North West Leicestershire District Council (PDF)

Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Current Electoral Arrangements

4. Current Committee Structure

5. Community Engagement

6. Conclusion

Appendices

A. Key Lines Of Enquiry

B. Results of the Member Survey

C. Dual and Triple Hatted Members

D. Position of wards against the variance thresholds

E. Planning Data

(i) Planning Data Explanation

(ii) Broad Housebuilding Trends

(iii) Dwelling Completions 2005-06 to 2011-12 (by financial year)

(iv) Dwellings Under Construction as at 31 March 2012

(v) Dwellings with Planning Permission as at 31 March 2012

(vi) Progress Anticipated in the Development of Major Sites

(vii) Trends in Unforeseen Windfall Sites

(viii) Specific Trends in Housing Completions 1991-92 to 2011-12 (by financial year)

(ix) Population Statistics

(x) HRA – NWLDC Total Stock Owned Report – Including Voids

1. Executive Summary

1.1 North West Leicestershire District Council made a request for a review to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in March 2011. This report has been prepared by a member led Working Group and was agreed by Council on 30 October 2012.

1.2 This submission proposes that a range of between 34 and 38 Councillors would be sufficient to run the Council. Research has indicated that a change within these limits would allow for effective electoral representation and governance and be satisfactorily warded, including consideration of the rural areas.

1.3 The last periodic review of the Council was conducted in 2001/2002 and, due to electoral inequalities found in 9 wards, this saw a reduction in Council size from 40 to 38 members. The review also resulted in a reduction in wards from 22 to 20. Only 4 wards retained their existing boundaries.

1.4 Since the last review a new Chief Executive arrived in 2004 and in 2007 there was a change in administration of the Council. These events as well as other legislative changes have resulted in significant changes to streamline the senior management structure and the committee structure of the organisation. The Cabinet has reduced from 7 to 5 members and there have been a number of reviews of Scrutiny over the past 7 years which saw the number of committees increase substantially from the 2 originally created to 5. Recent reviews brought about by the regular cancellations of meetings due to lack of business and a desire to enhance the role of the ‘backbencher’ in the community has meant they have been reduced back down from 5 to 3 then to 1.

1.5 The results of our survey examining Councillor workload in terms of engagement with the community, outside bodies, Parish/Town Councils and residents supports the proposed number of Councillors.

2. Introduction

2.1 Situated in the north-west of the county of Leicestershire, North West Leicestershire District Council is within close proximity to the major cities of Leicester, Derby and Nottingham. The district is bounded to the east by Charnwood Borough, to the South by the borough of Hinckley & Bosworth and to the north and west by the county of Derbyshire. The area benefits from strong transport links including the M1 and A42 as well as East Midlands International Airport.

2.2 Most of the district is now parished following 2 recent community governance reviews. The only areas remaining unparished are Coalville, Greenhill and Thringstone. There are now 31 civil parishes with two significantly populated towns: Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch. The remainder of the district consists of rural areas and smaller villages. The largest of these smaller settlements are Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham. Significant building has occurred in these settlements since the last review and this means that the percentage of the Ashby and Coalville share of the total electorate has reduced from around 43% to 37%.

2.3 The estimated resident population based on the 2011 census based mid-year estimate is 93,670. Based on the 2010 ONS data 21.3% of the population are of retirement age whilst residents aged 0-15 equates to 19%, 16-24 make up 9.5% and residents aged 25-49 make up 33.5% of the population. Persons aged 50-64 account for the final 16.7% of the population. The electorate of the district is 73,907 (as at 1 November 2012).

2.4 According to ONS figures (Jan 2005), some 87% of the district’s area is classified as “Greenspace”. Much of this rural area is positioned centrally through the district creating 3 separate ‘epicentres’ of dense urban population in the north, south-east and south-west of the district.

2.5 In March 2011 the total number of dwellings in the district was 40,129. Over the next 6 years the Council is expecting there to be new housing growth and completions of approximately 5,155 dwellings, producing a net increase in the electorate of 5,126.

2.6 The Council’s administrative centre is in Coalville and this is where Council and committee meetings are held. The Councillors do attend their relevant Community Forum (there are 3 areas) which is run by the County Council and normally held somewhere in the communities they relate to.

2.7 To achieve electoral equality in terms of representation of numbers of electors, wards in the rural areas (currently 4) have to cover a larger geographic area than those in a more urban context.

3. Current Electoral Arrangements

3.1 North West Leicestershire District Council is composed of 38 Councillors which are elected every 4 years. In recent years there have not been any uncontested seats. The last time there were uncontested seats was in the 1995 elections.

3.2 A periodic review was held in 2001/2002 which came into force for the 2003 District Elections, details of which can be found in Table 1. This review came shortly after the Council had moved to operating the Leader and Cabinet style of governance which had streamlined the decision making process for the authority. As a result of the review, the Council size was reduced by 2 Councillors which resulted in changing the ward configurations and a reduction from 22 to 20 wards.

3.3 A number of reviews of the Council’s Structure both at Officer Management and Committee Structure levels have occurred since 2004 when the new (and current) Chief Executive arrived at North West Leicestershire. A significant number of reviews of Committee Structures occurred following the change of administration in 2007. These were mostly focussed around the Overview and Scrutiny function and culminated in a report going to Council in February 2011 regarding the role of the backbencher. This latter report came as a result of the Councillors telling Officers that their role was not as engaging as it could be. The report considered the issues raised by members which were as follows:

• Backbenchers feeling excluded • Members feeling that they are not fully consulted on crucial issues [e.g budget] • Unnecessary and/ or long meetings being held with many reports just for noting • The increasing role of the Ward Member • The decline in business for the Standards Committee and Audit and Governance Committee following the demise of the Audit Commission and Standards for England. • The emphasis on local communities outlined in the Decentralisation and Localism Bill.

3.4 Additionally, the size of the Cabinet has been reduced from 7 to 5 to reflect the new streamlined officer management structure.

3.5 On 29 March 2011 a report went to Council where it was agreed to request that the Boundary Commission review the Council’s electoral arrangements with a view to establishing single member wards to enable the public to have clarity about who represented them at District level.

Table 1 – Electoral Representation

No. of No. of No. of Electors No. of Electors Current Ward Cllrs Electors Per Per Cllr – 2006 Per Cllr Variance Cllr - 2001 (Predicted) 1/11/2012 from Average % Appleby 1 1,731 1714 1831 -6 Ashby Castle 1 2021 2002 2099 +8 Ashby Holywell 2 1806 1892 1990 +2 Ashby Ivanhoe 2 1896 1885 1909 -2 Bardon 1 1677 1920 2499 +29 Breedon 1 2018 1998 2037 +5 Castle Donington 3 1762 1821 1915 -2 Coalville 2 1795 1908 2134 +10 Greenhill 3 1830 1811 1777 -9 Hugglescote 2 1653 1809 1892 -3 Ibstock & Heather 3 1776 1826 1928 -1 Kegworth & Whatton 2 1765 1780 1835 -6 Measham 2 1856 1873 1965 +1 Moira 2 1859 1875 1968 +1 Oakthorpe & 1 1771 1801 2037 +5 Donisthorpe Ravenstone & 1 1953 2022 2037 +5 Packington Snibston 2 1885 1960 2173 +12 Thringstone 2 1846 1860 1785 -8 Valley 2 1670 1667 1803 -7 Whitwick 3 1760 1742 1867 -4

Totals 38 68610 70071 73907 - Averages - 1806 1844 1945 -

Table 1 shows the figures for the wards as they were in 2001 and the predicted electorate in 2006 against the current electorate for 2012 with the variance.

