous circumstances which had attended the transportation of the body of St. Cuthbert to Durham attracted great wealth to the City; indeed, the shrine became one of the richest in England, and Durham became ecclesiastical centre for the north east.
The presence of the Bishop, with his immense power, caused Durham City to be the centre of ecclesiastical and civil government in the north of England. From 1075 the Bishop became known as a Prince Bishop, not only had spiritual power but was also Count Palatine with the power in the Palatine (which extended between the rivers Tees and Tyne) almost equal to that of the King.
Today, Durham City has a retail heart around the historic market place and the cobbled, narrow streets add to its distinctiveness. It has its own recognised community with its own local shops and amenities (public houses, restaurants, church, library, theatre, leisure centre, doctors, post office). Its particular identity is focused upon its city centre, a compact and historic centre including the World Heritage Site of the Cathedral and Castle, and its world class university.
Page 350 2 Newton Hall, to the north-east of the City has its own recognised community with its own local shops and amenities (public houses, church, library, leisure centre, doctors, post office). Its particular identity is focused upon a large housing development with an active Community Association.
Framwellgate Moor is a village and parish. It is situated to the North of Durham and is adjacent to Pity Me and Newton Hall. It is the location of New College, Durham. It has its own local shops and amenities (public houses, church, doctors, post office).
Brasside is a suburb of Durham, located in the parish of Framwellgate Moor. It is situated to the north of Durham. Pity Me is also a suburban village of Durham, located north of Framwellgate Moor and west of Newton Hall.
Background
Prior to Local Government re-organisation, the unparished area and the Parishes of
• Bearpark • Belmont • Brancepeth • Brandon and Byshottles • Cassop cum Quarrington • Coxhoe • Croxdale and Hett • Framwellgate Moor • Kelloe • Pittington • Sadforth • Sherburn Village • Shincliff • West Rainton • Witton Gilbert formed the electoral area for Durham City Council, a District Council, which was subsumed into a new Unitary Council of Durham County Council on 1 April 2009. In order to preserve historic and ceremonial traditions, including the role of the Mayor, Charter Trustees were established from April 2009.
Under the Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England Regulations 2008), the formation of a Parish Council, certain significant events will occur should the whole of the unparished area of Durham be parished, including:
• The Charter Trustees will be dissolved. • The Mayor and Deputy Mayor will cease to hold office.
3 Page 351 Submissions Received
In relation to the unparished area of Durham, there were 1,334 responses out of 11,331 properties. 62% of responses requested the formation of a parish. 60% of those proposed one parish. In all areas with the exception of one (Newton Hall) the response favoured a parish for the whole unparished area of Durham City. Royal Mail returned 51 envelopes as being undeliverable.
In the case of Newton Hall, the responses in favour of a Parish comprised 52.5% of the responses, with 55.8% of those responses favouring more than one parish. Respondents were invited to give a view of where the proposed parish should be. 61.7% proposed Newton Hall alone. 14.4% proposed another. 8.5% proposed joining another parish and 15.4 proposed north alone.
It would, therefore, appear on the basis of these responses, that whilst most of Durham City has focused on identity with Durham City, the residents of Newton Hall seem to favour arrangements for Newton Hall alone.
An electronic survey was used to consult with Students from Durham University. 25 responses were received, of the 25 responses:
• 15 indicated that they would like a Parish Council for the area • 5 suggested an alternative • 3 respondents told us they wanted no additional form of community governance • 2 did not contain an answer • 8 respondents told us that they would like to see one parish for the whole of the unparished area of Durham • 17 said they would like more than one parish, based around neighbourhoods
Two complications have been revealed. The new County Electoral Division boundary prevents two areas identified on Map A (i) and (ii) from being linked with Newton Hall and they would not form viable wards linked to Durham City. These unparished areas have another parish council close by – Framwellgate Moor Parish Council (although there were no representations from this Parish Council to merge with the unparished area of Durham).
In addition Map A also identifies an unparished area of land referred to on Map A (iii) which, although inside the Newton Hall Electoral Division boundary is separated from that area by an area of no development: which forms a natural boundary. The area identified on Map A (iii) has a number of streets (e.g. Priory Road linking with houses on Beech Road), which form a continuous development into Framwellgate Moor Parish and it is with the latter that their affinity lies. Links with the Newton Hall development are less obvious and all the properties have a Framwellgate Moor postal address. It would be logical, therefore, to re-draw the boundary of Framwellgate Moor Parish to include the area of land shown on Map A (iii).
Page 352 4 All three areas would, to reflect community identifies, fit logically within the Framwellgate Moor Parish. It is therefore proposed that discussions take place with Framwellgate Moor Parish Council, households within that parish and households within the three areas identified on Map A(i), (ii) and (iii) with a view to extending the boundary of Framwellgate Moor Parish Council to include those areas. The three areas clearly link with Framwellgate Moor and the houses within this area are immediate neighbours to those in Framwellgate Moor.
It is therefore proposed that reference is made to these areas under the proposals later in this report.
An analysis of the comments and representations
An analysis of the comments and representations is attached at Appendix F.
In relation to this area there were 3 letters of representation. One was from a local Parish Council Sherburn Village Parish Council supporting the parishing of the area under review, with the residents deciding how this should be best organised.
There was also one letter from a Charter Trustees for Durham City strongly urging that the un-parished areas be treated as a single unit - a Town Council, adding that the areas belong to each other and would contain the importance of the historic unit to a degree.
A further letter was received from a resident who was of the opinion that the status quo was not acceptable as it left people in the unparished area unable to have a say in important matters affecting their area and therefore unable to make small-scale improvements to the facilities of the area. The respondent expressed the view that a parish council was the only option able to carry out these functions and that the heart of the historic city should be styled as a Town Council which would be able to comment on planning applications affecting the area and potentially carry more weight coming from a democratically elected body.
The submission made a case to create a larger council from the unparished area plus Framwellgate Moor and Belmont parishes
A letter of representation letter was also received from a resident of Newton Hall who felt that their local community consisted of Newton Hall, Framwellgate Moor, Brasside and Pity Me . The respondent commented that the size of Newton Hall did warrant some form of arrangement on its own, given the amount of electors residing in the area. Their favoured arrangement was that of a 'community council'. If this was not a preferred option there was a suggestion that Newton Hall could join with Framwellgate Moor Parish Council. As a further alternative the respondent suggested some form of community forum where residents would have the chance to create a strong joined-up community voice on local issues . The respondent didn’t feel that Newton Hall should be become part of a larger Durham Town Council, in light
5 Page 353 of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England's final recommendations relating to the County Council's Electoral Divisions (which recommended a Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall Electoral Division). The respondent didn’t feel as though Durham City Centre was part of their local community, but as a resident of County Durham, would continue to have an interest in the City.
The representations on the questionnaires had various themes – see attached at Appendix F.
First option for Durham
The Council is mindful of the fact that from information received so far, the population appears to be supportive of a formation of one or more democratically elected body.
It is proposed that the first option for consultation at stage 2 is for the whole of 1 the unparished area to be parished by one parish council (62% of respondents).However, it is also considered important that the residents are informed of the fate of the Charter Trustees should such a parish be formed. This is covered later in this report.
Map B shows whole unparished area (including Newton Hall).
The current electorate for the whole of the unparished area of Durham is 25,970 with a projected electorate for the five years from the end of review of 25,579.
Second option for Newton Hall only
The group has also given consideration to the second preferences expressed by respondents and it is here where there are differences of opinion between areas.
It is not considered appropriate to go to the public with only one option for a parish council, given the division that has appeared in relation to Newton Hall. Simply consulting on a single parish council for the whole area, will not be heeding the views and representations of people in Newton Hall.
Newton Hall has its own recognised community with its own local shops and amenities (public houses, church, library, leisure centre, doctors, and post office). Its particular identity is focused upon a large housing development.
1 Reference to a parish for the whole of the unparished area of Durham assumes that the three areas identified on Map A as (i) (ii) and (iii) are excluded and will become part of the Framwellgate Moor Parish.
Page 354 6 The Council is of the view that the formation of a Parish Council for this area would reflect community identities. It is therefore proposed that residents of Newton Hall have a second option of a new parish for the unparished area of 1 Newton Hall. This new proposed Parish area is shown on Map C.
Durham City
As previously stated, Durham City has its own recognised community with its own local shops and amenities (public houses, church, library, leisure centre, doctors, post office). Its particular identity is focused upon its city centre, a compact and historic centre including the World Heritage Site of the Cathedral and Castle, and its world class university.
The Council is of the view that the formation of a Parish Council for this area (excluding Newton Hall and (i) (ii) on Map A)would still reflect community identities. However, as the majority of responses from this area preferred one parish for the whole of the unparished area including Newton Hall, it is proposed to consult on one parish for the whole of the unparished area, but this is subject to any necessary boundary change should households within Newton Hall prefer a Newton Hall parish.
Whether there should be a Parish Council
Under the Act, the Review must recommend that the Parish should have a Council given that there are more than 1,000 local government electors.
The electors/properties for a parish covering the whole of the unparished area of Durham (including Newton Hall) would be:
• 25549 electors – 10571 properties
The electors/properties for a parish covering the unparished area of Durham excluding Newton Hall would be:
• 19514 electors – 7718 properties
The electors/properties for a parish covering the unparished area of Newton Hall alone would be:
• 5744 electors – 3144 properties
The number of electors and number of properties for the three areas which are proposed to be transferred to Framwellgate Moor Parish have been excluded from the above figures.
The breakdown into polling districts is attached at Appendix I.
1 Reference to Newton Hall excludes the area identified as (iii) on Map A which, it is proposed, should become part of Framwellgate Moor Parish.
7 Page 355
Under both option 1 and 2, the group would propose the formation of parish councils. If one or two parish councils are formed, then, following elections, there will be one or two democratically elected parish councils in the area whose powers and duties are set out in Appendix J.
Under the Localism Act 2011, “eligible” Parish Councils may also have the general power of competence which has been be given to other local authorities by the Act. This is a power to do anything that individuals generally may do, although with some restrictions set out in the legislation. What makes a parish council eligible will depend upon whether it meets conditions yet to be set out in an Order from the Secretary of State.
Charter Trustees
Whilst the outcome of the consultation would seem to suggest that there is an appetite for a parish council in Durham City, it is considered important that the residents are informed of the fate of the Charter Trustees should such a parish be formed.
Under the Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England) Regulations 2008, on the date on which the whole of the unparished area becomes parished, the following occurs:-
(a) The Charter Trustees shall be dissolved;
(b) The Mayor and Deputy Mayor (if any) shall cease to hold office as such; (c) The appointment of any local officer of dignity shall be treated as if it had been made by the parish council; (d) All property rights and liabilities (of whatever description) of the Charter Trustees, shall become property rights and liabilities of the parish council; and (e) Any legal proceedings to which the Charter Trustees are party may, subject to rules of Court, be prosecuted or defended (as the case may be) by the parish council.
In terms of its functions, however it remains a parish council.
To clarify, should the whole of the unparished area of Durham be parished then the Charter Trust will be dissolved and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will cease to hold office. The new parish council will appoint a chairman in the first instant and can then decide whether to continue to be called a parish or change to a town council. If the latter is agreed then the council can decide to call its Chairman by the title of Mayor. The town council will have the same power and status as a parish and the mayor will have no higher status then that of a chairman a parish council.
Page 356 8 A further option for the whole of the unparished are of Durham
Given the implications in relation to the Charter Trustees it is suggested that the Council include the option of retaining the Charter Trustees in any consultation on parish council arrangements. The fact that an outcome which retains only a small part of the present unparished area will result in the retention of the Charter Trustees, is a matter which will need to be carefully taken into account when the results of the consultation are considered.
