sign in sign up
<<
Home , City of York Council

Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004 Draft Response to Boundary Committee

Introduction

1. The Council’s response to the Boundary Committee made in September 2003 is attached at Appendix 1 for information. This makes it clear that City of Council does not wish to alter its boundaries based on:

· The views of the public · Concerns that an expansion could be counter-productive and distracting to the delivery of quality services · A belief that there is not a specific natural community that exists externally to its existing boundary and recognition that it has required extensive effort to create a sense of community within the existing boundary since the 1996 re-organisation · Recognition that the surrounding local authorities have higher costs than York and that any increase in York’s boundary can only add to the Council’s costs, which is likely to negate any economies of scale that might be realised.

2. At a meeting between the Boundary Committee and Cllr Stephen Galloway (Leader of City of York Council) and Cllr David Merrett (Leader of the opposition) in December 2003 it was made clear that the Council’s position remained unchanged and that it did not regard an option of merging York with Selby as viable.

3. The Council’s position remains unchanged since the submission of September 2003. It maintains that:

· There is not a ‘natural community’ that covers the York/Selby area · There is no public support for the merger of York and Selby local authorities · The costs of reorganisation and disruption to services would be prohibitive · The management arrangements of a York/Selby structure would not be cost effective · The fact that residents of York would not be able to vote on an option that proposed a York/Selby merger is clearly iniquitous · Debate about a York/Selby merger in a Local Government Reorganisation that is about regional government is an unnecessary distraction from the real issue which is whether there is support for an elected Regional Assembly

4. We do not have a view on which of the current options proposed by the Boundary Committee is preferable as this is for the determination of local people and directly affected elected representatives. We do, however, understand that Selby favours a merger with East Riding as the areas sit comfortably alongside each other in terms of geography and demographic profile and there appears to be a strong case for combining the two authorities. We also understand that such a solution would be acceptable to the East Riding authority

Additional evidence and comment

5. Since the submission of September 2003 the City of York Council has undertaken additional work and analysis and would add the following in respect of:

· The views of the public · The views of the Boundary Committee · The views of partners City of York Council Page 1 of 8 Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004 6. This additional information further strengthens the Council’s view and position that its boundaries should not be changed in the event of any local government reorganisation.

The views of the public

7. The findings from our consultation exercise of August 2003 using a telephone survey of a panel of local citizens that is statistically valid to +/- 4.4% were clear.

· 60% of respondents are happy with the council boundary as it currently exists · The vast majority of respondents (93%) believe that if there were proposed changes to the Council’s boundary then they should be able to vote on this in the referendum · 51% of respondents are of the view that an increase to the Council’s boundary would result in services becoming worse · Nearly 40% of respondents would be less likely to support regional government if there were proposals to increase the Council’s boundary

8. Our discussions with the Boundary Committee in December 2003 revealed that they were dissatisfied with the use of a panel to conduct our consultation. We have therefore undertaken additional survey work using a random sample that is again statistically valid to within +/- 4.4%. This has found:

· (Results will be summarised here, due w/c 9 February)

The views of the Boundary Committee in respect of York/Selby

9. We understand and respect why the Boundary Committee has retained the right to consider the feasibility of a York/Selby merger. However the evidence presented in the Committee’s Draft Recommendations does not appear to be particularly robust or compelling.

Communities of interest

10. The Council notes that the Boundary Committee believes there to be communities of interest between Selby and York. This claim appears to be founded on a finding from the MORI public opinion research that found that 16% of Selby residents most associated themselves with York.

11. While this is undoubtedly true it does not consider the full picture from the point of view of all Selby residents. For example the MORI research also identified that 45% of Selby residents most associate themselves with the district town of Selby, with the remainder feeling identity with towns and cities from the surrounding area including Tadcaster, Leeds, Pontefract and York. Leeds and York are also identified as local focal points for shopping and other services. It therefore appears illogical to suggest that a merger of York and Selby can be supported by evidence that overall indicates a disparate range of identities.

12. In reality Selby has a diverse range of communities of interest, none of which provide overwhelming evidence that there is a case for merging the York and Selby areas. For example there are a number of distinct travel to work communities within the district.