Councillor Workloads

4. Current Committee Structure

4.1 The current committee structure was introduced in 2011 to improve on the effectiveness of the previous model taking into account the issues raised regarding the role of the backbencher. Full details of the changes made to the committee structures are included in the Council Size KLOE document attached as Appendix A. The structure is illustrated below:

Council Cabinet

Scrutiny (Policy Development Group)

Audit & Employment Appointments Licensing Planning Governance Investigatory Joint Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Consultative

Licensing Taxi and Sub- Private Hire committee Sub- committee 6

4.2 The current make up of the meetings and how often they meet is set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Current Meetings Structure

No of Actual Usual length of Briefing held Committee No of meetings meetings held meetings before members scheduled per meeting? annum Council 38 7 7 2 hours approx Yes Cabinet 5 9 9 1 hour approx Yes Policy 10 4 3 in 2011/12 1 hour 30 If required Development (established approx Group part way through year) Investigatory 3 Ad-hoc 0 Unknown Unknown Employment 6 2 0 Unknown Unknown Joint Consultative Appointments 4 Ad-hoc 5 Dependent Yes upon number of candidates Licensing 17 4 4 1 hour approx No Licensing Sub 3 Ad-hoc 13 2 hours 30 Yes approx Taxi & Private 5 Ad-hoc 5 2 hours approx Yes Hire Sub Planning 17 12 12 1 hour 45 Yes approx Audit & 10 4 4 45 minutes Yes Governance approx

4.3 There are a number of community/outside bodies which the Council appoints members to. These have been reviewed over the years and rationalised to ensure that the appointments benefit the Council’s priorities. There is a total of 37 of these bodies to which Councillors are appointed, the majority require 1 or 2 seats to be filled but there are a couple where there are 3 seats. The highways forum (which is run by the County Council) requires 8 Councillors to be appointed with substitutes.

5. Community Engagement

5.1 Members have been consulted with regard to their time commitment to community engagement activities. This includes their casework and surgeries as well as attendance at community and parish meetings. There were 13 responses to the survey a breakdown of the answers is attached as Appendix B.

5.2 The most cited amount of time spent on casework activities is 11-20 hours per week. Three respondents said that they regularly spend more than 20 hours a week on casework. The most popular method of contact between Councillors and their electorate is one to one.

5.3 On average, Councillors attend 10 community/parish meetings per annum. However, a considerable number of the District Councillors are dual or triple hatted (see appendix C) and so their attendance at Parish meetings or community forums is not necessarily in their capacity as District Councillors. Some Councillors are very active in their local communities and attend many different community events and meetings which they are not appointed to via the District Council.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Council is satisfied that it will require between 34 and 38 Councillors in order to run its business effectively. The evidence shows that the level of work required from Councillors would support this figure whilst ensuring that the electorate is equally represented.

6.2 Analysis of the expected growth over the next 6 years shows that some areas will have substantial increases in population and this will tip the variances of most wards either under or well over the 10% allowance based on the current ward configurations and a retention of 38 Councillors (see Appendix D for a full list). An average of between 2,071(38 cllrs) and 2,315(34 cllrs) electors per Councillor (by 2019) is considered to be an acceptable workload and would enable satisfactory warding ensuring the maintenance of community identity.

6.3 It is considered that there needs to be a large enough pool of Councillors to draw from whilst allowing for talent development as the role of a Councillor is complex. Newcomers to the role need time to be able to feel comfortable and knowledgeable before they should be selected for roles in Cabinet for example. This might take as little as 2 years or even a full 4 year term. The Council has established a flexible membership for the busy Planning and Licensing Committees and these are excellent learning grounds in which Councillors can work their way up. Both of these committees deal with important issues that affect the public directly and seats are therefore in demand. Both committees are popular and at their capacity of members. Attendance is very good.

6.4 It is recognised that the district is a mix of rural and urban areas and so there needs to be sufficient seats available to allow the opportunity to achieve a representative mix of experience and demographic.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Council Size KLOE – DRAFT RESPONSES

Managing the business of the Council: To what extent is council size influenced by the council’s decision-making process or, conversely, the decision making structure fitted around the council size?

What is the overall structure of decision making?

The District of North West Leicestershire has 38 Members representing 20 wards and the whole council elections are held every 4 years. The current political composition of the Council is 21 Conservative, 16 Labour and 1 Liberal Democrat. The last election in 2011 saw an increase in the number of opposition members from the position at the previous election in 2007 which delivered the first change in political leadership since 1983 having been Labour controlled since that time. The attached document sets out details of the current wards and corresponding electorate figures. (appendix 1).

The Council last reviewed its Committee structure as recently as 2011 and this saw a more streamlined approach to scrutiny. The report is appended (appendix 2). The Council also has 2 Committees that carry out a number of regulatory functions including dealing with planning applications, licensing and other regulatory business. There is a Policy Development Group which supports the scrutiny function and the Council as a whole. The Licensing Committee and the Audit and Governance Committee also have a number of sub-committees which are convened at short notice to deal with matters of urgency.

The table below sets out all the Council’s Committees and the membership thereof.

Decision Making Body Membership (elected Frequency Members only) Council All 38 Members Approx 7 times a year Cabinet 5 No more than 10 times a year Planning Committee 17 Monthly Licensing Committee 17 Quarterly Audit and Governance 5 Quarterly Policy Development Group 10 Quarterly Grants Review Working Group 6 Quarterly Opportunities for People with 6 6-monthly Disabilities Appointments Committee 5 As required Employee Joint Consultative 6 6-monthly Committee

The structure chart below shows the relationship between committees.

Do Councillors match the work to fit the time available to them, or stretch/shrink the time they spend according to how much work they want to/ need to do?

The Council’s governance arrangements represent only one aspect of member roles and workloads. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 introduced an enhanced role for councillors as ‘community champions’ with duties to involve partners, residents and people who work in their area, to promote democracy, to steer and guide those interested in drawing up petitions and to prompt councillor calls for action.

In line with central government’s empowerment agenda, there is an expectation on councillors to devote a significant amount of their time to leading/facilitating community involvement at what may be termed neighbourhood level in addition to dealing with ward caseloads. In order to address this, the Council restructured its Democratic Services section which saw the introduction of Local Member Support Officers who would be provide guidance and assistance to Members in their role as local ward member. Records retained by the Local Member Support Officers suggest that this role has not become particularly burdensome for Members. In order the gauge a clearer picture of how it ‘feels’ to the individual councillor, their views are being sought on this issue.

A survey is currently being worked on which will ask this question and it is anticipated that the responses to the survey will also help inform the view on the council size. The survey will be sent to Members within the next few days. The current council size was determined by the periodic boundary review undertaken in 2002 where the council size was reduced from 40 to 38.

Has the Council studied how much time their members spend on Council business? What assessments have been made of how many members it needs to function effectively, particularly since the introduction of executive arrangements?

A number of Member surveys have been sent in the past but these were focussed towards seeking members’ views on how they feel supported in terms of training and development. This issue has been picked up on the aforementioned survey soon to go out to Members.