Other forms of governance
Mindful that the Council is required by law to consider other forms of community governance as alternatives to parish councils, consideration has been given to other arrangements for community representation or community engagement which already exist in the area, including the Area Action Partnerships, tenants associations, community associations, resident association. A list of the bodies consulted is attached at Appendix K.
There are other forms of Community Governance within the unparished area of Durham, including a number of Residents Associations encompassing five main areas:
• St Nicholas/Claypath • Crossgate • Whinney Hill • Elvet • Newton Hall
In addition to the County Councillors who represent this area, the County Council has established 14 Area Action Partnerships to give people in County Durham a greater choice and voice in local affairs.
Durham Area Action Partnership is made up of local people, businesses and organisations such as the county council, town and parish councils, police and fire, health and voluntary groups. The partnership allows people to have a say on services, and give organisations the chance to speak directly with local communities, focusing action and spending on issues important to local communities.
The Council is mindful of such other forms of community governance in its consideration of whether parish governance is most appropriate in unparished Durham area. It also notes that what sets parish councils apart from other kinds of governance is the fact that they are a democratically elected tier of local government with directly elected representatives, independent of other council tiers and budgets, and possessing specific powers for which they are democratically accountable.
9 Page 357 Other forms of Community Governance Considered
Other forms of community governance consulted upon during the stage 1 consultations included:
• Area/community forums • Community associations • Neighbourhood Management
Consideration has been given to the pattern of community representation and community engagement already operating in the area.
In respect of the whole unparished area of Durham only 35 respondents expressed an interest in other forms of community governance.
Considerations
Consideration has been given to the impact on community cohesion when deciding whether or not to set up a parish. Setting up parishes and parish councils clearly offers the opportunity to strengthen community engagement and participation, and generate a positive impact on community cohesion.
The Council recognises that communities have expert knowledge about their own circumstances and that actions at the local level contribute to achieving integration and cohesion, with local authorities well placed to identify any pressures. Community governance arrangements should reflect, and be sufficiently representative of, people living across the whole community and not just a discrete cross-section or small part of it.
The Council should be able to decline to set up such community governance arrangements where they judge that to do so would not be in the interests of either the local community or surrounding communities, and where the effect is likely to damage community cohesion. With this in mind it is felt that consulting the two areas on three options each is the most appropriate way forward. Consulting on a third option for one parish for the whole unparished area, for which there was some support, would in this case be appropriate.
Proposals for Consultation for Durham
It is proposed that consultation takes place on:-
For the Durham City area (excluding Newton Hall and the three unparished areas identified on Map A as (i) (ii) and (iii)):
1. A parish council for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City 1 (see map B)
1 The boundary of such a parish will be determined once the responses from households in the Newton Hall area have been considered.
Page 358 10
2. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
For the Newton Hall area only but excluding the area shown as (iii) on Map A:
1. A parish council for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City (see map B)
2. A parish Council for Newton Hall area only (Map C)
3. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
For the areas identified on Map A (i) (ii) and (iii)
1. To be part of Framwellgate Moor Parish Council
2. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
All of the proposals above are viable in relation to numbers.
Consultation with Households in Framwellgate Moor Parish Council
Consultation will take place with all households in Framwellgate Moor Parish seeking their views on the proposal to extend the boundary of their parish to include the three Areas identified on Map A as (i), (ii) and (iii).
Framwellgate Moor Parish Council will also be asked for their views.
The present structure of parishes and their electoral arrangements
Consideration has been given to the present parish structure in the County, including parishes, parish wards, ward representation, overall representation, ratios of electors to councillors and rural/urban designation.
Boundaries
The Council has endeavoured to select boundaries that are and are likely to remain easily identifiable. . Names and styles of parishes
With regard to the names of parishes, the Group recommends that the Council should endeavour to reflect existing local or historic place-names.
The 2007 Act introduced ‘alternative styles’ for parishes. If adopted, the ‘alternative style’ would replace the style ‘parish’. For example Newton Hall Parish Council could be named Newton Hall Neighbourhood Council.
11 Page 359 Only one of three prescribed styles can be adopted: ‘community’, neighbourhood’ or ‘village’. In addition, it should be noted that it is open to parish council, once formed, to resolve to call itself a town council.
Should one parish be created for the whole unparished area of Durham it is suggested that the name be as follows:
• Durham Parish Council (once established the parish council can resolve to become a Town Council)
Should two parishes be created for the unparished area of Durham it is suggested that the names be as follows:
• Durham Parish Council (Once established the parish council can resolve to become a Town Council)
• Newton Hall Parish Council
In respect of the three areas of land identified on Map A as (i) (ii) and (iii) it is proposed that the boundaries of Framwellgate Moor Parish, be extended to include these three areas. Thus the Council proposes the formation of a new parish under the Act and subsequently must consider the necessary electoral arrangements. No change to the name of the parish be proposed. No change can be made to the style of that parish.
Warding arrangements of the parish councils
Consideration has been given to the following:
• Whether the number, or distribution of the electorate for the parish would make a single election of councillor impracticable or inconvenient. • Whether it is desirable that any area or areas of the parish should be separately represented on the council • Whether governance is effective and convenient i.e. whether the cost of separate ward elections in some cases would represent an effective use of the parish’s limited resources.
In respect of the size and boundaries of wards, consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors for the parish • Any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors which is likely to occur in the 5 years beginning with the day when the review ends. • The desirability of fixing boundaries which are, and will remain easily identifiable. • Any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundaries.
Page 360 12 Consideration has also been given to the advice of the Local Government Boundary Commission:
• No unwarded parish should be divided by county division boundaries and no parish should be split by such a boundary. • The number of councillors should be proportional to electoral sizes across parish wards (each persons vote should be of equal weight so far as possible)
For the whole unparished area excluding the areas identified on Map A at (i), (ii) and (iii), the following wards are proposed:-
Pelaw Gilesgate Durham South Framwelgate Crossgate St. Nicholas and Elvet Nevilles Cross South Nevilles Cross North Newton Hall North Newton Hall South
For Durham parish only (excluding Newton Hall and (i) and (ii) on Map A)
Pelaw Gilesgate Durham South Framwelgate Crossgate St. Nicholas and Elvet Nevilles Cross South Nevilles Cross North
For Newton Hall parish only excluding (iii) Map A.
Newton Hall North Newton Hall South
Consideration has also been given as to whether a newly enlarged Framwellgate Moor Parish should be warded.
A logical boundary for any warding would be the current polling districts. The population of the area is concentrated in the Framwellgate Moor polling district (2104 electors). The next district (Pity Me) has 1649 electors. Brasside has 417 electors. There are natural gaps between these three areas. The disparity in numbers between them would suggest that warding would create an inequality in member/elector ratios across the parish. It is not proposed therefore to divide the newly extended parish into wards.
13 Page 361 Electoral Arrangements
Ordinary year of election
It is proposed that the next ordinary election of parish councillors is 2013, and every 4 years thereafter. This cycle coincides with the cycle for Durham County Council Unitary elections; this enables the costs of elections to be shared.
Size of the parish councils
The minimum legal number of parish councillors for each parish council is five. There is no maximum number and no other legislative guidance in this respect.
Subsequently, in respect of the number of electors consideration has been given to:
• The number of local government electors of the proposed parish • Any change in that number which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review ends • NALC guidance • Aston Business School research (1992) • The Councillor to elector ratios that currently exists across existing parish/town councils in County Durham. See Appendix L.
Electoral forecasts are attached at Appendix A.
The NALC guidance indicates that local council business does not usually require a large body of councillors but to ensure business convenience it is considered appropriate to suggest the following as practicable councillor numbers per parish council.
One parish Council for the whole of the unparished area including Newton Hall
• Durham Parish Council – 19 members
Two parish councils for the unparished area
• Durham Parish Council – 15 members • Newton Hall Parish Council – 7 members
In respect of Framwellgate Moor Parish the number of electorate resulting from the realignment of the boundaries to include the three areas identified on Map A, is 4,882. This will be comprised of the 4,170 electors currently within the existing parish and the 712 electors from the three areas identified as (i), (ii) and (iii) on Map A. The area is an urban largely concentrated area and taking into account NALC Aston Guidance and also the electorate to Councillor ratios within the County, the current number of Councillors (11) for
Page 362 14 Framwellgate Moor would continue to be a manageable number for conducting business and that the proposed size of the new parish representation of 11 members would continue to be effective and convenient.
In respect of Durham Parish Council including Newton Hall, the following members per ward are proposed:
Ward Proposed Members
Pelaw 1 Gilesgate 2 Durham South 1 Framwelgate 1 Crossgate 1 St Nicholas and Elvet 4 Nevilles Cross South 2 Nevilles Cross North 3 Newton Hall North 2 Newton Hall South 2
In respect of Durham City excluding Newton Hall, the following wards are proposed:
Ward Proposed Members
Pelaw 1 Gilesgate 2 Durham South 1 Framwelgate 1 Crossgate 1 St Nicholas and Elvet 4 Nevilles Cross South 2 Nevilles Cross North 3
In respect of Newton Hall alone, the following wards are proposed:
Ward Proposed Members
Newton Hall North - 3 Newton Hall South - 4
Setting precepts for new parish Councils
Parish councils have the power to levy a precept. This means that it requests the County Council to collect from each household an additional sum to the Council Tax to help fund the parish council. Whilst the County Council may make recommendations for the size of the initial precept and will arrange to set and collect the initial parish precept on behalf of the new parish or parishes, thereafter, the size of the precept will be decided by the Parish Council as an elected body.
15 Page 363
The Group is considering what would be an appropriate precept for the new parish councils and these are set out below:
• Durham Parish Council (covering the whole of the unparished area including Newton Hall) – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
• Durham Parish Council (excluding Newton Hall) – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
• Newton Hall Parish Council – a recommendation from the Group will be provided at full Council.
In subsequent years it will be for the elected Parish Council to set its own precept.
Under the Regulations the Charter Trustees would remain until such time as the whole of the unparished area of Durham is parished.
Should Framwellgate Moor Parish boundary be extended to include the areas identified on Map A as (i), (ii) and (iii) then it will be for that Parish Council to determine any change to the level of precept.
Suggested commencement dates:
• 1 April 2013 for administrative and financial purposes • 2 May 2013 ordinary elections for the election of a council.
Property
There is a property issue that will need to be resolved between any new parish council for Durham City and the County Council. The County Council has been attempting to negotiate with the Charter Trustees the issue of ownership of historical and ceremonial property. The Charter Trustees have, however, indicated that they are not willing to enter such negotiations but wish to leave such issues to any new Council to resolve.
Summary
In summary, given the complexities in the responses received, the Council does not propose to consult on one option alone but consultation is taking place as following:-
For the Durham City area (excluding Newton Hall and the three unparished areas identified on Map A as (i) (ii) and (iii)):
Page 364 16 1. A parish council for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City 1 (see map B)
2. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
For the Newton Hall area only but excluding the area shown as (iii) on Map A:
1. A parish council for the whole of the unparished area of Durham City (see map B)
2. A parish Council for Newton Hall area only (Map C)
3. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
For the areas identified on Map A (i) (ii) and (iii)
1. To be part of Framwellgate Moor Parish Council
2. No change to existing arrangements (Retaining the Charter Trustees).
Consultation with Households in Framwellgate Moor Parish Council
Consultation will take place with all households in Framwellgate Moor Parish seeking their views on the proposal to extend the boundary of their parish to include the three Areas identified on Map A as (i), (ii) and (iii).
Framwellgate Moor Parish Council will also be asked for their views.
In summary, the Council is of the view that the alternative arrangements proposed are viable. They reflect the identities and interests of the community in that area and are effective and convenient.
Timetable for the review
Action Time Dates Span Publication of Terms of 1 November 2011 Reference Invitation of initial submissions Two 1 November 2011 to 31 December months 2011 Analysis/evaluation of Two 1 January 2012 to 21 March 2012 submissions and preparation months of draft proposals Publication of draft proposals 1 April 2012
1 The boundary of such a parish will be determined once the responses from households in the Newton Hall area have been considered.
