BOROUGH COUNCIL OF AGENDA ITEM 6 Resources Committee 19 September 2012

Report of Head of Resources

Community Governance Review

1 Purpose of report

To inform members of the outcome of the second phase of consultation on the Community Governance Review (CGR), and recommend future governance arrangements within the borough.

2 Executive summary

2.1 The CGR commenced on 28 November 2011. A two-month public consultation concluded on 01 February 2012 resulting in three proposals being submitted and one expression of interest to take part in the review. A report was presented to the meeting of the Resources Committee on 21 March 2012 containing details of the outcome of the initial consultation, resulting in a resolution being made by Council on 03 April 2012.

2.2 Comments were invited on the Council’s resolution as part of a second phase of public consultation. Members are invited to consider the recommendations made as a result of phase two of the consultation.

2.3 Parishes affected: , , and . Other areas affected: polling district GA (Hemmingwell: ).

3 Appendices

None.

4 Proposed action:

4.1 The committee is invited to RECOMMEND:

(i) no change to existing arrangements in the parishes of Irchester

and Little Irchester,

(ii) no change to the number of seats on Orlingbury Parish Council,

(iii) no change to the boundary between the parishes of Harrowden

and Orlingbury,

(iv) no further action in relation to existing governance arrangements for polling district GA (Redhill Grange) until the outcome of the LGBCE borough review is published.

5 Background

5.1 Whilst initiated by the borough council, CGRs tend to be led by the requirements of local communities in the area. The purpose of the CGR is to give existing parishes sufficient opportunity to consider whether they wish to make any changes to current arrangements, and for any previously un-parished areas to consider whether some form of formal governance arrangement is appropriate for their area. Best practice suggests that reviews should take place at least every 10-15 years.

5.2 The terms of reference for this current CGR were approved by the Resources Committee at its meeting on 23 November 2011. The CGR commenced on 28 November 2011 when the terms of reference were published. The review process is expected to take approximately 12 months.

5.3 As per the review timetable, a two-month public consultation concluded on 01 February 2012 resulting in three proposals being submitted, and one expression of interest to take part in the review. The areas affected by the responses to the initial stage of consultation were the parishes of Irchester, Little Harrowden, and Orlingbury, and polling district GA (Hemmingwell: Redhill Grange).

5.4 A report was presented to the meeting of the Resources Committee on 21 March 2012 containing full details of the outcome of the initial consultation, resulting in a resolution being made by Council on 03 April 2012.

6 Discussion

6.1 Comments were invited on the Council’s resolution as part of a second phase of public consultation. Details of the resolution, together with responses received during this second phase of consultation are summarised below:

(i) Irchester: Council resolution: that there be no change to existing arrangements in the parishes of Irchester and Little Irchester.

There was no response to the public consultation in respect of the parishes of Irchester and Little Irchester.

(ii) Orlingbury: Council resolution: that there be no change to the number of seats on Orlingbury Parish Council.

A response was received from Orlingbury Parish Council in support of no change to the number of seats on the Parish Council.

(iii) Little/Harrowden/Orlingbury: Council resolution: that a twelve week public consultation be undertaken with the parishes of Harrowden and Orlingbury, subject to an appropriate parish boundary being identified.

No appropriate alternative parish boundary has been identified or submitted for consideration, as part of this second phase of consultation.

Orlingbury Parish Council asserted their opposition to any change to the parish boundary, stating that the river provided an appropriate “natural boundary” which had been “in existence for a long time”.

(iv) Polling district GA: Council resolution: that there be no further action in relation to polling district GA.

Twenty-one responses were received during phase two of the consultation in favour of the creation of a ‘community council’ on Redhill Grange.

The resolution of ‘no further action’ was taken by Council due to the initial request being received too late to be included in this current review. A CGR must be completed within one year; there would not have been sufficient time between March and November 2012 (when the review will end) to carry out the required consultation process.

It had been the original intention to ask councillors whether they would consider a new review – to include the Redhill Grange proposals - once the existing CGR had been completed. It has, however, become clear in the last few weeks that a new review is now not an option.

Since the Resources Committee considered the CGR report in March 2012, the council has been informed that the Local Government Boundary Commission for (LGBCE) intends to start a review of the Borough Council, including the number of councillors and its ward boundaries. In discussions with the LGBCE in the last few weeks, the council has been asked not to start any new CGRs until the borough electoral review is completed. This is because any changes made in a CGR could have an impact on the recommendations in respect of the borough as a whole.

It is therefore unlikely that the council could consider another CGR before the LGBCE makes its final recommendations on ward boundaries. It is expected that these will be published in late 2013 or early 2014.

6.2 All documentation relating to this CGR is available on the council’s website at www.wellingborough.gov.uk/communitygovernance .

7 Recommendations

7.1 On consideration of the outcome of the second phase of public consultation, and the impending LGBCE borough review, the following is recommended:

(i) Irchester: No change to existing arrangements.

(ii) Orlingbury: No change to existing arrangements.

(iii) Little/Harrowden/Orlingbury: No change to existing arrangements.

(iv) Polling district GA: No further action in relation to future governance arrangements until the outcome of the LGBCE borough review is published.

8 Legal powers

Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007.

9 Financial and value for money implications

The council has had to bear the cost of the review, for which no separate budget was made available. The cost of the review is estimated at approximately £3,000 which includes employee administration (core team: £2,500 approx); and printing/postage (£500 approx). These figures exclude member and senior management time implications in attending meetings relating to the committee and decision-making process.

10 Risk analysis

Nature of risk Consequences Likelihood Control Parish governance Dissatisfaction with Likely, given Carry out arrangements not arrangements and recent comments review, with reflecting local use of legislation and requests for full local needs. to force a review. consideration. consultation.

11 Implications for resources

The review requires a significant amount of time from the electoral services team, and was initially timed for a year when there were no scheduled elections. The Police Commission elections have since been introduced and the annual canvass brought forward to commence in June, as opposed to September. This has had, and continues to have, a significant impact on the resources available for annual canvass and election planning.

12 Implications for stronger and safer communities

The CGR is designed to encourage effective governance, led by the needs of local communities.

13 Implications for equalities

An equality impact screening has been carried out to assess whether a full Equality Impact Analysis is required. It has been identified that the CGR has the potential for high positive impact on a number of the protected characteristics identified in the Equality Act 2010.

14 Author and contact officer

Paula Lawton, Principal Democratic Services Manager

15 Consultees

Electoral Registration Officer Head of Resources Democratic Service Officers Ward Councillors

16 Background papers

The background papers comprise legislation, government guidance, and data relating to: numbers of electors, previous elections and development within the borough. Taking into account these background papers, the Community Governance Review Terms of Reference 2012 were produced.