In a hypothetical scenario where the council size was increased or reduced by 10%, how would you do things differently?

If reduced, consideration would be given to reducing the size of the Committees to reflect the overall composition. The most time-consuming meeting for elected members is undoubtedly the Planning Committee which involves site visits and monthly meetings. Other Councils of a similar size and structure tend to have fewer members on their regulatory committees. If the size was increased, whilst it could be argued that the committee sizes could be increased to capture this, there is a danger that the meetings could become unwieldy and unmanageable.

To what extent is the current council size a factor in determining the political management, scrutiny and governance arrangements or is it the other way round?

The current council size was determined by the periodic boundary review undertaken in 2002 where the council size was reduced from 40 to 38. The number of wards was reduced from 22 to 20. This helped to shape the governance arrangements at that time but there have been changes made to the committee sizes since to capture the legislative changes around executive arrangements together with scrutiny, standards and planning. For example, there was an Audit Committee and a separate Standards Committee, but changes to the functions saw a merger of the two to create a single committee. See attached report (appendix B). It could be argued that due to the changes to the governance arrangements over the years, the council size should be amended to reflect this.

If you had a free hand, are there any changes you would make to the political management, scrutiny and governance arrangements? If so, how might that impact on the number of councillors required.

The difficulty faced by members today is that they are not councillors full time as many of them are in employment and their time is precious. In an ideal world, all Members would be available as and when required, particularly during the day. But the reality is that most of the Council’s meetings take place in the evening or early afternoon and member availability is limited. This also impacts on training which means that some members do not have the required knowledge, training or even desire for certain types of meetings. Therefore, in an ideal world every member of every committee would have a keen interest in and the required knowledge for the subject matter. As it stands, this could see a reduction in the committee sizes and the overall council size. However, as we have already determined, governance arrangements represent only one aspect of member roles and workloads and it is important that for the recruitment and retention of high quality councillors they have an effective work life balance, especially those with full time work commitments.

How are decisions ‘cascaded’ down the structure? Is the balance between member decisions and officer delegated decisions effective? Is there any duplication of work?

Both Members and Officers have decisions delegated to them but it usually the case that if Cabinet delegate a decision, they would do so to an officer in consultation with a Member to negate the risk of any duplication and to ensure consistency. Officers and Members have a very good working relationship and there have been no cases of note to suggest that the decisions are ineffective. Corporate Leadership Team ensures that decisions are cascaded to those services which need to know or will be affected by the decision and regular briefing sessions are held with the relevant portfolio holder.

Scrutiny of the Council, outside bodies and others

What’s the structure? An overview and scrutiny committee, or several scrutiny committees? How do subjects get tackled – in Committee or Task & Finish Groups? How many subjects at any one time? What’s the time-span for a particular study?

There is a Policy Development Group comprising 10 Members which deals with scrutiny and policy issues. Subjects are tackled in full Committee meetings and task and finish groups can be set up to deal with issues as and when they arise. The aforementioned report sets out the reasoning for the change to scrutiny structure. (appendix B). Scrutiny members can go on site visits, conduct public surveys, hold public meetings, commission research and do all other things that it reasonably considers necessary during an investigation. There are no limitations on the number of subjects being investigated at any one time and no time span for studies. History shows that there is a lack of engagement in scrutiny and, since the inception of the Policy Development Group there have been no task and finish groups requested by Members and requests for items to be included on its work programme have met with minimal response.

Is Scrutiny just the Councillors doing meetings or do they take external evidence? If the former, what do the members do between meetings?

There have been a number of investigations in the past whereby external evidence has been sought prior to a recommendation being made to Cabinet. Examples of this include the scrutiny reviews relating to bus routes, polyclinics and parking on footways. If there is nothing outstanding on the scrutiny work programme, then members are not required to do any specific scrutiny tasks in between meetings. That said, some members of the Scrutiny Committee do attend the meetings of Cabinet and have an overseeing role in the decisions they take.

How many twin-hatted members sit on outside bodies and how are conflicts of interest resolved?

There are 19 Members who are dual-hatted and of these 4 of them are triple-hatted.

Conflicts of interest are resolved by Members seeking guidance from the Monitoring Officer before any potential issues arises. All Members are reminded of their duty to complete their declarations of interest forms and to provide updates, as required. They are also required to attend training on the Code of Conduct and a significant part of the training is aimed at interests.

Representational Role: Representing Electors to the Council

What sort of engagement is there between front-line councillors with electors? One–to-one when there’s a customer complaint, or gathering views about policy from the whole community? If the latter, how?

Members tend to deal with their electors on a one-to one basis although some have been known to hold surgeries. There are no figures on this at present but it has been picked up on the aforementioned survey.

What is the structure of local area committees. What are their responsibilities? Is membership limited to councillors? – is it open to district councillors or co-option from the wider community?

There are 25 Community Forums which cover the whole of Leicestershire and 3 of these cover North West Leicestershire – (1) Ashby, Measham and Moira (2) Coalville and (3) Valley. The Community Forums are facilitated by the County Council. These Forums play an important role in ensuring that services provided in each area match the needs and wants of the respective local community. Community Forum membership includes Parish, District and County Councillors, local voluntary sector representatives and members of the public.

Community Forums are held 2-4 times per year and provide an opportunity to raise questions and hear about the services received and changes coming up that will affect the local area. The minutes of these meetings show that they are well attended by local ward members.

Do Councillors fix day-to-day problems by taking them to officers or by representing elector issues as policy views in meetings of the Council?

Each Member within their respective area has dedicated officer support for that area to ensure consistency of approach and to assist them in managing their casework with a focus on issues arising in their wards and dealing with their constituents. Members also have an opportunity to ask questions of the Executive Members at both Cabinet and Council meetings and the facility is utilised. They can also represent their constituents at meetings of the Planning and Licensing Committee where they are invited to speak as local ward members.

How does the Councillor engage? Surgery, newsletter, blog, public meetings, or not at all?

A number of members hold surgeries, and some have blogs. We are not aware of numbers but it has been picked up on the aforementioned survey. As mentioned above, they are invited to speak at meetings and this facility is widely used. . What do officers do to facilitate councillor engagement?

The management restructure has seen a focus on locality. The review of Neighbourhoods and Communities saw the creation of Community Team Leaders who act as the Council’s key liaison officers for a specified geographical area. They co-ordinate a broad team across their respective area using ‘matrix’ management to improve local services. They maintain an up-to-date knowledge of the communities, partners, issues and activities within a specified geographical area and ensure all Councillors are informed about events and activities in their area.

A Members’ bulletin is sent out every week inviting all Members to events and meetings and to advise them of local issues. They also have a local area member support officer designated to them to help route them through the appropriate channels.

Briefings are held to ensure that all members are kept up to speed on topical issues whether this be at individual, group, or portfolio holder level. There are also a number of training events held

throughout the year to ensure that members are provided with the knowledge and tools to carry out their role effectively.

Representing the Council in the community

Does the councillor go to meetings of community bodies, parish councils? If so, how many? what for? Do councillors feel obliged to go to meetings of each individual parish council in their respective divisions or is it to meetings of “clusters” of parishes? Where the former, is this an effective use of an elected members time?

There are 25 parish councils in North West Leicestershire. Of our 38 members, 17 are also parish councillors and they regularly attend parish council meetings. There is no evidence to tell us how many elected members who are not parish councillors still attend parish council meetings but the question has been asked in the member survey.