17 Page 365 Consultation on draft Two 1 April 2012 to 30 May 2012 proposals months
Analysis/evaluation of draft 31 July 2012 proposals and preparation of final proposals Publication of final 1 October 2012 recommendations Preparation and publication of Two 1 November 2012 any reorganisation Order months Election date May 2013
In addition to a questionnaire and information leaflet being delivered to every household in the area, further information will be displayed on the Council’s website and sent to residents when requested.
“Drop In” sessions are also to be held in the area where residents can to speak to Officers direct to seek further clarifications on the options available.
Page 366 18 Map A: Areas it is proposed to transfer to Framwellgate Moor Parish
(iii )
(ii) (i)
Page 367 Page 368
Map A: Areas it is proposed to transfer to Framwellgate Moor Parish (with more detail)
(iii )
(ii) (i)
MAP B: Whole of the unparished area including Newton Hall
Page 369 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 370 MAP C: Newton Hall Parish
Page 371 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 372 MAP D – Crook (North, Central, South)
Page 373 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 374 MAP E – Crook North (Hill Top Villages)
Page 375 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 376 MAP F: Crook Central
Page 377 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 378 MAP G: Hunwick
Page 379 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 380 Agenda Item 11
COUNCIL REPORT
21 st March 2012
The Localism Act 2011 – The Amended Standards Regime
Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer Councillor Simon Henig: Leader of the Council Councillor Alan Napier Deputy Leader and Cabinet Portfolio holder for Resources
Purpose of the Report
1. To advise Council of the impact of the Localism Act on Standards.
2. To propose steps to ensure that the Council is compliant.
Background
3. The Localism Act 2011
The Localism Act 2011 makes fundamental changes to the system of regulation of standards of conduct for elected and co-opted Councillors. The changes will need to be implemented from July 2012.
This report describes the changes and recommends the actions required for the Council to implement the new regime.
Duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct and the removal of the existing Standards regime
The authority will remain under a statutory duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct for its elected and co-opted members. The act then removes the existing system including:
(a) The ten Principles of Conduct heading the Code.
(b) The statutory model Code of Conduct.
(c) The Code of Conduct that the Council has adopted in its constitution.
(d) The requirement for members to give an undertaking to observe the authority’s Code of Conduct.
(e) The Standards Board and Ethical Standards Officers.
(f) The requirement to have a Standards Committee.
Page 381
(g) Provision for independent membership of the Standards Committee.
(h) The menu of sanctions allowed under the existing standards framework.
(i) The current Members’ Interest Register.
(j) The requirement for Assessment Review and Hearing Committees to deal with complaints.
(k) All provisions for appeal against decisions in Standards Committee.
4. Standards Committee
As the Act removes the obligation to have a Standards Committee, the Council now need to consider how it would oversee and implement the ethical agenda that replaces the current statutory framework.
The current Standards Committee was created by the repealed legislation and was of a size and structure to comply with those provisions. Such a committee will not exist under the new Act.
Under the new regime there will be a need for members to perform certain roles, in particular:
• Decisions and complaints • Sanctions • Overseeing training of members • Dispensations to decide on applications by members to speak/vote in cases where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
It is recommended that a small group of members be established to deal with these issues and gain experience and expertise in handling them. That committee could be an existing one of audit but the agenda and work programme for that committee is already large and increased by its new role in relation to the approval of accounts. The recommendation is therefore for the establishment of a standards committee of a smaller size than the current one. The figure suggested is 11.
(i) The composition of the Committee will be governed by proportionality, unless Council votes otherwise with no member voting against. The present restriction to only one member of the Executive on the Standards Committee will cease to apply;
(ii) The way in which the legislation has been drafted has effectively prevented the current independent members from holding office.
Page 382
The Act establishes a new category of Independent Persons (see below) who must be consulted at various stages, but provides that the existing co-opted independent members cannot serve as Independent Persons for 5 years. The new Independent Persons may be invited to attend meetings of the Standards Committee, but are unlikely to be co-opted onto the Committee;
(iii) The Council will continue to have responsibility for dealing with standards complaints against elected and appointed members of Parish Councils, but the current Parish Council representatives cease to hold office. The Council can choose whether it wants to continue to involve Parish Council representatives by coopting them. With over 100 parish councils, the arrangement of a joint committee would be unworkable and this option is not therefore proposed in this report.
Issue 1 – The Council must decide whether set up a Standards Committee, and how it is to be composed.
Recommendation 1 –
a. That the Council establish a Standards Committee comprising 11 elected members of the Council, appointed proportionally;
b. That the Parish Councils be invited to nominate a maximum of 2 Parish Councillors to be co-opted as non-voting members of the Committee;
5. The Code of Conduct
The current ten General Principles and Model Code of Conduct will be repealed. However, the Council will be required to adopt a new Code of Conduct governing elected and co-opted member’s conduct when acting in that capacity. The Council’s new Code of Conduct must, viewed as a whole, be consistent with the following seven principles –
• Selflessness • Integrity • Objectivity • Accountability • Openness • Honesty • Leadership
The Council has discretion as to what it includes within its new Code of Conduct, provided that it is consistent with the seven principles. However, regulations to be made under the Act will require the
Page 383
registration and disclosure of “Disclosable Pecuniary Interests” (DPIs), broadly equating to the current prejudicial interests. The provisions of the Act also require an authority’s code to contain appropriate requirements for the registration (and disclosure) of other pecuniary interests and non-pecuniary interests. The result is that it is not possible yet to draft Code provisions which reflect the definition of DPIs which will appear in regulations, but it is possible to give an indicative view of what the Council might consider appropriate to include in the Code in respect of the totality of all interests, including DPIs, other pecuniary interests and non-pecuniary interests. Accordingly, it might be appropriate at this stage to instruct the Monitoring Officer to prepare a draft Code which requires registration and disclosure of those interests which would today amount to personal and/or prejudicial interests, but only require withdrawal as required by the Act for DPIs.
The Act prohibits members with a DPI from participating in authority business, and the Council can adopt a Standing Order requiring members to withdraw from the meeting room.
So the Council’s new Code of Conduct will have to deal with the following matters –
• General conduct rules, to give effect to the seven principles. This corresponds broadly with Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the current Code of Conduct. In practise, the easiest course of action would be simply to re-adopt Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the existing Code of Conduct. The Council can amend its Code of Conduct subsequently if the need arises; and • Registration and disclosure of interests other than DPIs – effectively, replacing the current personal interests provisions. The Act requires that the Code contains “appropriate” provisions for this purpose, but, until the regulations are published, defining DPIs, it is difficult to suggest what additional disclosure would be appropriate.
It is also suggested that it would be desirable to have a code in common with the Council’s constituent parish councils and with other councils in the region at least. Some collaboration is being undertaken by the Monitoring Officers in the region who are awaiting sight of any recommended code from the Local Government Association which is also approved by the National Association for Local Councils. The timescales for the production of such a report are unknown and whilst this council in collaboration with others could start work on drafting a new code in the absence of any LGA code, it is suggested that the current members code be adopted as a default option pending the adoption of a new code (with authority to the Monitoring officer to make any amendments to the code to secure its compliance with legislation).
Issue 2 – The Council has to decide what it will include in its Code of Conduct
Page 384
Recommendation 2 -
a. That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to prepare and present to Council for adoption a draft Code of Conduct. That draft Code should –
i. equate to Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the current Code of Conduct applied to member conduct in the capacity of an elected or co-opted member of the Council or its Committees and Sub-Committees; and ii. require registration and disclosure of interests which would today constitute personal and/or prejudicial interests, but only require withdrawal as required by the Act in relation to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
b. That, when the Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Regulations are published, the Monitoring Officer, after consultation with the Constitutional Working Group, add to that draft Code provisions which she considers to be appropriate for the registration and disclosure of interests other than DPIs.
c. That in the interim, the members code of conduct currently contained in the constitution stand as the Council’s approved code of conduct, with authority delegated to the monitoring officer to make amendments to ensure that the code is compliant with legislation.
6. Dealing with Misconduct Complaints
“Arrangements”
The Act requires that the Council adopt “arrangements” for dealing with complaints of breach of Code of Conduct both by Council members and by Parish Council members, and such complaints can only be dealt with in accordance with such “arrangements”. So the “arrangements” must set out in some detail the process for dealing with complaints of misconduct and the actions which may be taken against a member who is found to have failed to comply with the relevant Code of Conduct.
The advantage is that the Act repeals the requirements for separate Referrals, Review and hearings Sub-Committees, and enables the Council to establish its own process, which can include delegation of decisions on complaints. Indeed, as the statutory provisions no longer give the Standards Committee or Monitoring Officer special powers to deal with complaints, it is necessary for Council to delegate appropriate powers to any Standards Committee and to the Monitoring Officer.
Decision whether to investigate a complaint
Page 385
In practice, the Standards for England guidance on initial assessment of complaints provided a reasonably robust basis for filtering out trivial and tit-for-tat complaints. It is sensible to take advantage of the new flexibility to delegate to the Monitoring Officer the initial decision on whether a complaint requires investigation, subject to consultation with the Independent Person, if appropriate, and the ability to refer particular complaints to the Standards Committee where she feels that it would be inappropriate for her to take a decision on it. These arrangements would also offer the opportunity for the Monitoring Officer to seek to resolve a complaint informally, before taking a decision on whether the complaint merits formal investigation. If this function is delegated to the Monitoring Officer, it is right that she should be accountable for its discharge. For this purpose, it would be appropriate that she make a quarterly report to Standards Committee, which would enable her to report on the number and nature of complaints received and draw to the Committee’s attention areas where training or other action might avoid further complaints, and keep the Committee advised of progress on investigations and costs.
“No Breach of Code” finding on investigation
Where a formal investigation finds no evidence of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the current requirement is that this is reported to Standards Committee to take the decision to take no further action. In practice, it would be reasonable to delegate this decision to the Monitoring Officer, but with the power to refer a matter to Standards Committee if she feels appropriate. It would be sensible of copies of all investigation reports were provided to the Independent Person to enable him to get an overview of current issues and pressures, and that the Monitoring Officer provide a summary report of each such investigation to Standards Committee for information.
In all other cases, where the formal investigation finds evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, it would be necessary for the Standards Committee (in practice a Hearings Panel constituted as a Sub-Committee of Standards Committee) to hold a hearing at which the member against whom the complaint has been made can respond to the investigation report, and the Hearing Panel can determine whether the member did fail to comply with the Code of Conduct and what action, if any, is appropriate as a result.
Action in response to a Hearing finding of failure to comply with Code
The Act does not give the Council or its Standards Committee any powers to impose sanctions such as suspension or requirements for training or an apology on members. So, where a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct is found, the range of actions which the authority can take in respect of the member is limited and must be directed to securing the continuing ability of the authority to continue to discharge
Page 386
its functions effectively, rather than “punishing” the member concerned. In practice, this might include the following –
(i) Reporting its findings to Council [or to the Parish Council] for information;
(ii) Recommending to the member’s Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council;
(iii) Recommending to the Leader of the Council that the member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;
(iv) Instructing the Monitoring Officer to [or recommend that the Parish Council] arrange training for the member;
(v) Removing [or recommend to the Parish Council that the member be removed] from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority [or by the Parish Council] ;
(vi) Withdrawing [ or recommend to the Parish Council that it withdraws] facilities provided to the member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access; or
There is a particular difficulty in respect of Parish Councils, as the Localism Act gives the Standards Committee no power to do any more in respect of a member of a Parish Council than make a recommendation to the Parish Council on action to be taken in respect of the member. Parish Councils will be under no obligation to accept any such recommendation.