City of York Council Page 2 of 8 Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004 Partnerships

13. The Boundary Committee has presented evidence of partnerships between Selby and York as a possible reason for a merger. Although there are partnerships in place (primarily at a county-wide level in respect of services such as Emergency Planning) it must be noted that the Local Strategic Partnerships for Selby and the City of York are completely separate entities.

14. Clearly the key to any successful partnership is the recognition that mutual interests can be achieved by a willingness to work together collaboratively. The Council believes that a willingness to form a partnership is far more powerful than boundaries and a successful partnership is not exclusively dependant upon shared boundaries. Therefore the conditions appear favourable for Selby and East to form productive partnerships based on their shared views and aspirations.

15. We refer to the views of Selby and York Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Police below. While the views of these partner organisations are clearly important we do not believe that it makes sense to change the Council’s boundaries to create coterminous boundaries to meet the needs of individual stakeholders. Indeed to achieve this then the debate about York’s boundaries would need to be extended beyond that of Selby to include all stakeholders as the PCT also covers parts of Hambleton District Council and the Police Authority is based on York and North Yorkshire.

16. The Council is of the view that if Selby were to join East Riding or the rest of North Yorkshire in a new unitary structure then it would be appropriate to consider the creation of new and distinct York PCT and Police area. This would strengthen York’s unitary status from 1996 and the PCT and Police areas could be reconfigured to reflect the new North Yorkshire unitary structure if that is chosen by its citizens.

17. We note that if a York PCT were to be created that this would cover a population of 181,326 (2001 census figure) and that this would be an above average size for a PCT based on the average of English PCTs being a population of approximately 161,000.

The views of partners

18. We understand that the Boundary Committee is keen to hear the views of other stakeholder organisations. We would draw attention to the views of two key stakeholders.

19. North Yorkshire Police Authority – the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire has submitted a report to the Police Authority that recognises that the Boundary Committee’s review is about local government reorganisation and not policing and that it is a matter for local politicians and local people to determine which local government structures would work best for them. In particular we note the Chief Constable’s comments that:

· If Selby were to be moved out of the North Yorkshire Police Authority as a result of a merger with East Riding that while this would be a significant loss of resources it would not threaten the overall viability of the force. · There is not a particular desire for structural change on the part of North Yorkshire Police.

City of York Council Page 3 of 8 Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004 20. We will review our understanding of the Police Authority’s position once it has discussed this matter at its 9th February meeting.

21. Selby and York Primary Care Trust – we understand that the Trust values its link between Selby and York and does not favour having a single North Yorkshire . We believe that the reasons for this position do not take into account the views of local residents or the potential for disruption and reduced productivity to Councils services (including social care) that would result from a change to the their boundaries.

22. We have explained our position to the Primary Care Trust and are currently waiting for their response.

Conclusion

23. The Council believes that it is in the best position to understand the overall views and needs of the people whom it is elected to represent. Its commitment to identify the views of local people is demonstrated by the two separate consultations we have been prepared to conduct to ensure our belief that the people of York do not wish to change the Council’s boundaries can be validated.

24. We do not believe that any other arguments, whether based on the specific views of stakeholders or more general survey work, are as persuasive as the views of the citizens of York and residents of Selby.

References:- ‘Community Research in Council Area 2003 for the Boundary Committee for ’ October 2003, pages 4 and 16 www.boundarycommittee.org.uk/files/dms/FIN07SEL_11136-8682_E.PDF

Primary Care Trust Figures (reconciled to mid 2001 local authority population estimates) http://www.doh.gov.uk/stats/population/ads2002-resident-populations.xls (‘PCO’ sheet)

City of York Council Page 4 of 8 Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004 Appendix 1

City of York Council’s submission to Boundary Committee – September 2003

1. Summary

1.1 The Council is aware that it is not directly part of the Boundary Committee’s review but that its position as a unitary authority adjacent to North Yorkshire means that it has an interest in the review. The Council understands that expansion of its boundary could be viewed as an option in the introduction of unitary local government in North Yorkshire.