Does the Council attract candidates and retain members?

All seats at elections are contested and most of our councillors re-stand term after term. Of the existing 38 members, 26 are in their 2nd term or longer and 16 of these are on their third term or more. Of this sixteen, 4 have received 21 year service wards and of those four, 2 will have completed 40 years service by 2013.

Are Councillors “go-betweens” between clients/customers/electors and paid service staff to fix service delivery complaints?

There is some evidence to suggest that some councillors act as a go-between. We do often receive calls from the public seeking the details of their local ward member so there is an understanding that the elected member can perhaps ‘get things done’. Generally speaking, the members will contact their local Member Support Officer in order to seek the relevant advice or be put in touch with the required officer to enable then to inform their client.

What happens when a Councillor is absent? Formal taking on of responsibility by other elected members, informal contact point for electors, or nothing? (Maybe different in multi-member wards). Do front line councillors take the strain of, for example Executive members whose time maybe limited?

Executive members will take the strain of another absent executive member but there is no evidence to suggest that their workloads would fall to a non-executive member. Ward members tend to work together within their own political groups if they are absent for any period of time.

Do Councillors learn and develop on the job or in formal training?

Members are invited to training sessions run within the Council, especially after an election when there are new Members. There are some fixed and some voluntary courses. Requisite training is compulsory for those members who wish to sit on Licensing, Planning and Standards Committees. A training log is maintained to ensure that those who need the training have received it. We also subscribe with East Midland Councils to a knowledge based programme for councillors which enables two of our Members to attend each their training sessions at no additional cost. Since we

subscribed earlier this year, every training event has been fully subscribed by our members with additional places having been arranged on occasion.

Has the Council experienced any statutory or other failures because there weren’t enough councillors? Are Councillors bored or “inventing” work to do?

We generally have an idea when Members are on holiday or there are sufficient apologies to make a meeting inquorate. There have been occasions in the past when there were far more meetings being held when some had to be cancelled for being inquorate or for lack of business. Since the changes to the governance arrangements over recent years, this is now a very rare occurrence. The fact that there have been no spurious requests for task and finish groups or scrutiny suggests that councillors are not ‘inventing’ work.

APPENDIX 1

North West Leicestershire District Council

Parliamentary Constituency: NORTH WEST LEICESTERSHIRE

2012 Electorate shown listed by Ward and Polling District Comment [SRN1]: Needs updating – awaiting spreadsheet from LB WARD POLLING DISTRICT LETTERS AND TITLE Electorate

APPLEBY AA APPLEBY MAGNA 909 AB CHILCOTE 105 AC STRETTON EN LE FIELD 23 AD SNARESTONE 260 AE SWEPSTONE 170 AF NEWTON BURGOLAND 346 Sub-Total 1813 ASHBY CASTLE BA ASHBY CASTLE 2122 Sub-Total 2122 ASHBY HOLYWELL CA ASHBY HOLYWELL 1273 CB ASHBY HOLYWELL 1626 CC ASHBY HOLYWELL 995 Sub-Total 3894 ASHBY IVANHOE DA ASHBY IVANHOE 954 DB ASHBY IVANHOE 769 DC ASHBY IVANHOE 570 DD ASHBY IVANHOE 1011 DE ASHBY IVANHOE 522 Sub-Total 3826 BARDON EA BARDON HILL 23 EB BARDON 2461 Sub-Total 2484 BREEDON FA DISEWORTH 542 FB ISLEY CUM LANGLEY 51 FC BREEDON ON THE HILL 602 FD TONGE AND WILSON 227 FE BELTON 625 Sub-Total 2047 CASTLE DONINGTON GA LOCKINGTON 145 GB HEMINGTON 518 GC CASTLE DONINGTON 2172 GD CASTLE DONINGTON 2066 GE CASTLE DONINGTON 886 Sub-Total 5787 COALVILLE HA COALVILLE 413 HB COALVILLE 2177 HC COALVILLE 1257 HD COALVILLE 392 Sub-Total 4239 GREENHILL IA CHARLEY 177 IB GREENHILL 2259 IC GREENHILL 1767 ID GREENHILL 1172 Sub-Total 5375

HUGGLESCOTE JA ELLISTOWN 2028 JB HUGGLESCOTE 1711 Sub-Total 3739 IBSTOCK & HEATHER KA IBSTOCK 1531 KB IBSTOCK 2113 KC IBSTOCK 203 KD HEATHER 779 KE IBSTOCK 1076 Sub-Total 5702 KEGWORTH AND WHATTON LA KEGWORTH 1740 LB KEGWORTH 1061 LC LONG WHATTON 942 Sub-Total 3743 MEASHAM MA MEASHAM 2162 MB MEASHAM 1753 Sub-Total 3915 MOIRA NA BLACKFORDBY 996 NB ALBERT VILLAGE 601 NC MOIRA 1527 ND MOIRA 812 Sub-Total 3936 OAKTHORPE AND OA DONISTHORPE 378 DONISTHORPE OB DONISTHORPE 1036 OC OAKTHORPE 557 OD ACRESFORD 73 Sub-Total 2044 RAVENSTONE AND PA RAVENSTONE 1316 PACKINGTON PB PACKINGTON 620 PC NORMANTON LE HEATH 130 Sub-Total 2066 SNIBSTON QA SNIBSTON 1475 QB SNIBSTON 1358 QC SNIBSTON 929 QD THE LIMES 481 Sub-Total 4243 THRINGSTONE RA THRINGSTONE 1531 RB THRINGSTONE 510 RC THRINGSTONE 663 RD THRINGSTONE 891 Sub-Total 3595 VALLEY SA COLEORTON 584 SB COLEORTON 184 SC PEGGS GREEN 187 SD OSGATHORPE 353 SE SWANNINGTON 983 SF SWANNINGTON 56 SG NEWBOLD 545 SH GRIFFYDAM 194 SI WORTHINGTON 402 SJ STAUNTON HAROLD 119 Sub-Total 3607 WHITWICK TA WHITWICK 2116 TB WHITWICK 1020 TC WHITWICK 2429 Sub-Total 5565 19

TOTALS 79 73742

APPENDIX 2

NORTH WEST LEICESTERSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL - 24 FEBRUARY 2011

Title of report THE ROLE OF THE BACKBENCHER

Councillor Nick Rushton 01530 412059 [email protected]

Chief Executive

01530 454500 Contacts [email protected]

Head of Legal and Support Services / Monitoring Officer 01530 454762 [email protected]

To receive and consider recommendations relating to the future Purpose of report role of the backbencher.

To ensure the effective and efficient delivery of services and Reason for Decision proper decision making; whilst enhancing the role of the back bencher.

Strategic aims Organisational Development.

Implications:

There will be a saving of £14,281.95 per annum in relation to SRA savings. There will also be a reduction of staff support required Financial/Staff due to the amalgamation of functions with the potential for further savings of £40,000 in staffing costs.

Link to relevant CAT None.

Risk Management Statutory responsibilities are being met.

Equalities Impact Not applicable. Assessment

Human Rights Not applicable.

Transformational Not applicable. Government

Comments of Head of Paid The report is satisfactory. Service

Comments of Section 151 The report is satisfactory. Officer

Comments of Monitoring As author of the report, no further comments. Officer

Audit and Governance Committee; Standards Committee; Strategy Consultees Group; Leader of the Opposition; Cabinet; Senior Scrutiny Officer; all Members.