Appeals
There is no requirement to put in place any appeals mechanism against such decisions. The decision would be open to judicial review by the High Court if it was patently unreasonable, or if it were taken improperly, or if it sought to impose a sanction which the authority had no power to impose.
Issue 3 – The Council has to decide what “arrangements” it will adopt for dealing with standards complaints and for taking action where a member is found to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.
Page 387
Recommendation 3A – That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to prepare and submit to Council for approval “arrangements” as follows -
a. That the Monitoring Officer be appointed as the Proper Officer to receive complaints of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct;
b. That the Monitoring Officer be given delegated power, after consultation with the Independent Person, if appropriate, to determine whether a complaint merits formal investigation and to arrange such investigation. She be instructed to seek resolution of complaints without formal investigation wherever practicable, and that she be given discretion to refer decisions on investigation to the Standards Committee where she feels that it is inappropriate for her to take the decision, and to report quarterly to Standards Committee on the discharge of this function;
c. Subject to consultation with the independent person, where the investigation finds no evidence of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer be instructed to close the matter, providing a copy of the report and findings of the investigation to the complainant and to the member concerned, and to the Independent Person, and reporting the findings to the Standards Committee for information;
d. Where the investigation finds evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Person be authorised to seek local resolution to the satisfaction of the complainant in appropriate cases, with a summary report for information to Standards Committee. Where such local resolution is not appropriate or not possible, she is to report the investigation findings to a Hearings Panel of the Standards Committee for local hearing;
e. That Council delegate to Hearings Panels such of its powers as can be delegated to take decisions in respect of a member who is found on hearing to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, such actions to include –
Reporting its findings to Council [or to the Parish Council] for information;
Issuing a formal censure;
Page 388
Recommending to the member’s Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council;
Recommending to the Leader of the Council that the member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;
Instructing the Monitoring Officer to [or recommend that the Parish Council] arrange training for the member;
Removing [or recommend to the Parish Council that the member be removed] from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority [or by the Parish Council] ;
Withdrawing [ or recommend to the Parish Council that it withdraws] facilities provided to the member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access; or
Publishing the decision.
Recommendation 3B – That a meeting be arranged between the Chair of Standards Committee and the Group Leaders for the Council and representatives of Parish Councils to discuss how the new system can best operate.
7. Independent Person(s)
The “arrangements” adopted by Council must include provision for the appointment by Council of at least one Independent Person.
“Independence”
The Independent Person must be appointed through a process of public advertisement, application and appointment by a positive vote of a majority of all members of the Council (not just of those present and voting).
A person is considered not to be “independent” if:-
(i) he is, or has been within the last 5 years, an elected or co-opted member or an officer of the Council or of any of the Parish Councils within its area;
Page 389
(ii) he is, or has been within the last 5 years, an elected or co-opted member of any Committee or Sub- Committee of the Council or of any of the Parish Councils within its area (which would preclude any of the current co-opted independent members of Standards Committee from being appointed as an Independent Person); or
(iii) he is a relative or close friend of a current elected or co-opted member or officer of the Council or any Parish Council within its area, or of any elected or cop-opted member of any Committee or Sub- Committee of such Council.
For this purpose, “relative” comprises –
(a) the candidate’s spouse or civil partner; (b) any person with whom the candidate is living as if they are spouses or civil partners; (c) the candidate’s grandparent; (d) any person who is a lineal descendent of the candidate’s grandparent; (e) a parent, brother, sister or child of anyone in Paragraphs (a) or (b); (f) the spouse or civil partner of anyone within Paragraphs (c), (d) or (e); or (g) any person living with a person within Paragraphs (c), (d) or (e) as if they were spouse or civil partner to that person.
Functions of the Independent Person
The functions of the Independent Person(s) are:-
• They must be consulted by the authority before it makes a finding as to whether a member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct or decides on action to be taken in respect of that member (this means on a decision to take no action where the investigation finds no evidence of breach or, where the investigation finds evidence that there has been a breach, on any local resolution of the complaint, or on any finding of breach and on any decision on action as a result of that finding); • They may be consulted by the authority in respect of a standards complaint at any other stage; and • They may be consulted by a member or co-opted member of the Council or of a Parish Council against whom a complaint has been made.
How many Independent Persons?
Page 390
The Act gives discretion to appoint one or more Independent Persons, but provides that each Independent Person must be consulted before any decision is taken on a complaint which has been investigated. More than one independent person will be required to cover periods of absence/illness and cases where there is a conflict .It may be sensible to await developments and delegate to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chair of Constitution Working Group the exact number to be appointed and the timing of the advertisement. Council may wish also delegate to her, again in consultation with the Chair of the constitutional working group any extension of the appointment of the current independent chair as in a very recent development, the Secretary of State has indicated a willingness to amend the current legislation to allow current chairs to fill the role of the independent person for a transitional period.
Remuneration
As the Independent Person is not a member of the authority or of its Committees or Sub-Committees, the remuneration of the Independent Person no longer comes within the scheme of members’ allowances, and can therefore be determined without reference to the Independent Remuneration Panel.
In comparison to the current Chair of Standards Committee, the role of Independent Person is likely to be less onerous. He/she is likely to be invited to attend all meetings of the Standards Committee and Hearings Panels, but not to be a formal member of the Committee or Panel (he/she could be co-opted as a non-voting member but cannot chair as the Chair must exercise a second or casting vote). He/she will need to be available to be consulted by members against whom a complaint has been made, although it is unclear what assistance he/she could offer. Where he/she has been so consulted, he/she would be unable to be involved in the determination of that complaint. This report suggests that the Independent Person also be involved in the local resolution of complaints and in the grant of dispensations. However, it would be appropriate to undertake a proper review of the function before setting the remuneration.
Page 391
Issue 4 – How many Independent Persons are required?
Recommendation 4 –
a. That the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Constitutional Working Group and the Chair of Council, and with the advice of the Head of HR, and Section 151 officer, be authorised to set the initial allowances and expenses for the Independent Persons and , and this function subsequently be delegated to the Standards Committee
b. That the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Constitutional working group, taking into account any provisions that allow the current Chair of the standards committee to fill the role of independent person on a transitional basis advertise a vacancy of the appointment of Independent Persons,
c That if legislation is amended or permission otherwise given for the appointment of Current Chairs of Standards Committees to fill the role of independent person on a transitional basis then the Monitoring Officer be authorised to agree, in consultation with the Chair of the Constitutional working Group, that the current Chair of the Standards Committee fill that transitional role.
d. That on advertisement of the post of independent person a Committee comprising the chair and three members of the standards committee be set up to short-list and interview candidates, and to make a recommendation to Council for appointment.
8. The Register of Members’ Interests
The register of members’ interests
The Localism Act abolishes the concepts of personal and prejudicial interests. Instead, regulations will define “Disclosable Pecuniary Interests” (DPIs). The Monitoring Officer is required to maintain a register of interests, which must be available for inspection and available on the Council’s website. The Monitoring Officer is also responsible for maintaining the register for Parish Councils, which also have to be open for inspection at the Council offices and on the Council’s website.
At present we do not know what Disclosable Pecuniary Interests will comprise, but it is believed that they are likely to be broadly equivalent
Page 392
to the current prejudicial interests. The intention was to simplify the registration requirement, but in fact the Act extends the requirement for registration to cover not just the member’s own interests, but also those of the member’s spouse or civil partner, or someone living with the member in a similar capacity.
The provisions of the Act in respect of the Code of Conduct require an authority’s code to contain appropriate requirements for the registration (and disclosure) of other pecuniary interests and non-pecuniary interests.
The Monitoring Officer is required by the Act to set up and maintain registers of interest for each Parish Council, available for inspection at the Council offices and on the Council’s website and, where the Parish Council has a website, provide the Parish Council with the information required to enable the Parish Council to put the current register on its own website.
Registration on election or co-option
Each elected or co-opted member must register all DPIs within 28 days of becoming a member. Failure to register is made a criminal offence, but would not prevent the member from acting as a member.
In so far as the Code of Conduct which the Council adopts requires registration of other interests, failure to do so would not be a criminal offence, but merely a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.
There is no continuing requirement for a member to keep the register up to date, except on re-election or re-appointment, but it is likely that members will register new interests from time to time, as this avoids the need for disclosure in meetings. When additional notifications are given, the Monitoring Officer has to ensure that they are entered into the register.
The preparation and operation of the register, not just for this authority but also for each Parish Council, is likely to be a considerable administrative task, especially where different Parish Councils adopt different Code requirements for registration and disclosure in respect of interests other than DPIs. There is no provision for the Council to recover any costs from Parish Councils.
Issue 5 – Preparation of the Registers
Recommendation 5 – a. That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain a new register of members interests to comply with the requirements of the Act and of the Council’s Code of
Page 393
Conduct, once adopted, and ensure that it is available for inspection as required by the Act;
b. That the Monitoring Officer ensure that all members are informed of their duty to register interests;
c. That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain new registers of members’ interests for each Parish Council to comply with the Act and any Code of Conduct adopted by each Parish Council and ensure that it is available for inspection as required by the Act; and
d. That the Monitoring Officer arrange to inform and train Parish Clerks on the new registration arrangements.
9. Disclosure of Interests and Withdrawal from Meetings
As set out above, DPIs are broadly equivalent to prejudicial interests, but with important differences. So –
(i) The duty to disclose and withdraw arises whenever a member attends any meeting of Council, a committee or sub-committee, or of Cabinet or a Cabinet committee, and is aware that he/she has a DPI in any matter being considered at the meeting. So it applies even if the member would be absent from that part of the meeting where the matter in question is under consideration.
(ii) Where these conditions are met, the member must disclose the interest to the meeting (i.e. declare the existence and nature of the interest). However, in a change from the current requirements, the member does not have to make such a disclosure if he/she has already registered the DPI, or at least sent off a request to the Monitoring Officer to register it (a “pending notification”). So, members of the public attending the meeting will in future need to read the register of members’ interests, as registered interests will no longer be disclosed at the meeting.
(iii) Where the member does make a disclosure of a DPI, he/she must then notify it to the Monitoring Officer within the next 28 days, so that it can go on the register of interests.
(iv) If a member has a DPI in any matter, he/she must not –
Page 394
(a) Participate in any discussion of the matter at the meeting. The Act does not define “discussion”, but this would appear to preclude making representations as currently permitted under paragraph 12(2) of the model Code of Conduct; or
(b) Participate in any vote on the matter,
unless he/she has obtained a dispensation allowing him/her to speak and/or vote.
(v) Failure to comply with the requirements (paragraphs 8.2, 8.3 or 8.4) becomes a criminal offence, rather than leading to sanctions;
(vi) The Council’s Code of Conduct must make “appropriate” provisions for disclosure and withdrawal for interests other than DPIs, but failure to comply with these requirements would be a breach of Code of Conduct but not a criminal offence.
(vii) The requirement to withdraw from the meeting room can be covered by Standing Orders, which would apply not just to Council, Committees and Sub- Committees, but can apply also to Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings, so that failure to comply would be neither a criminal offence nor a breach of Code of Conduct, although the meeting could vote to exclude the member.
Issue 6 – What Standing Order should the Council adopt in respect of withdrawal from meetings for interests?
Recommendation 6 – The Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Standing Order which equates to the current Code of conduct requirement that a member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a DPI, except where he is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
10. Disclosure and Withdrawal in respect of matters to be determined by a Single Member
Under Local Government legislation, matters can be decided by a single member acting alone where the member is a Cabinet Member acting under Portfolio powers, or where the member is a Ward Councillor and the Council chose to delegate powers to Ward
Page 395
Councillors (this Council currently has not operated under such arrangements).
The Act provides that, when a member becomes aware that he/she will have to deal with a matter and that he/she has a DPI in that matter –
(i) Unless the DPI is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is subject to a “pending notification”, he/she has 28 days to notify the Monitoring Officer that he/she has such a DPI; and
(ii) He/she must take no action in respect of that matter other than to refer it another person or body to take the decision.