1.2 The Council is strongly in favour of maintaining its existing boundary. Both the major political parties share this view. The reasons for this, based on the Boundary Committee’s own terms of reference are as follows:

2. Effectiveness in providing quality services

2.1 York has achieved a ‘Good’ score in Comprehensive Performance Assessment and has an excellent track record of success. The Audit Commission remarked that education, social care, housing, transport and economic development services at the Council are particularly strong. The Audit Commission noted that the Council has the ability to make further improvements and that it needs to develop its procurement and performance management skills. York has achieved its CPA score with its current configuration of services and boundary.

2.2 Bearing in mind the discussion within the Boundary Committee’s guidance on authority size versus quality of service delivery, York is an average sized unitary authority as demonstrated by CIPFA1 figures:

Authority Population Rank City of York 181,600 27 - 181,648 Average 38,000 1 (lowest) 408,000 46 (highest)

2.3 The Council notes the view from government departments that larger unitaries generally perform better but there is a risk that the bigger the authority the more distant it becomes from citizens and customers. The Council believes that its current size is the optimum for service delivery, responsiveness and representation.

2.4 The Council has aspirations to improve service delivery further and to raise its overall performance to an ‘Excellent’ council. The improvement process is planned to take four years and will be steered by Transforming York, the Council’s change management programme. The Council also has an Access to Services programme that entails a major long-term partnership procurement. This programme will include Information Communications Technology (ICT) investment that will improve customer service and meet e-government targets. Both programmes will bring significant improvements to service delivery.

City of York Council Page 5 of 8 Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004 2.5 The Council believes that change to its boundary will not necessarily increase its ability to improve performance and could be counter-productive and distracting to its improvement programme. Unlike two tier authorities, structural change for York is not essential and the Council believes that it needs to focus on improvements to existing service delivery which it is committed to completing.

3. A ‘natural community’

3.1 The Council believes that there is not a specific natural community that exists externally to its existing boundary. Through activities such as Ward Committees and development of the City Vision, the Council is working hard to develop and consolidate a sense of natural community within the boundary it has at present and any increase to this could be counter-productive and distracting to its work.

3.2 It should be noted that the 1996 local government review resulted in the extension of York’s boundary above and beyond that which the Council proposed and arguably created an unnatural community which has had to be extensively engaged with to consolidate a common sense of identity.

4. Cost

4.1 York has achieved its performance success from a relatively low cost base: · CIPFA1 figures show that Council Tax rates in York are low compared to other English unitary authorities:

Authority Average Band D equivalent Council Rank Tax 2003/42 City of York £988.32 6 - £1,068.57 Average £921.15 1 (lowest) Rutland £1,236.17 46 (highest)

· Further, York’s residents pay significantly less Council Tax on average than residents of the surrounding North Yorkshire district councils as shown below (source: CIPFA1).

Authority Average Band D equivalent Rank Council Tax 2003/4 City of York £988.32 1 (lowest) Hambleton £1,055.32 2 Craven £1,126.63 3 Selby £1,135.98 4 Scarborough £1,140.99 5 £1,141.64 6 Richmondshire £1,144.81 7 Harrogate £1,144.94 8 (highest)

4.2 Therefore, it would seem that any increase in York’s boundary to incorporate higher cost surrounding areas can only add to the Council’s costs, which is likely to negate any economies of scale that might be realised.

City of York Council Page 6 of 8 Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004 5. Views of residents

5.1 To help inform its response to the Boundary Committee, the Council undertook a telephone survey to find out residents’ views on the Council’s boundary. A sample of 500 Talk About panel members (residents who have expressed a willingness to take part in Council consultations) was contacted. On a sample of this size, one can be confident that the results are broadly representative of the population of York adults to within ± 4.4%.