Report to the Audit and Governance Committee on 2nd February 2011. http://minutes.nwleics.gov.uk:81/aksnwleicester/users/public/admin /kab71.pl Report to the Standards Committee on 15th February 2011. http://minutes.nwleics.gov.uk:81/aksnwleicester/users/public/admin /kab71.pl Background papers th Report to Cabinet on 15 February 2011. http://minutes.nwleics.gov.uk:81/aksnwleicester/users/public/admin /kab14.pl?operation=SUBMIT&meet=46&cmte=CBT&grpid=public &arc=71 Decentralisation and Localism Bill http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/126/11 126.i-v.html

COUNCIL ARE RECOMMENDED TO

1. TRANSFER THE AUDIT FUNCTIONS TO THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND DISBAND THE AUDIT & GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, RENAMING THE REVISED STANDARDS COMMITTEE THE AUDIT AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE;

2. DISBAND THE THREE STANDING SCRUTINY COMMITTEES AND REPLACE WITH A POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND THE ABILITY TO FORMULATE REVIEW PANELS UPON REQUEST;

3. NOTE THAT SCRUTINY/POLICY DEVELOPMENT WILL BE Recommendations A STANDARD CABINET AGENDA ITEM;

4. DISBAND THE APPEALS COMMITTEE IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF ANY APPEALS WHICH AS AT 24 FEBRUARY ARE AT APPEALS COMMITTEE STAGE;

5. ESTABLISH A LOCAL HOUSING/ TENANT SCRUTINY PANEL AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE HEAD OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES TO AGREE THE REMIT;

6. AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE REGULATORY COMMITTEES [LICENSING AND PLANNING] TO NO

FEWER THAN 12 AND NO MORE THAN 17 AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION PRIOR TO THE AGM.

7. DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE MONITORING OFFICER TO:-

(A) COMPILE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND THE SCRUTINY REVIEW PANELS IN CONSULTATION WITH GROUP LEADERS

(B) MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Members tell us that the role of the backbencher is not as engaging as it could be. With the reduction in management, the challenge is addressing the future role of the backbencher against the backdrop of the current financial climate.

1.2 Consideration has therefore been given to the role of the back bencher and the efficiency and effectiveness of existing member groups and committees. Issues which have been raised as part of comments made by members are set out below and these have helped to shape the proposals. – Backbenchers feeling excluded – Members feeling that they are not fully consulted on crucial issues [e.g budget] – Unnecessary and/ or long meetings being held with many reports just for noting – The increasing role of the Ward Member – The decline in business for the Standards Committee and Audit and Governance Committee following the demise of the Audit Commission and Standards for England. – The emphasis on local communities outlined in the Decentralisation and Localism Bill.

2. CONSULTATION

2.1 Informal discussions have been held with the Leader of the Opposition; Strategy Group and Councillor Annette Bridges, who has been leading on this work, in an attempt to gauge views on some of the issues facing backbench Members. A consultation paper has also been sent to every Member and the responses are attached at appendix 1.

3. SUPPORT TO MEMBERS

3.1 Following a recent Value for Money review of Democratic Services, a new structure has been established which will see additional support to Members, particularly in terms of their work in their respective constituencies. The team has been divided into three areas which reflect the areas of the Community Forums as follows:- 23

Coalville Area Valley Ashby, Measham and Moira 8 Wards 4 Wards 8 Wards 18 Members 8 Members 12 Members

3.2 Each Member within their respective area will have dedicated officer support for that area which will ensure consistency of approach and assist members in managing their casework with a focus on issues arising in their wards and dealing with constituents.

3.3 The management restructure has seen a focus on locality. The review of Neighbourhoods and Communities will see the creation of Community Team Leaders who will act as the Council’s key liaison officers for a specified geographical area. They will co-ordinate a broad team across their respective area using ‘matrix’ management to improve local services. They will maintain an up-to-date knowledge of the communities, partners, issues and activities within a specified geographical area. They will support the Councillors who are Area Champions and ensure all Councillors are informed about events and activities in their area.

4 REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

4.1 At present there are 12 Members of the Licensing Committee and 13 Members of the Planning Committee. To enable more Members the opportunity to have an input into regulatory decisions, it has been suggested that the membership of both these Committees be increased. The Director of Services has been consulted and he does not foresee any issues with regard to increasing the membership, however, concerns were expressed by Members during informal discussions that increasing the membership of these Committees would make them less manageable and unwieldy. It was felt that the current membership together with the substitution scheme was sufficient as it currently stood. The balance required therefore is enabling more members to be involved in making regulatory decisions against the concerns of having large and unmanageable committee meetings. Council is therefore requested to consider amending the membership of the Licensing and Planning Committees with effect from May 2011. It is proposed that flexibility to the membership of these regulatory committees be applied in that the membership of the Licensing and Planning Committees be no fewer than 12 and no more than and 17 with authority delegated to the Leader of the Council to make the final decision prior to the AGM.

5. OTHER PANELS/WORKING GROUPS

5.1 Local Housing / Tenant Scrutiny Panel The Tenant Services Authority [TSA] is the Social Housing Regulator whose responsibility included local authorities from April 2010. All social housing providers are required to develop ‘local offers’ with residents which are required to meet the national standards by April 2011. The TSA are in favour of local tenant scrutiny panels being set up as a way of further strengthening tenant empowerment and also linked to the thinking around Big Society and more recently ‘localism’. The TSA is one of the quangos that will cease to exist from April 2012. The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) will become the new regulator and information currently available suggests Local Scrutiny Panels are the way forward. The key difference between the Tenant Scrutiny Panel and the Local Scrutiny Panel is the

HCA’s preference for local Councillors and MP to be involved and for the Panel to be accessible for service users not specifically tenants. It is therefore recommended that the work currently being undertaken on the potential to create a Local/Tenant Scrutiny Panel be supported and the discussions thereon be continued. This panel, when established would not be a scrutiny committee in the sense of the Local Government Act 2000 requirements. The current guidance nationally is that these are to be tenant led and have a looser remit and will be focussed on the range of landlord issues. It is understood that the HCA is looking at extending the function of the panels to a more partnership approach and providing for cross tenure scrutiny of landlord services between social landlords.

5.2 Cabinet link into the Scrutiny / Policy Development Group It has been suggested that, to assist Cabinet and to hold it to account in terms of policy development, a Group could be established on an ‘as required’ basis. However it would be more appropriate that Council be requested to approve an amendment to the constitution to ensure that Cabinet can feed into the Scrutiny /Policy Development Group.

5.3 Appeals Committee The Appeals Committee was set up some years ago but is no longer required due to other mechanisms being in place to deal with appeals. Therefore it is recommended that Appeals Committee be disbanded.

6. AUDIT AND STANDARDS

6.1 The Coalition Government announced last year its intention ‘to abolish the Standards Board regime’. The proposal is that, alongside the abolition of Standards for England, the First Tier Tribunal (Local Government Standards in England) would lose jurisdiction over member conduct. The Government also intends to remove the national Code of Conduct for Councillors and the requirement to have a Standards Committee. Instead it would be for councils themselves to choose whether or not they wish to have a local code or a Standards Committee. Any Standards Committee would no longer have the power to suspend a member. There would also be a new criminal offence created relating to failure to register or declare interests.