Standing Orders can then provide for the exclusion of the member from any meeting while any discussion or vote takes place on the matter.
• Note that the Act here effectively removes the rights of a member with a prejudicial interest to make representations as a member of the public under Paragraph 12(2) of the current Code of Conduct
Issue 7 – In what circumstances should Standing Orders exclude single members from attending meetings while the matter in which they have a DPI is being discussed or voted upon?
Recommendation 7 – The Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Standing Order which equates to the current Code of conduct requirement that a member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a DPI, except where he is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
11. Sensitive Interests
• The Act effectively re-enacts the existing Code of Conduct provisions on Sensitive Interests.
So, where a member is concerned that disclosure of the detail of an interest (either a DPI or any other interest which he/she would be required to disclose) at a meeting or on the register of members’ interests would lead to the member or a person connected with him/her being subject to violence or intimidation, he/she may request the Monitoring Officer to agree that the interest is a “sensitive interest”.
If the Monitoring Officer agrees, the member then merely has to disclose the existence of an interest, rather than the detail of it, at a meeting, and the Monitoring Officer can exclude the detail of the
Page 396
interest from the published version of the register of members’ interests.
12. Dispensations (Former Provisions)
• The provisions on dispensations are significantly changed by the Localism Act.
• At present, a member who has a prejudicial interest may apply to Standards Committee for a dispensation on two grounds –
(i) That at least half of the members of a decision- making body have prejudicial interests (this ground is of little use as it is normally only at the meeting that it is realise how many members have prejudicial interests in the matter, by which time it is too late to convene a meeting of Standards Committee); and
(ii) That so many members of one political party have prejudicial interests in the matter that it will upset the result of the vote on the matter (this ground would require that the members concerned were entirely predetermined, in which case the grant of a dispensation to allow them to vote would be inappropriate).
13. New Provision in relation to Dispensations
In future, a dispensation will be able to be granted in the following circumstances:-
(i) That so many members of the decision-making body have DPIs in a matter that it would “impede the transaction of the business”. In practice this means that the decision-making body would be inquorate as a result;
(ii) That, without the dispensation, the representation of different political groups on the body transacting the business would be so upset as to alter the outcome of any vote on the matter.
(iii) That the authority considers that the dispensation is in the interests of persons living in the authority’s area;
(iv) That, without a dispensation, no member of the Cabinet would be able to participate on this matter (so, the assumption is that, where the Cabinet would be inquorate as a result, the matter can then
Page 397
be dealt with by an individual Cabinet Member. It will be necessary to make provision in the scheme of delegations from the Leader to cover this, admittedly unlikely, eventuality); or
(v) That the authority considers that it is otherwise appropriate to grant a dispensation.
• Any grant of a dispensation must specify how long it lasts for, up to a maximum of 4 years.
• The next significant change is that, where the Local Government Act 2000 required that dispensations be granted by Standards Committee, the Localism Act gives discretion for this power to be delegated to Standards Committee or a Sub-Committee, or to the Monitoring Officer. Grounds 13(i) and 13(iv) are objective, so it may be appropriate to delegate dispensations on these grounds to the Monitoring Officer, with an appeal to the Standards Committee, thus enabling dispensations to be granted “at the door of the meeting”. Grounds 13(ii), 13(iii) and 13(v) are rather more subjective and so it may be appropriate that the discretion to grant dispensations on these grounds remains with Standards Committee, after consultation with the Independent Person.
Issue 8 – What arrangements would be appropriate for granting dispensations?
Recommendation 8 – That Council delegate the power to grant dispensations –
a. on Grounds set out in Paragraphs 13(i) and 13(iv) of this report to the Monitoring Officer with an appeal to Standards Committee, and
b. on Grounds 13(ii), 13(iii) and 13(v) to the Standards Committee, after consultation with the Independent Person.
13. Transitional Arrangements
• Regulations under the Localism Act will provide for –
a. transfer of Standards for England cases to local authorities following the abolition of Standards for England;
b. a transitional period for the determination of any outstanding complaints under the current Code of Conduct. The Government has stated that it will allow 2 months for such determination, but it is to be hoped that the final Regulations allow a little longer;
c. removal of the power of suspension from the start of the transitional period; and
Page 398
d. removal of the right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal from the start of the transitional period.
14. Recommendations and Reasons
Recommendation 1 –
a. That the Council establish a Standards Committee comprising 11 elected members of the Council, appointed proportionally;
b. That the Parish Councils be invited to nominate a maximum of 2 Parish Councillors to be co-opted as non-voting members of the Committee;
Recommendation 2 -
a. That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to prepare and present to Council for adoption a draft Code of Conduct. That draft Code should –
i. equate to Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the current Code of Conduct applied to member conduct in the capacity of an elected or co-opted member of the Council or its Committees and Sub-Committees; and ii. require registration and disclosure of interests which would today constitute personal and/or prejudicial interests, but only require withdrawal as required by the Act in relation to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
b. That, when the Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Regulations are published, the Monitoring Officer, after consultation with the Constitutional Working Group, add to that draft Code provisions which she considers to be appropriate for the registration and disclosure of interests other than DPIs.
c. That in the interim, the members code of conduct currently contained on the constitution stand as the Council’s approved code of conduct, with authority delegated to the monitoring officer to make amendments to ensure that the code is complaint with legislation.
Recommendation 3A – That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to prepare and submit to Council for approval “arrangements” as follows -
a. That the Monitoring Officer be appointed as the Proper Officer to receive complaints of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct;
Page 399
b. That the Monitoring Officer be given delegated power, after consultation with the Independent Person, if appropriate, to determine whether a complaint merits formal investigation and to arrange such investigation. She be instructed to seek resolution of complaints without formal investigation wherever practicable, and that he be given discretion to refer decisions on investigation to the Standards Committee where she feels that it is inappropriate for her to take the decision, and to report quarterly to Standards Committee on the discharge of this function;
c. Subject to consultation with the independent person, where the investigation finds no evidence of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer be instructed to close the matter, providing a copy of the report and findings of the investigation to the complainant and to the member concerned, and to the Independent Person, and reporting the findings to the Standards Committee for information;
d. Where the investigation finds evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Person be authorised to seek local resolution to the satisfaction of the complainant in appropriate cases, with a summary report for information to Standards Committee. Where such local resolution is not appropriate or not possible, she is to report the investigation findings to a Hearings Panel of the Standards Committee for local hearing;
e. That Council delegate to Hearings Panels such of its powers as can be delegated to take decisions in respect of a member who is found on hearing to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, such actions to include –
(i) Reporting its findings to council [or to the Parish Council] for information;
(ii) Issuing a formal censure;
(iii) Recommending to the member’s Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council;
(iv) Recommending to the Leader of the Council that the member be removed from the Cabinet, or
Page 400
removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;
(v) Instructing the Monitoring Officer to [or recommend that the Parish Council] arrange training for the member;
(vi) Removing [or recommend to the Parish Council that the member be removed] from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority [or by the Parish Council] ;
(vii) Withdrawing [ or recommend to the Parish Council that it withdraws] facilities provided to the member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access; or
(viii) Publicising the decision.
Recommendation 3B – That a meeting be arranged between the Chair of Standards Committee and the Group Leaders for the Council and representatives of Parish Councils to discuss how the new system can best operate.
Recommendation 4 – a. That the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Constitutional Working Group and the Chair of Council, and with the advice of the Head of HR, and Section 151 officer, be authorised to set the initial allowances and expenses for the Independent Persons and , and this function subsequently be delegated to the Standards Committee b. That the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Constitutional working group, taking into account any provisions that allow the current Chair of the standards committee to fill the role of independent person on a transitional basis advertise a vacancy of the appointment of Independent Persons, c That if legislation is amended or permission otherwise given for the appointment of Current Chairs of Standards Committees to fill the role of independent person on a transitional basis then the Monitoring Officer be authorised to agree, in consultation with the Chair of the Constitutional working Group, that the current Chair of the Standards Committee fill that transitional role.
Page 401
d. That on advertisement of the post of independent person a Committee comprising the chair and three members of the standards committee be set up to short-list and interview candidates, and to make a recommendation to Council for appointment.
Recommendation 5 –
a. That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain a new register of members interests to comply with the requirements of the Act and of the Council’s Code of Conduct, once adopted, and ensure that it is available for inspection as required by the Act;
b. That the Monitoring Officer ensure that all members are informed of their duty to register interests;
c. That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain new registers of members’ interests for each Parish Council to comply with the Act and any Code of Conduct adopted by each Parish Council and ensure that it is available for inspection as required by the Act; and
d. That the Monitoring Officer arrange to inform and train Parish Clerks on the new registration arrangements.
Recommendation 6 – The Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Standing Order which equates to the current Code of conduct requirement that a member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a DPI, except where he is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
Recommendation 7 – The Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Standing Order which equates to the current Code of conduct requirement that a member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a DPI, except where he is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
Page 402
Recommendation 8 – That Council delegate the power to grant dispensations –
a. on Grounds set out in Paragraphs 13(i) and 13(iv) of this report to the Monitoring Officer with an appeal to Standards Committee, and
b. on Grounds 13(ii), 13(iii) and 13(v) to the Standards Committee, after consultation with the Independent Person.
Contact: Colette Longbottom Tel: 0191 383 5643
Page 403
Appendix 1: Implications
Finance – not directly in the report
Staffing – not directly in the report
Risk – not directly in the report
Equality and Diversity / Public Sector Equality Duty – not directly in the report
Accommodation - not directly in the report
Crime and Disorder - not directly in the report
Human Rights - not directly in the report
Consultation – not directly in the report
Procurement - not directly in the report
Disability Issues – not directly in the report
Legal Implications – within the body of the report
Page 404 Agenda Item 12
County Council
21 March 2012
Electoral Boundary Review –
Consultation period in relation to representations published in response to the initial proposals for new Parliamentary Constituencies in Durham
Report of Don McLure Corporate Director of Resources Councillor Simon Henig - Leader
Purpose of the Report 1 To inform Member’s of the next stage of the consultation procedure in relation to the Boundary Commission’s proposals for the new parliamentary constituency boundaries in England.
Background 2 The Boundary Commission for England is an independent and impartial non- departmental public body which is responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. The Commission is currently conducting a review on the basis of new rules laid down in Parliament, which must be adhered to when considering boundary reviews. These rules involve a significant reduction in the number of constituencies in England (from 533 to 502), and requires that every constituency (apart from two specified exceptions) must have an electorate that is between 72,810 and 80,473 in size– that is 5% either side of the electoral quota of 76, 641.’ Legislation also states that when deciding on boundaries, the Commission may take into account:
a) ‘Special geographical considerations, including the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; b) Local government boundaries as they existed on 6 May 2010; c) Boundaries of existing constituencies; and d) Any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies.’
3 The first two stages of the review have now been completed and the first consultation period on the Commission’s initial proposals for the new parliamentary constituency boundaries in Durham has now ended. As Members will be aware a formal response to the initial proposals has been sent, on behalf of the County Council, as part of the consultation process.
4 The next stage of the review requires the Commission to publish all the representations they have received during the initial consultation period for comments there on. The procedure to be followed will be detailed in this report.
Page 405 Next stage of the consultation process
5 The initial consultation attracted over 22,000 written representations and 1,100 oral representations at public hearings. The Commission have now published all of the representations they received for each region (including the transcripts of the public hearings) on their website. As the number of representations involved is so high, the Commission have determined that there are strong over-riding reasons in the public interest that the representations should only be published on their website, not in hard copy. These representations were published 6 th March, for a further statutory period of four weeks to 3 rd April, during which time comments can be made to the Commission in relation to these representations. There will be no public hearings at this stage.
Recommendations and reasons 6 That Council delegate to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, the preparation of and submission of a response, if appropriate, in consultation with the Electoral Review Working Group.