5.2 The consultation found that: · Almost 60% of respondents are happy with the boundary as it currently exists. · The vast majority of respondents (93%) believe that if there were proposed changes to the Council’s boundary then they should be able to vote on this in the Autumn 2004 referendum. · Nearly 40% of respondents would be less likely to support regional government if there were proposals to increase the Council’s boundary. · A majority of respondents (51%) are of the view that an increase to the Council’s boundary would result in services becoming worse.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The above arguments are presented as a direct response to the Boundary Committee’s own terms of reference. The Council also refers the Boundary Committee to the points below, based on York’s response to ODPM’s extended soundings exercise on regional government which focussed on local government reorganisation (May 2003): · It is felt that to confine voting on local government reorganisation to those in two tier areas, thus excluding York from voting on any proposed changes to its boundary, is wholly unfair. Any proposed changes to York’s boundary could substantially affect the existing Council and York’s residents should have as much of an opportunity to vote as any other authority area which could be affected. · The ODPM’s Regional Policy Unit made a flawed assertion when it said that combination of parts of a county council with an existing unitary was ‘not a fundamental change in policy’; to move from a situation where neighbouring authorities could be restructured to one where the City of York Council itself could be restructured and combined with its neighbours and given no opportunity to vote on this is a fundamental policy change.

6.2 The Council has not changed its position on this issue since May 2003. Furthermore the additional analysis presented above and the consultation exercise undertaken reinforce our opinion that City of York Council should maintain its current boundary. The Council’s position is neutral on the issue of local government reorganisation generally and how the Boundary Committee should determine the future of two tier local government in North Yorkshire. However, the Council does recognise Selby District Council’s support for either a merger of Selby with , or a single unitary North Yorkshire council, neither of which would involve change to York’s boundary.

------1 ‘Council Tax demands and precepts statistics 2003-04’, CIPFA, March 2003. Relevant population and Council Tax figures from this publication are given in the table on the next page.

2 ‘Average Band D equivalent Council Tax 2003/4’ figures relate to the total precept for the authority, including that for parish councils, police and fire authorities. City of York Council Page 7 of 8 Draft Response to Boundary Committee February 2004

Taken from ‘Council Tax demands and precepts statistics 2003-04’, CIPFA, March 2003:

Authority Population Authority Council Tax * Rutland 38000 Medway 921.15 Hartlepool 92300 Southend-on-Sea 943.77 Darlington 100300 963.39 Bracknell Forest 110900 Windsor & Maidenhead 970.71 111100 Slough 987.77 Halton 119900 York 988.32 126100 989.87 131000 994.56 135800 998.35 Redcar & Cleveland 137900 Darlington 1002.66 138400 Thurrock 1009.53 140800 Halton 1010.22 Middlesbrough 142300 1015.59 Windsor & Maidenhead 142600 Milton Keynes 1022.81 144300 Stoke-on-Trent 1029.12 Wokingham 144800 Kingston-upon-Hull 1035.95 Reading 148000 1041.89 152100 1046.17 152500 Telford & Wrekin 1046.82 155200 1046.83 Peterborough 156500 Swindon 1048.34 Telford & Wrekin 156500 Torbay 1060.9 163400 1070.93 Bath & NE Somerset 170200 Poole 1072.39 Herefordshire 171500 Brighton & Hove 1074.16 Southend-on-Sea 176900 Bath & NE Somerset 1074.68 York 181600 1076.4 Stockton-on-Tees 181600 Blackpool 1077.98 Swindon 182200 1085.07 Luton 183100 Middlesbrough 1085.73 Portsmouth 189600 Stockton-on-Tees 1088.72 North Somerset 191100 1104.55 Warrington 192100 East Riding of Yorkshire 1108.92 Milton Keynes 212800 Bournemouth 1109.3 Southampton 214900 Redcar & Cleveland 1132.37 Derby 236300 West Berkshire 1133.63 Medway 245000 Isle of Wight 1134.02 Stoke-on-Trent 249000 Wokingham 1138.51 Kingston-upon-Hull 253400 1144.13 Plymouth 254200 Reading 1156.31 South Gloucestershire 255000 North Lincolnshire 1157.04 Brighton & Hove 259900 Blackburn with Darwen 1161.44 Nottingham 284300 Bristol 1170.6 Leicester 303500 North East Lincolnshire 1174.28 East Riding of Yorkshire 318900 Hartlepool 1212.05 Bristol 408000 Rutland 1236.17 * Average Band D equivalent Council Tax (2003/4 total, £) City of York Council Page 8 of 8