6.2 The above proposals will need primary legislation. The understanding is that this will will receive Royal Assent sometime in the Summer or Autumn next year, although exact timing will obviously depend upon Parliamentary progress of the Decentralisation and Localism Bill as a whole.

6.3 While these proposals obviously depend on Parliamentary approval, Standards for England would cease to handle cases from an Appointed Day (likely to be two months after the coming into force of the provisions). At that stage, all cases still open would be passed back to the relevant local authority to complete. Any cases with the Tribunal at that stage would be completed but no further references could be made to it. Any cases being handled locally would need to be completed locally after that date by the Standards Committee, with no power to pass them to Standards for England or the Tribunal, but no new allegations could be made after the Appointed Day.

6.4 The Standards Committees will continue to have a legal requirement to operate as now and, in particular, to continue to consider any allegations. In the event that the new legislation is passed, it would be prudent to retain this function as, although under the proposals it would have no powers to suspend a Member, it would still have a crucial 25

role in ensuring that adequate governance arrangements are in place, crucially to prevent any unintentional criminal offences being made by councillors.

6.5 The Council, in setting up the Audit and Governance Committee complied with the requirements of discharging the authority’s Audit Functions in accordance with the CIPFA guidelines which state that the Audit Committee should be:

. separate from the Executive and Scrutiny functions . chaired by a non-executive member . independent, ideally with an independent co-opted member (although this is not required) . have the power to make decisions without further reference to Council

6.6 The guidelines also state that the committee must have a clear right of access to full council, other council groups and committees. The guidance says that an acceptable alternative model is the Standards Committee and the District Auditor has concurred with this approach.

6.7 Many local authorities have already taken the decision to merge these two Committees and, in the interests of good governance and whilst looking at austerity measures, it is proposed that we adopt the same approach. Not only would this offer savings in terms of an SRA and officer time, more crucially it will ensure that the independence which is afforded to the standards function will be replicated with the audit function. Furthermore, many reports are taken to each of the Committees at present so a merger would reduce duplication and produce a more effective way of working.

6.8 At the time of writing this report, Members of both the Audit and Governance Committee and the Standards Committee were being consulted and their views will be reported to Council.

6.9 It is therefore recommended that Council be requested to:-

• Transfer the Audit functions to the Standards Committee • Disband the Audit and Governance Committee • Rename the Standards Committee the Audit and Standards Committee • Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to make the necessary consequential changes to the Constitution

7 SCRUTINY

7.1 Some Members have expressed concern about the number of meetings they are expected to attend with many of these meetings going on for too long, especially with reports just for information.

7.2 With the focus being placed on the local community, it has been suggested that scrutiny of the council’s services can be done in more effective and engaging way for members, the public and tenants. It is proposed to disband the existing standing scrutiny committees and replace them with the policy development group. This will satisfy the legal requirements for effective scrutiny under the Local Government Act 2000 and will sit alongside the housing/tenant scrutiny panel.

7.3 The Policy Development Group would be given the scope to appoint review panels. The review panels will need to be limited in number and service area to ensure the

workloads are manageable and will be Member-led with officer support. The panels will be able to hear evidence from witnesses both externally and internally and have the opportunity to ask questions and get closer to the local issues. This would be different to the current task and finish groups which are predominantly officer led.

7.4 It is therefore recommended that Council be requested to:

• Disband the three standing Scrutiny Committees • Establish a Policy and Development Group with the ability to accept items from Cabinet and formulate review panels • Establish a Local Housing/Tenant Scrutiny Panel to comply with government guidance

8 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

8.1 Consultation has taken place with Members individually and with the relevant Committees / Groups over recent months.

8.2 Audit and Governance Committee The Audit and Governance Committee were asked to consider the proposals to merge the Audit and Standards Committees at their meeting on 3 February 2011. The Committee commented that

“it was too pre-emptive to make comments before Councillors, as individuals, had done so”

8.3 Cabinet Cabinet considered a report setting out all the proposals at their meeting on 15 February 2011, together with the consultation responses from individual members, this is attached at appendix 1. Cabinet expressed their thanks to members for contributing their views to the process. Cabinet supported the proposed changes, made decisions on those which were within their remit and recommended the rest to Council for consideration.

8.4 Standards Committee Standards Committee considered the proposals to merge the Audit and Standards individual members on this point. The Committee had been asked to consider the recommendation to Council to support the merger. Following a lengthy debate they resolved to

“recommend to Council that steps be taken to further investigate the possible merger of the Audit and Standards Committees.”

During the debate members expressed the following views:

• That it was pre-emptive to make the decision to merge the two committees in the absence of further guidance from government on the future of the standards and audit regimes, • That, if the two committees were to merge, an it should be chaired by an independent member, • That, the independent chairman should receive an SRA, • That the role of parish members on the potential merged committee should be clarified, 27

• That, it was positive to note that the External Auditors had supported this approach and there was therefore no reason why standards and audit issues could be considered by the joint committee.

Council are requested to consider the views expressed during the consultation.

9 CONCLUSION

9.1 The proposals aim to enable backbench Members to have a more influential role from 2011/12.

Extract of appendix to above report.

The future role of the backbencher – Members’ Consultation Responses

General Comments/Suggestions

Comment By Comment Conservative Member It is important that the council considers and embraces change where change has been identified as a route to improved services and efficiencies and no more important than here in 2011 to address the unprecedented challenges before us. However the caveat must be that change for the sake of it is unproductive and de-motivational “if it isn’t broken don’t fix it”. Backbenchers currently tend to exclude themselves by being unwilling to step forward or attend meetings unless they are members of the specific committee and even then a low attendance is experienced within the less high profile committees. They seem to want everything put in front of them on a plate yet are even reluctant to open emails. Where they are not consulted it is the delegated powers of the committee to make the decision, again most committees are open to all members, it’s their choice as to attend or not. The many unnecessary meetings are a spin back from the previous administration however, what appears unnecessary to one member may not be seen as so to another. If they don’t wish to attend a meeting they should be able to declare their disinterest before being appointed to the committee. Increasing the role of a ward member is a “biggie”. Is this an attempt to gloss over the loss of budget for staff by compensating with man hours of members? Most, but not all, members find it difficult to devote more time to the role as is and “jobs” even within the wards tend to be side stepped to “the few”. This needs looking into most carefully as it also impacts upon competencies which have training implications as well as “the willing horse”. Repeated complaints are either by way of misfeasance of the complainant or the inability of the member to resolve due to their own time constraints or competencies. The reduction in allowances for scrutiny chairman is substantial however the council must be minded that members may not be able or willing to support their commitments to their duties and being a member will become a luxury for the wealthy or retired which will put back the balance of membership several decades. Whereas I agree that we are seeking ways of reducing costs which should also include those of running the members we are in danger of members compensating reductions in allowances by claiming expenses which only the few claim at the present time. This not only reflects on those with SRAs but will also endemic onto the wider population of members. Conservative Member There are so many things wrong with the way the Council runs at the moment that I hardly know where to begin. The concept I have and I would hope everyone who runs for election as a local government councillor, is to represent the people who elected you (whether they voted for you or not) and improve their lives. Under the present system there is no way of achieving this as in my opinion there is too much bureaucracy and paperwork. The organisation seems to believe that it’s an achievement to hold a meeting and write a report, where in truth it is only an achievement when you change something for the better. From a members point of view we in the main do not have any opportunity to get items on agendas, or discuss issues that affect our voters. Meetings in the main rubber stamp what officers have been doing. This is why there are low turn outs at local government elections, and why I am having difficulty persuading community minded people in my ward to stand for the next election in May. Also at one time the press used to attend Council meetings and write interesting articles on the work the council was doing, this does not happen any moment because nothing of any note is ever discussed in 29