Background papers
The Boundary Commission for England – North East Initial proposals for Parliamentary boundaries.
Contact: David Collingwood Tel: 03000 261 201
Page 406
Appendix 1: Implications
Finance None
Staffing None
Risk None
Equality and Diversity / Public Sector Equality Duty None
Accommodation None
Crime and Disorder None
Human Rights None
Consultation None
Procurement None
Disability Issues None
Legal Implications None
Page 407
Appendix 2: Rules for redistribution of seats
Rules for redistribution of seats (Schedule 2 to the Act)
Number of constituencies
1 The number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600.
Electorate per constituency
2 (1) The electorate of any constituency shall be—
(a) no less than 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota, and
(b) no more than 105% of that quota.
(2) This rule is subject to rules 4(2), 6(3) and 7.
(3) In this Schedule the “United Kingdom electoral quota” means—
U 596
where U is the electorate of the United Kingdom minus the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6.
Allocation of constituencies to parts of the United Kingdom
3 (1) Each constituency shall be wholly in one of the four parts of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).
(2) The number of constituencies in each part of the United Kingdom shall be determined in accordance with the allocation method set out in rule 8.
Area of constituencies
4 (1) A constituency shall not have an area of more than 13,000 square kilometres.
(2) A constituency does not have to comply with rule 2(1)(a) if—
(a) it has an area of more than 12,000 square kilometres, and
(b) the Boundary Commission concerned are satisfied that it is not reasonably possible for the constituency to comply with that rule.
Factors
5 (1) A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit—
Page 408 (a) special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency;
(b) local government boundaries as they exist on the most recent ordinary council-election day before the review date;
(c) boundaries of existing constituencies;
(d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies;
(e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes. [12]
(2) The Boundary Commission for England may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit, boundaries of the electoral regions specified in Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (ignoring paragraph 2(2) of that Schedule and the references to Gibraltar) as it has effect on the most recent ordinary council-election day before the review date.
(3) This rule has effect subject to rules 2 and 4.
Protected constituencies
6 (1) There shall be two constituencies in the Isle of Wight.
(2) There shall continue to be—
(a) a constituency named Orkney and Shetland, comprising the areas of the Orkney Islands Council and the Shetland Islands Council;
(b) a constituency named Na h-Eileanan an Iar, comprising the area of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar.
(3) Rule 2 does not apply to these constituencies.
Northern Ireland
7 (1) In relation to Northern Ireland, sub-paragraph (2) below applies in place of rule 2 where—
(a) the difference between—
(i) the electorate of Northern Ireland, and
(ii) the United Kingdom electoral quota multiplied by the number of seats in Northern Ireland (determined under rule 8), exceeds one third of the United Kingdom electoral quota, and
(b) the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland consider that having to apply rule 2 would unreasonably impair—
(i) their ability to take into account the factors set out in rule 5(1), or
(ii) their ability to comply with section 3(2) of this Act.
(2) The electorate of any constituency shall be—
(a) no less than whichever is the lesser of—
Page 409
N−A
and 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota, and
(b) no more than whichever is the greater of—
N+A
and 105% of the United Kingdom electoral quota,
where—
N is the electorate of Northern Ireland divided by the number of seats in Northern Ireland (determined under rule 8), and
A is 5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota.
The allocation method
8 (1) The allocation method referred to in rule 3(2) is as follows.
(2) The first constituency shall be allocated to the part of the United Kingdom with the greatest electorate.
(3) The second and subsequent constituencies shall be allocated in the same way, except that the electorate of a part of the United Kingdom to which one or more constituencies have already been allocated is to be divided by—
2C + 1
where C is the number of constituencies already allocated to that part.
(4) Where the figure given by sub-paragraph (3) above is the same for two or more parts of the United Kingdom, the part to which a constituency is to be allocated shall be the one with the smaller or smallest actual electorate.
(5) This rule does not apply to the constituencies mentioned in rule 6, and accordingly—
(a) the electorate of England shall be treated for the purpose of this rule as reduced by the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6(1);
(b) the electorate of Scotland shall be treated for the purposes of this rule as reduced by the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6(2).
Interpretation
9 (1) This rule has effect for the purposes of this Schedule.
(2) The “electorate” of the United Kingdom, or of a part of the United Kingdom or a constituency, is the total number of persons whose names appear on the relevant
Page 410 version of a register of parliamentary electors in respect of addresses in the United Kingdom, or in that part or that constituency. For this purpose the relevant version of a register is the version that is required by virtue of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to be published no later than the review date, or would be so required but for—
(a) any power under that section to prescribe a later date, or
(b) subsection (1A) of that section.
(3) “Local government boundaries” are—
(a) in England, the boundaries of counties and their electoral divisions, districts and their wards, London boroughs and their wards and the City of London,
(b) in Wales, the boundaries of counties, county boroughs, electoral divisions, communities and community wards,
(c) in Scotland, the boundaries of local government areas and the electoral wards into which they are divided under section 1 of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004, and
(d) in Northern Ireland, the boundaries of wards.
(4) “Ordinary council-election day” is—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the ordinary day of election of councillors for local government areas;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the day on which the poll is held at ordinary elections of councillors for local government areas;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the day of an election for any district council (other than an election to fill a casual vacancy).
(5) The “review date”, in relation to a report under section 3(1) of this Act that a Boundary Commission is required (by section 3(2)) to submit before a particular date, is two years and ten months before that date.
(6) “The United Kingdom electoral quota” has the meaning given by rule 2(3).
(7) A reference in rule 6 to an area is to the area as it existed on the coming into force of Part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.
Page 411 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 412 Agenda Item 13
County Council
21 March 2012
Local Code of Corporate Governance
Report of Don McLure, Corporate Director Resources Councillor Alan Napier, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources
Purpose of the Report 1. The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council the inclusion of the updated Code of Corporate Governance in the revised Council Constitution.
Background 2. The Council is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively. The Council also has a duty under the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in a way which functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
3. Good corporate governance requires local authorities to carry out their functions in a way that demonstrates accountability, transparency, effectiveness, integrity, impartiality and inclusivity. Corporate governance is also the structure through which strategic objectives are set and performance monitored. Best practice principles in that regard flow from the three core components of the Turnbull report, namely the assessment of corporate risk; effective management systems and the enabling of the organisational culture.
4. In discharging this overall responsibility the Council is responsible for putting in place proper arrangements for the governance of its affairs, facilitating the effective exercise of its functions, which includes arrangements for the management of risks.
5. The Council has approved and adopted a code of corporate governance which is consistent with the principles of the CIPFA/SOLACE Framework – ‘Delivering Good Governance in Local Government’. This Code is a public statement that sets out the way the Council will meet its commitment to demonstrating that it has the necessary Corporate Governance arrangements in place to perform effectively. It represents a key component of the Council’s governance arrangements. The Code applies to all Council Members, Officers, Partners and stakeholders in their dealings with the Council. The current Code can be found in Part 5, Codes and Protocols, of the Council’s Constitution.
Page 413 6. In line with agreed practice, the Code has been revised following the completion of our annual review of the effectiveness of the Council’s corporate governance arrangements. This revised version has been approved by the Audit Committee, and now needs to be included in the revised Code. The Code is attached in Appendix 2, with deletions from the previous Code marked with a strikethrough, and other changes underlined .
Recommendations and reasons 7. The content of this report was discussed and agreed at a meeting of the Constitution Working Group on 2 March 2012 and Council are asked to approve the revised Code of Corporate Governance to replace the existing version in the constitution.
Contact: David Marshall Tel: 0191 383 4311
Page 414
Appendix 1: Implications
Finance - Financial planning and management is a key component of effective corporate governance.
Staffing - Ensuring the adequate capability of staff meets a core principle of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)/Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) guidance.
Risk – Delivery of the corporate governance action plan will strengthen the decision making and strategic and operational management of the Council’s business.
Equality and Diversity/ Public Sector Equality Duty - Engaging local communities including hard to reach groups meets a core principle of the CIPFA/ SOLACE guidance.
Accommodation - Asset management is a key component of effective corporate governance
Crime and Disorder – None.
Human Rights - None.
Consultation - Engaging local communities meets a core principle of the CIPFA/ SOLACE guidance.
Procurement – None.
Disability issues – Ensuring access to services meets a core principle of the CIPFA/ SOLACE guidance.
Legal Implications – None.
Page 415
Appendix 2: Code of Corporate Governance
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL
LOCAL CODE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Page 416 INTRODUCTION
Corporate governance is a term used to describe how organisations direct and control what they do. As well as systems and processes this includes cultures and values. For local authorities this also includes how a council relates to the communities that it serves. Good corporate governance requires local authorities to carry out their functions in a way that demonstrates accountability, transparency, effectiveness, integrity, impartiality and inclusivity. Corporate governance is also the structure through which strategic objectives are set and performance monitored. Best practice principles in that regard flow from the three core components of the Turnbull report, namely; the assessment of corporate risk; effective management systems and the enabling of the organisational culture.
Durham County Council is committed to demonstrating that it has the necessary corporate governance arrangements in place to perform effectively.
This Code is a public statement that sets out the way the Council will meet that commitment. As such it represents a key component of the Council’s governance arrangements. The Code has been developed in accordance with and is consistent with the CiPFA / SOLACE Delivering Good Governance in Local Government Framework and is based upon the following 6 core principles:
• Focusing on the purpose of the authority and on outcomes for the community and creating and implementing a vision for the local area
• Members and officers working together to achieve a common purpose with clearly defined functions and roles
• Promoting values for the authority and demonstrating the values of good governance through upholding high standards of conduct and behaviour
• Taking informed and transparent decisions which are subject to effective scrutiny and managing risk
• Developing the capacity and capability of members and officers to be effective
• Engaging with local people and other stakeholders to ensure robust public accountability
In the following tables, the Code details how the Council meets these core principles and the supporting principles that underpin them. To complement this, the Code also highlights the key documents and functions which contribute to the Council’s good governance arrangements.
The mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the Council’s corporate governance arrangements are set out in the Code.
Page 417 Page 418
THE COUNCIL’S CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES
1. Focusing on the purpose of the authority and on outcomes for the community and creating and implementing a vision for the local area
Supporting Principle To achieve this: 1.1 Exercising strategic The Sustainable Community Strategy 2010-2030 (SCS) produced by the Council in conjunction with its leadership by developing partners on the County Durham Partnership (CDP) demonstrates its shared long-term vision for the and clearly communicating future of County Durham, namely ‘Altogether Better Durham’. the authority’s purpose and vision and its intended The Local Area Agreement 2008 -2011 (LAA) between local partners and the Government, which ends outcome for citizens and on 31 March 2011, sets out for a three year period agreed targets f or the 35 performance indicators service users. which we believe are key to County Durham together with targets for 16 statutory education and early 1.2 Ensuring that users years indicators. receive a high quality of service whether directly, or The SCS and the accompanying three year action plan is based on consideration of a broad range of in partnership, or by information and evidence and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. commissioning 1.3 Ensuring that the The CDP Performance Management Framework, which is a locally led performance framework, authority makes best use of measures the impact and progress of the SCS over a three year period via a of a basket of indicators resources and that tax aligned to the priority themes and key objectives. These indicators present a balanced scorecard of payers and service users performance across five types of indicator. receive excellent value for money Timely, objective and understandable information about the Council’s activities, achievements, performance and financial position is provided by annually publishing:
• The Council Plan, which contains the Council’s corporate priorities and the key actions to take in support of delivering the longer term goals in the SCS and the Council’s own improvement agenda; • Service Improvement Plans at a Service Grouping level which detail the planned actions to deliver the Council’s vision; Supporting Principle To achieve this: • Externally audited Annual Statement of Accounts; • Independently verified performance information.