open council. The party political system to some extent has caused this by deciding everything of note in private group meetings then voting en mass for whatever was decided. The only way of improving the Backbenchers lot is to ban Party Politics in local government (because national policies are largely irrelevant at a local level) and give officers more time (less report writing) to help members with issues within their wards. Councillors can very rarely fix problems themselves as they have no powers, officers must perform the actions necessary. Labour Group The Labour group fully accepts the principle of reviewing the backbenchers role within the constitutional operation of the council. However, we have strong reservations with regards to the timing of this review process. With full District Council elections less than three months away with Labour group would seek to offer counsel against adopting any changes before the election. Clearly the political makeup of Council could change significantly post election (or ostensibly remain the same!), any decisions made now with regards to the role of the backbencher could significantly change post 5th May thus necessitating the potential reversal of any changes and consequently potentially costing significant resource in the process. We do not consider that the proposals shown to enable backbench Members to be engaged or more influential. There is no provision or assistance given for the Elected Member ‘Community Leadership’ role, and there is an assumption that all members have the income and means to self finance casework and Member activity. This is demeaning and will disenfranchise many. It has always been the case that a Member can choose not to take any allowance and we do not want this to change. But we also do not want to prevent any elector from standing for election on the grounds that they will not be reimbursed for genuine expenses. RESPONSE of the No operational or constitutional changes will take effect until after the May elections. In Democratic and Support order for this to happen the decisions must be made now to enable the constitutional Services Team Manager changes to be made in time. It is due to the elections taking place that it is proposed that any changes made are done in time for May so that existing individual Councillors will not be affected by any changes. It also means that no bias has been placed on any proposals being as we do not know the impact the proposals will have on each group. It will also enable any new ways of working to commence at the very start of a 4 year term as opposed to part way through. There is no proposal to change the allowances paid to Members and genuine expenses will continue to be reimbursed, as now. In terms of assistance for the Community Leadership role – see next item.

Support to Members – Structured Team for Member Support

Comment By Comment Conservative Member I am concerned that Community Forums are perceived as no more than “talking shops” and a PR exercise put in place by the previous administration. Their make-up and MO should be reviewed and either disbanded or re-focused with measurable action plans. Why does the Coalville Area have 18 members for its 8 wards when Ashby, Measham and Moira, also with 8 wards have just 12 members. On the face of it an imbalance in favour of Coalville. How will the “dedicated” officer support to each area be managed and what will their limits of authority and delegation be? The creation of “Community Team Leaders” sounds somewhat “big brother” and could get a negative response from even the most moderate of elected members. The role of Area Champion is a good idea but needs to be a strong leader with potentially a lot of time to commit to the role if it is to be successful. Labour Group Any support to Members has to be welcomed but the paper is not clear in exactly what this means. Is the expectation for Members to funnel all case work via Democratic Services – or will Members be able to continue to contact Officers directly? Whilst we acknowledge 30

the impeccable & balanced position of Democratic Services Officers, the Labour Group has concerns about confidentiality and the Freedom of Information Act. We are also concerned we may be placing Democratic Services Officers in the awkward position of being aware of a political conclusion, but being prevented from making the situation clear. We would also like to know if Democratic Services will write letters (etc) on Members behalf and or liaise with constituents. In addition, if Members are to expect a ‘full service’, will the current human resource facility be sufficient? RESPONSE of the The reason for the ‘imbalance’ regarding the number of Members for each area is due to Democratic and Support the ward boundaries and the number of ward members for each area. Only a boundary Services Team Manager review could address this. In terms of the support afforded to Members, this will be captured in a protocol which will be drawn up between the Democratic and Support Services Team Manager and the Group Leaders in the next couple of months. This will include issues such as confidentiality, political neutrality and expectations and will be explained in full to all new and re-elected Members at the Member Induction event in May where each Member will meet with their dedicated local support officer.

Regulatory Functions – Changes to membership of Licensing and Planning Committees

Comment By Comment Conservative Member I would support the 12-17 members for the regulatory functions. In the case of Licensing the formation of subgroups should be encouraged but not totally made up from current members, delegated powers should be given to sub groups which should be chaired by a member of the committee possibly the Committees Deputy Chairman. Labour Group The Labour Group maintains that in order to ensure Members’ interest and involvement, both Regulatory Committees should be increased to 15 Members. We have serious objections to the notion that the eventual numbers be left to a decision of the Leader. RESPONSE of the Should it be agreed that the decision on membership be delegated to the Leader, the Democratic and Support difficulty lies with the fact that he/she is not appointed until the May AGM yet Democratic Services Team Manager Services will need the figure well before this date to calculate the political proportionality and invite nominations on seats. It would therefore be in the best interests of democracy if a fixed membership figure could be agreed.

Local Housing /Tenant Scrutiny Panels

Comment By Comment Conservative Member I am all for strengthening tenant empowerment but to what degree are they empowered will be the key to its success and must not be seen as a talking shop for the chosen few. Members of the panels should of the type willing to contribute to debate providing added value. The Chairman of this / these panels should be of the “diplomatic “character with strong influencing skills. Consideration of an RSA should be given for the Chairman. Labour Group We are not clear what is meant by ‘local councillors’ – does this mean councillor’s from all three tiers of local government – or just the Local Housing Authority? We note the word ‘preference’ for the MP to be involved. We object to any MP being involved in this process. We also feel that only NWLDC tenants should be invited into the process. RESPONSE of the I will ensure that these comments are picked up by the Head of Housing and Customer Democratic and Support Services and the portfolio holder in the negotiations for the establishment of this Panel. Services Team Manager

Policy Development Group/Scrutiny

Comment By Comment Conservative Member I agree that the council needs to have scrutiny in some form if for no other reason to give the constituency some comfort that the council is self regulating itself. I am not 100% convinced about the scrapping of scrutiny but it should not continue in its present form which sometimes just takes on work by way of task and finish groups as a numbers game i.e. each committee should be working on X number of projects as against prioritising the most important and not accepting those projects which sound ”nice and easy to do”. The current low attendance of these committees is of concern to the Chairmen. Labour Group We require far more explanation of this proposal. We certainty object to the Cabinet or Leadership determining who and when a policy development group meets – and the area it explores. We also feel that current legislation prevents the Executive from being involved. Can we have clarification please? We accept that the current scrutiny process has generally failed. But we must insist that our comment on scrutiny failure has no reflection on Democratic Services staff. Democratic Services staff has provided an extremely good service to Members. Staff have undertaken their utmost to help Members through the Scrutiny process. However, we do object to the proposal as shown on the Paper. We have expressed our concerns re the Policy Development Group in this paper – and we certainty object to any such Group being able to ration scrutiny. We certainly object to any involvement of the Executive or Leadership in decision making process on what is and what is not Scrutinised. We do support the intention of Government to change core legislation to facilitate Authorities such as NWLDC being able to revert back to a Committee structure. Until such time that core legislation is changed to facilitate a committee structure, the Labour Group want a Member led scrutiny process to continue. We would suggest that the Constitution be amended to enable an agreed percentage of Members put a case for a scrutiny issue to Full Council – with Full Council accepting or declining agreement by a simple majority. RESPONSE of the The Council is required under the Local Government Act 2000, to have an independent Democratic and Support scrutiny committee. This must be a committee of the Council, politically proportionate and Services Team Manager independent of the Executive so the above comment is correct. That said, there is nothing in consultation with the which prohibits the Cabinet from recommending that Scrutiny looks at a specific issue. Senior Scrutiny Officer Scrutiny is an opportunity to challenge decisions and make recommendations on an evidence based, non-political basis. The Constitution already gives each member the opportunity of referring a topic to the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. The committee can then consider the most appropriate means of dealing with the issue raised. It could, for example but not limited to, decide not to pursue the matter, to request a written report to a future meeting or to establish a working party. A single Scrutiny Committee [or Policy Development Group] with adjustments to the current composition of the agenda could enable more challenging scrutiny at meetings and a more flexible approach to working parties. It would also need to ensure that its statutory obligations are fulfilled as well as striving from improvement by holding the Executive to account.