The Council aims to deliver high quality services by: • Developing effective relationships and partnerships with other public sector agencies and the private and voluntary sectors; • Responding positively to the findings and recommendations of external auditors and statutory inspectors and putting in place arrangements for the implementation of agreed actions; • Ensuring procurement practices are effective and securing external funding where available; • Identifying performance improvements through the development and monitoring of Council and Service improvement plans. , and continuous improvement through the Corporate Improvement Plan; • Linking other governance processes and procedures, such as the Asset Management Plan and Partnership Governance Framework, to the Council priorities.
The Council has appropriate performance frameworks for specific areas of service and for partnership arrangements:
• The Council Plan, the SCS, Area Action Partnerships, and the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), contribute into the corporate performance management arrangements, and the Council has a framework of quarterly reporting to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny on corporate performance; • The Improvement and Planning Group (IPG) oversee Council performance management issues;
• The Development Improvement Group, which oversees the performance management arrangements of the County Durham Partnership, consists of two groups, namely a performance group that meets quarterly to consider performance, and a strategic group made up of high level officers from the Council, Police, Fire and Health which meets monthly. This latter group considers how key public sector plans for change align, and where efficiencies and Page 419 greater value for money can be achieved through strategic integration, shared services and joint Page 420
Supporting Principle To achieve this: commissioning; • The performance and quality of service delivery of the Community and Voluntary sectors is measured against a standard Service Level Agreement that they all work to; • Quarterly performance sessions in each Service to review performance; • Extended Management Team meetings; consisting of Chief Executive, Directors and Heads of Service, which include a programme of activity linked to the strategic management of the Council; • A Quarterly Performance Management Report produced by all Service Groupings which includes a summary of achievements and identifies areas with significant performance challenges where a more in depth analysis of performance and improvement work should be carried out; • A comprehensive schedule of the necessary savings to enable us to deliver a balanced budget and MTFP are achieved. Detailed and frequent monitoring of this programme is undertaken by CMT and Cabinet.
2. Members and officers working together to achieve a common purpose with clearly defined functions and roles
Supporting P rinciple To achieve this: 2.1 Ensuring effective The Council ensures that the necessary roles and responsibilities for the governance of the Council are leadership throughout the identified and allocated so that it is clear who is accountable for decisions that are made. The Council authority and being clear does this by: about executive and non- executive functions and of • Electing a Leader of the Council and nominating a Cabinet made up of Cabinet Members with the roles and defined executive responsibilities; responsibilities of the • Clearly describing, in the Council’s Constitution, the role of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the scrutiny function Council, Executive Members, Executive Support Members, the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of 2.2 Ensuring that a the Council, the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of a Committee, Opposition Group Leader, constructive working Frontline Councillors, Corporate Parenting Panel Members, Non- Elected Members, the Chief relationship exists between Executive and other Statutory senior management appointments; authority members and • Detailing the collective role and management arrangements for the Corporate Management officers and that the Team and Extended Management Team in the Corporate Management Framework; responsibilities of members • Agreeing a scheme of delegated responsibilities to Directors; and officers are carried out • Annually appointing Committees to discharge the Council’s Regulatory and Scrutiny to a high standard responsibilities; 2.3 Ensuring relationships • Maintaining effective and comprehensive arrangements for the scrutiny of services and for between the authority, its holding the Cabinet to account; partners and the public are • The Chief Executive being responsible and accountable for all aspects of operational clear so that each knows management (Head of Paid Service); what to expect of the other • A nominated Senior Officer being responsible for the proper administration of its financial affairs (S151 Officer); • A nominated Senior Officer being responsible for actions taken in accordance with Statute and Regulation (Monitoring Officer); • Developing protocols that ensure effective communications between Members and Officers; • Developing a Councillor Compact outlining the mutual expectations of the Officers and Members; Page 421 • The Leader of the Council regularly reviewing the Cabinet member portfolios. Page 422
Supporting P rinciple To achieve this:
The Council enhances constructive working relationships between authority Members and Officers by:
• The Leader of the Council and Chief Executive meeting on a weekly daily basis to discuss emerging issues, management and policy items; • Members and Officers working together on the workload of the Cabinet which is managed through a system of Cabinet pre-agenda meetings; • Corporate Directors holding regular briefing sessions with Cabinet Portfolio Members and support Members; • Clear principles of how media relations work with elected Members.
When working in partnership, the Council ensures that: • Members are clear about their roles and responsibilities both individually and collectively in relation to the partnership and to the authority; • There is clarity about the legal status of the partnership; • Representatives of the organisations both understand and make clear to all other parties the extent of their authority to bind their organisation to partner decisions; • Formal guidance is provided for Members when representing the Council on outside bodies and partnerships.
3. Promoting values for the authority and demonstrating the values of good governance through upholding high standards of conduct and behaviour
Supporting Principle To achieve this: 3.1 Ensuring authority The Council fosters a culture of behaviour based on shared values, high ethical principles and good members and officers conduct. The Council does this by establishing and keeping under review: exercise leadership by behaving in ways that • The Council’s own values on Leadership as enshrined in the Council Plan and evidenced in exemplify high standards of Codes of Conduct that sets a standard for behaviour; conduct and effective • The Code of Conduct for Elected Members, Voting Co-opted Members and Independent governance Members of the Standards Committee; 3.2 Ensuring that • The Code of Conduct for Employees; organizational values are • The Code of Practice for Members and Officers dealing with planning matters; put into practice • The Statutory Declaration of Acceptance of Office, which all Members are required to sign. and are effective Similar arrangements exist for independent members of the Standards Committee and Voting Co-opted members of the Scrutiny Committee; • A Protocol governing Member/Officer relations; • Key protocols, such as the Contract Procedure Rules and the Financial Procedure Rules; • The roles of Members and Officers in decision-making; • Appropriate and timely advice and guidance to both Members and Officers; • Systems for reporting and dealing with any incidents of fraud and corruption; • A Register of Interests and declaration of Gifts and Hospitality accepted; • The Single Equalities Scheme and supporting Equality and Diversity Policy; • The Councillor Compact.
The Confidential Reporting Code (Whistle blowing policy) and the Council’s complaints procedures provide mechanisms for the public to raise concerns about potential breaches of conduct. They are accessible on the Council’s website, are communicated to all Officers and Members, and have been brought to the attention of School Governing Bodies. These procedures form part of the Council’s approach to counter-fraud and are linked to the Councils’ Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy. Page 423
Page 424
Supporting Principle To achieve this: The Council’s Standards Committee has an independent Chair and has been given a deliberately broad remit, with responsibilities for: • All complaints handling and oversight of other relevant codes and protocols; • The local assessment of Member conduct complaints in accordance with the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008; • Promoting and monitoring the application and delivery of these codes and protocols and promoting positive and trusting relationships within the Council; • Monitoring complaints handling by Services, including dip-sampling of completed investigations; • Reporting annually to the Council on its business which includes details of Member conduct complaints and Local Government Ombudsman investigations; • Communicating openly to a wider public through its Annual Report publicised as part of the Full Council papers; • Dealing with any breach of the Member Code under Standards Committee Procedures.
All Standards Board investigations into Member conduct are maintained and monitored by the Monitoring Officer and her staff.
Quarterly statistics and annual returns containing information about the effectiveness of local standards arrangements are submitted online to the Standards Board for England by the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
The Council uses the organisation’s shared values to act as a guide for decision making and as a basis for developing positive and trusting relationships within the authority.
Any breach of the Employee Code of Conduct is investigated in accordance with the Council’s disciplinary procedure.
Under the Member Code of Conduct, Members (including Co-Opted Members with voting rights):
• are required to register details of their personal interests in the Authority’s Register of Gifts, Supporting Principle To achieve this: Interests and Hospitality, which is available on-line; • who become aware of any changes to his/her interests to provide details of that change to the Monitoring Officer within 28 days; • are required to review their declarations of standing interests on an annual basis.
Gifts and hospitality and conflicts of interest are registered as and when required throughout the year, and details are available online. Member declarations and registrations are maintained and monitored by the Monitoring Officer and her staff.
The Monitoring Officer issues advice and guidance (usually on an annual basis) reminding Corporate Directors of their responsibilities under the Code of Conduct in relation to gifts and hospitality. Staff declarations are maintained and monitored by their Head of Service.
The Council’s partnership governance framework makes clear reference to Codes of Conduct applying to any partnership working.
In pursuing the vision of a partnership, the Council agrees a set of behavioural values with our key partners, against which decision making actions can be judged. Such values are demonstrated by partners’ behaviour both individually and collectively.
Page 425 Page 426
4. Taking informed and transparent decisions which are subject to effective scrutiny and managing risk
Supporting Principle To achieve this: 4.1 Being rigorous and The Council is transparent about how decisions are taken and recorded. The Council does this by: transparent about how decisions are taken and • Ensuring that all decisions are made in public and recording those decisions and relevant listening and acting on the information and making them available publicly (except where that information is exempt outcome of constructive under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act or determined as being confidential scrutiny by Government or otherwise exempt by the Council); 4.2 Having good-quality • Rules and procedures which govern how decisions are made; information, advice and • Publishing details of statutory and delegated responsibilities on the Council website as part support to ensure that of the Constitution on the on DCC website; services are delivered • Publish an Executive Forward Plan of decisions for next 4 months on the Council website; effectively and are what the • A Freedom of Information publication scheme. community wants/needs 4.3 Ensuring that an The Council ensures that effective, transparent and accessible arrangements are in place for recording effective risk management and dealing with complaints. system is in place 4.4 Using their legal The Council ensures that appropriate legal, financial and other professional advice is always powers to the full benefit of considered as part of the decision-making process and the Council will always observe both specific the citizens and requirements of legislation and general responsibility by law. communities in their area The Council actively recognises the limits of lawful activity placed on the authority by, for example, the ultra vires doctrine, but also strives to utilise its powers to the full benefit of the community.
The Council recognises the limits of lawful action and observes both the specific requirements of legislation and the general responsibilities placed on the authority by public law.
A Committee Management System is in place to streamline the reporting and decision-making process.
Supporting Principle To achieve this: The Council observes all specific legislative requirements placed upon the authority, as well as the requirements of general law, in particular to integrate the key principles of good administrative law – rationality, legality and natural justice – into its procedures and decision making processes.
Key CIPFA codes, such as the Code on a Prudential Framework for Local Authority Capital Finance, and the Treasury Management Code, are complied with.
The Council operates a risk management approach that aids the achievement of its strategic objectives, supports its decision making processes, protects the Council’s reputation and other assets and is compliant with statutory and regulatory obligations. The Council annually reviews its risk management strategy and policy, which outlines the formal approach to identifying and managing risk.
The Council’s Constitution sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that these are effective, transparent and accountable to local people and is reviewed and amended on an annual basis as required.
The Constitution is reviewed annually by the Constitution Working Group (CWG), which consists of the lead Members from each political party and is chaired by the Leader of the Council.
The Officer Scheme of Delegation is reviewed annually in line with the review of the Council’s Constitution.
Information is provided for senior officers to understand what they can or cannot do under the Scheme of Delegation.
The Council has appointed the Corporate Director of Resources as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Section 151 Officer. The CFO is involved in all Corporate Management Team discussions, and reviews all reports to Cabinet which have financial implications. The CFO also provides an opinion under section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 on the reserves for the County Council, which
Page 427 Members consider when setting the budget.
Page 428
Supporting Principle To achieve this: The Council ensures the services it delivers are effective and meet the community’s needs by:
• Comprehensive consultation to develop the SCS and the accompanying three year action plan; • Delivering services to meet local needs through the SCS, and putting in place policies and processes to ensure that they operate effectively in practice; • Recording and reviewing the number and type of complaints, average time to respond and the number of satisfied customers who have used this process. These reports can be found on the Council’s intranet and website; • Comparing information about our services with services provided by similar organisations, assessing why levels of efficiency, effectiveness and quality are different elsewhere and considering other alternative means of service provision to maximise opportunities and improve value for money where appropriate; • Holding various public consultation events; • Multi-agency Area Action Partnerships (AAP) who are fully engaged with identifying and resolving local priorities, and utilise locality budgets allocated to each AAP to drive improvements to service quality. Progress on achieving these improvements is monitored by the AAP Boards; • Producing a Performance Statement quarterly that includes a summary of achievements and identifies areas with significant performance challenges where a more in depth analysis of performance and improvement work should be carried out; • Regularly presenting to Cabinet and Corporate Management Team reports on the budgetary control statement and quarterly outturn reports.
The Council has an Audit Committee with responsibility for monitoring and reviewing the risk, control and governance processes and associated assurance processes to ensure internal control systems are effective and that policies and practices are in compliance with statutory and other regulations and guidance.
5. Developing the capacity and capability of members and officers to be effective
Supporting Principle To achieve this: 5.1 Making sure that The Council ensures that those charged with the governance of the Council have the skills, knowledge members and officers and experience they need to perform well. The Council does this by: have the skills, knowledge, experience • Operating robust recruitment and selection processes; and resources they need • Implementing a Member Development Strategy; to perform well in their • Maintaining the Investor in People Standard; roles • Cascading regular information to Members and Staff; 5.2 Developing the • Investing in Member and Officer Leadership Training; capability of people with • Providing resources that support Member and Officer Development; governance • Promoting schemes and supporting ongoing professional development; responsibilities and • Consistent application of the People and Organisational Strategy; evaluating their • An Employee Support Programme to support employees through the restructuring process performance, as associated with the MTFP outcomes; individuals and as a • Personal Development Plans; group • 5.3 Encouraging new Providing training to help Members understand their role on committees; • talent for membership of Assessing personal development needs as part of the induction process for both Members and the authority so that best Officers; • use can be made of A Member Training and Development Strategy and Member Learning and Development individuals’ skills and Programme; resources in balancing • Evaluating the effectiveness of Member development planning and evaluation via the Member continuity and renewal Development Group which is chaired by a Member; • A training programme, “Building Resilient Organisations Programme”, for Corporate Management Team (CMT) and extended management team members; • Continued IIP accreditation; • Individual personal development of senior officers as part of the Council’s employee performance appraisal arrangements. Page 429 Page 430
6. Engaging with local people and other stakeholders to ensure robust public accountability
Supporting Principle To achieve this: 6.1 Exercising leadership The Council seeks and responds to the views of stakeholders and the community by: through a robust scrutiny • function which effectively Forming and maintaining relationships with the leaders of other organisations; engages local people and • Ensuring Partnership arrangements demonstrate clear, appropriate governance accountabilities; all local institutional • Producing plans for service delivery within the community; stakeholders, including • A County Durham Partnership Community Engagement and Empowerment framework developed partnerships, and by the CDP to shape and support a common vision and approach for community engagement by develops constructive partners in County Durham, so that people feel able to influence decision making; accountability • Using an approach that recognises that people are different and gives everyone the same or an relationships equal opportunity to information, advice and support in ways that are suited to the needs or 6.2 Taking an active and circumstances of the individual; planned approach to • Encouraging a climate of openness by holding regular Cabinet meetings at various locations dialogue with and throughout County Durham including former district council offices; accountability to the • Encouraging and supporting the public in submitting requests for aspects of the Council’s Service public to ensure effective to be scrutinised; and appropriate service • Providing and supporting ways for citizens to present community concerns to the Council; delivery whether directly • Providing for the public the opportunity to ask questions or make representations at full Council, by the authority, in Cabinet and Regulatory Committees; partnership or by • Publishing annually a Council Plan providing information in relation to the Council; commissioning • Continually developing clear channels of communication; 6.3 Making best use of • Providing a modernised ICT Service that meets the needs and aspirations of the organisation and human resources by the communities we serve; taking an active and • Issuing the Council’s newsletter, Durham County News, to every household in the County; planned approach to • Developing AAPs in fourteen areas of the County to help determine the local priorities for their meet responsibility to area which will be fed into the community planning process; staff • Consulting AAPs on the development of our MTFP to identify local priorities for action, test strategic priorities at a local level and seek innovative ideas from local people on how to realise efficiencies by working more closely with our partners; Supporting Principle To achieve this: • Consulting with partners when developing the council’s own three year MTFP, working with key agencies to develop complementary proposals and consulting on a joint basis with the Police and NHS County Durham and Darlington ; • Drawing upon the locality arrangements of other public service providers such as the Police, the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust and the Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust through its partnership arrangements; • The Engagement and Third Sector team promoting and supporting the Council’s approach to community engagement and supporting Members in their community leadership role; • Providing Member support both at County Hall and offices across the County ; • Community Development Officers working closely with the Council and communities in building partnerships that strengthen the voice of local people and help the Council improve the way it listens and responds to the people of County Durham; • Undertaking a Countywide Residents Survey on a regular basis; • Consulting with the community during the process to develop the MTFP; • Consulting effectively with children and young people, service users and carers and key client groups to help plan and be involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of local services; • Staff surveys and consultations with staff and Trade Unions; • ‘Open Doors’, a responsive staff engagement mechanism which captures and quickly responds to questions, compliments, suggestions and complaints raised by staff.
The Council has developed a partnership governance framework (PGF) to enable partnerships to be identified, recorded and reported upon to provide a mechanism for their effectiveness to be assessed.
To strengthen community governance, the AAP boards comprise seven Members of the public selected through open recruitment; seven Members chosen from partner agencies working in the area and seven selected from local elected Members - including town and parish councillors - on a politically balanced basis for that area. They have a rotating chair, so that they are not indefinitely controlled by the County Council administration.
The Durham Local Councils Charter outlines the relationship between the County Council and Town Page 431 and Parish Councils. MONITORING AND REVIEW
The Council has two Committees that are responsible for monitoring and reviewing the various aspects of the Council’s Corporate Governance arrangements.
The Audit Committee is responsible for the Council’s arrangements relating to;
• Monitoring and reviewing the risk, control and governance processes and associated assurance processes to ensure internal control systems are effective and that policies and practices are in compliance with statutory and other regulations and guidance; • Approving the Council’s Accounts prior to approval by the County Council; • External audit; • Internal audit; • Risk Management; • Making recommendations concerning relevant governance aspects of the Constitution; • Reviewing the effectiveness of Internal Audit.
The Standards Committee has responsibility for promoting high ethical standards across the Council, overview of the Member and Officer codes and other relevant protocols together with the Council’s complaints handling regime.
These two Committees will ensure that the Council’s governance arrangements are kept under continual review through;
• Reports prepared by officers with responsibility for aspects of this Code; • The work of Internal Audit; • External Audit opinion; • Other review agencies and Inspectorates; • Opinion from the Council’s Statutory Officers.
Within Durham County Council there is one Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and six Overview and Scrutiny Committees who support the work of the Executive and the Council as a whole. They allow a greater involvement in Council business by involving non-councillors from the wider public sector, and voluntary and community groups to help them in their work, and also work with Partners, including the County Durham Partnership. They may also be consulted by the Executive or the Council on forthcoming decisions or the development of policy.
The main Overview and Scrutiny Management Board has the following remit: • To oversee and co-ordinate the work of Overview and Scrutiny and its Committees; • To ensure effective liaison across the work of the committees re: cross cutting issues; • To be the strategic driver of the Overview and Scrutiny function; • To consider as appropriate scrutiny member involvement in regional scrutiny;
Page 432 • Arrangements within the context of the Sub National Review/Single Integrated Regional Strategy and associated issues; • The establishment of appropriate liaison with the Executive in the interests of achieving common aims and continuous improvement for the Council; • To encourage appropriate community involvement in the Overview and Scrutiny role.
In general, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and its Committees will:
• Review and/or scrutinise decisions made or actions taken in connection with the discharge of any of the Council’s functions; • Make reports and/or recommendations to the full Council and/or the Cabinet in connection with the discharge of any functions; • Consider any matter affecting the area or its inhabitants; • Exercise the right to ask the Cabinet to reconsider any decisions they have made (call-in).
The Annual Governance Statement
Each year the Council will publish a Governance Statement. This process is managed by the Resources Management Team and will provide an overall assessment of the Council’s corporate governance arrangements and an appraisal of the key controls in place to manage the Council’s principal governance risks, together with proposed improvements that will be made. The Statement will also provide details of where improvements need to be made in accordance with the Accounts and Audit (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006.
The Annual Governance Statement will be published as part of the Council’s Annual Statement of Accounts and will be audited by our External Auditors.
Page 433 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK Corporate Governance comprises the systems and processes, cultures and values, by which the Council is directed and controlled and through which we account to, engage with and where appropriate, lead the community 1. Focus on purpose of the authority, 2. Members and officers working together 3. Promoting values and vision for local area and outcomes for the to achieve a common purpose upholding high standards of community conduct and behaviour 4. Taking informed and transparent 5. Developing capacity of Members and 6. Engaging with local people to decisions, scrutinised and risk managed Officers to be effective ensure public accountability Key Documents which support Contributory Processes/ the achievement of the core principles Regulatory Monitoring • Annual Governance Statement • Health and Safety Policy, Procedures • Access to Information • Annual Statement of Accounts and Handbook • Budget Process • Anti Money Laundering Policy • Induction Pack • Communication Framework • Asset Management Plan • Information Security Policy and Manual • Consultation Framework • Asset Register • Inspection Reports • Democratic Engagement • Cabinet and Committee Reports • Internal Audit Plan • Member Briefings • Benefits Fraud Policy and Booklets • Internal Audit Reports • Internal Audit • Benefits Sanctions Policy • Job Description • External Audit • Budgetary Control Statement • Key Performance Indicators • Improvement and Planning • Business Contingency Plans • Local Code of Corporate Governance Group • Buzz Magazine (employee) • Local Member Consultative charter • Development Improvement • Code of Conduct - Members • Media Relations Strategy/Protocol Group • Code of Conduct – Employees • Medium Term Financial Plan • Cabinet • Code of Conduct – Benefit Officers • Members Allowance Scheme and • Corporate Management • Complaints Policy and Procedures Procedures Team • Council Consultation and Engagement • Member Handbook • Service Management Strategy • Member Personal Development Plans Teams • Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy • Minutes of meetings • Audit Committee • Confidential Reporting Code • Officer & Member Declaration of • Overview and Scrutiny • Constitution Interest Register and Policies Committee • Contract Procedure Rules • Officer and Member Gifts & Hospitality • External Inspection and • Contracts Register Register and Procedures Review Agencies • • Corporate Management Framework • Officer Subsistence and Travel Partnerships • • Councillor Compact Procedures Constitution Working Group • • Council Plan • Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report Monitoring Officer • • County Durham Compact • Partnership Governance Framework Member Officer Working • County Durham Trade Union • Partnership Register Group for capital • Partnership Agreement • People and Organisational Member Development • Countywide Resident Survey Development Strategy Group • • Data Protection Policy • Performance Management Reports Planning and Performance • Data Quality Policy • Policy Framework Procedure Rules Group • • Disciplinary Policy and toolkit • Procurement Strategy Standards Committee • • Durham County News (countywide • Records Management Policy Strategic Procurement magazine) • Risk Management Strategy and Policy Network • • Employee Appraisal Records • Single Equality Scheme Corporate Risk Management Group • Employee Support Programme • Strategic Risk Registers • Information Governance • External Audit Reports • Scheme of Delegation Group • Financial Procedure Rules • Service Improvement Plans • Equality and Diversity • Forward Plan of Decisions • Sustainable Community Strategy Steering Group • Forecast Outturn Reports • Town and Parish Council Charter • Corporate Consultation • Freedom of Information Policy • Transparency Webpage • Group • HR Policies Treasury Management Policy and • Strategy Resources Management Team
Page 434