At present, the nature of the agenda is influenced by the frequency of the meetings. Each of the Scrutiny Committees meets currently four times a year with meetings scheduled to enable the committees to consider quarterly performance monitoring reports. If these reports could be reported to Members in a different way, it would enable the reduction in the frequency of meetings. Whatever the frequency, the agenda does need to be relevant, timely and interesting. A wider range of formats for working parties could be explored to be appropriate to each topic.

If this proposal is agreed in principal by Cabinet and then Council, the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Democratic and Support Services Team Manager and the Senior Scrutiny Officer will propose amendments to the Constitution to address these issues for ratification at a future Council meeting.

The Audit and Standards - Merger of functions.

Comment By Comment Conservative Member The decrease in business of the Standards Committee and Audit and Governance Committees is possibly due to lack of participation by members due to being quite difficult ( and seen as boring non sexy) subjects taking considerable time to analyse issues which are of most importance. I have concerns about the powers to make decisions without further reference to the council, will there be guidelines and a system in place for appeals against their decisions? As stated there should be an uninterrupted access to councils meetings however what happens when the meetings go into confidential session. This could be interpreted as more “big brother”. Care will be needed to ensure that the role is not hijacked by any political group. The Chairman of this committee which should be an elected member should have an RSA in line with current scrutiny chairman’s allowances as this will be an extremely important and influential post. Labour Group We are not convinced that a committee merger will work or be any better than the Scrutiny that takes place at the moment. We also need to have a better understanding of the Government’s decision to abolish the Audit Commission and its consequences on public finance openness and transparency. For Members of all sides to have confidence in the Audit process we need to know how the Government intends to replace external Audit. Therefore any change at NWLDC is premature. The Group is aware of the Government’s intention to change core legislation in relation to Standards. We agree that the Chair of the reformed Standards Board should be independent, however, we are of the opinion that the Chair should be paid. RESPONSE of the Should the two Committees be merged, it is a legal requirement that the Chair shall be an Democratic and Support independent Member. The Independent Remuneration Panel can be requested to look at Services Team Manager whether a special responsibility allowance shall be paid. There are already processes in place to deal with appeals against decisions made by the Initial Assessment Sub-Committee and the main Committee cannot be hijacked by any political group as political proportionality applies.

Appendix B

Member Survey 2012 – Responses

Number of responses received: 13

1. Do you spend a set amount of time each week on your council workload or vary the amount of time depending on the size of your workload?

Set time  Vary time 

Response:

Set time – 0 Vary time – 13

2. On average, how much time do you spend a week on your workload, not including attending Council meetings?

Response:

0-10 hours – 2 11-20 hours – 5 20 hours or more – 3 Not stated – 2

Comments received:

‘Very variable from a few hours to on occasions all free time’

3. How do you engage with your constituents?

One to one – 13 Public Meetings – 11 Community Wide – 10 Surgeries – 6 Newsletter – 10 Blog – 3 None – 0

Other ways:

‘Telephone and email’

‘Through links and discussions with my ward colleagues’

‘Get involved in local debates in local press, get involved in local organisations and attend local events’

‘Twitter and Press’

‘Attend community group mornings, attend community groups and activities, and attend informal meetings with residents about issues of concern or planning, emails and phone calls’ 34

‘Phone and email, walking in District, I work in public place and speak to residents there’ ‘Social networking’

‘Email is number one followed by telephone’

‘Networking with and through residents’

‘Twitter and Facebook’

‘Emails, letters, through community groups and activities’

4. Do you attend meetings of any Community Bodies?

If yes, how often and what does your role involve?

Response:

Yes – 13 No – 0

‘At least twice a month for 2 – 3 hours as part of my portfolio role’

‘A trustee/Committee Member of 4 Community Bodies attending 4-6 meetings per year’

‘Often as a Member of the Community Body – sometimes as a Senior Member (Chairman)’

‘Attend monthly meetings, participate in events and influence decisions’

‘Monthly in attendance to act as an observer’

‘Depends on what is defined in this survey as a ‘Community Body’. I attend most meetings defined as ‘Outside Bodies’, the useless & waste of time LCC Community Forum. As a volunteer at Hermitage FM – involved in ‘community activity’. Would like more clarification as to the meaning of this question’

‘Chair of Community First Panel – Greenhill Ward – monthly meetings, Highways Forum – 3 meetings a year, Community Forum – Coalville’

‘As often as possible, attending meeting of panel, voting on changes, attending openings and exchanging ideas, supporting all community activities, helping out’

‘Bi monthly – Thringstone House Executive Committee (appointed to by NWLDC)’ ‘Parish Councils as requested’

‘Committee Member, about 4 times a year and AGM’

‘There is usually something on, I am Chairman of the Ashby Measham & Moira Community forum which in addition to the meeting require preparatory work. I also attend the local Tenants & Residents Association once a month’

‘Monthly TARA’s, Community association, Parish Council (bi monthly). Local action group (3 monthly). Community Forum (3 monthly). Greenhill Community First Panel (bi Monthly). I update attendees on Council matters that may affect them. Answer questions that I am able. If unable to answer at the time seek assistance and respond asap . Assist with organising community activities and events and attend when possible. Help raise their profile. Give advice on how to help achieve what is required. Deal with any issues and concerns raised’

5. Do you attend any Parish Council meetings in your capacity as a District Councillor?

If yes, how often and what does your role involve?

Response:

Yes – 8 No – 5

‘To listen and offer help and advice’

‘I attend Parish Council meetings because part of the parish falls in my ward, they have around 6 meetings per year’

‘I attend as a Parish Councillor and relay District matter to the Parish Council’

‘I am a Parish Councillor and attend as a Parish Councillor’

‘Listening to debate and answering any questions asked!’

‘Monthly meetings of Ibstock Parish Council and Heather Parish. I regularly attend Ibstock Parish and less frequently attend Heather parish. I report on any items of interest from District Council and answer questions etc’

‘Have attended all of Heather Parish meetings apart from 2 since elected. Give information and ask if they want me to look into anything’

‘All district councillors representing Whitwick are double hatted as Parish Councillors and therefore there is no requirement to attend at District Councillor however if this were not the case I would attend in a district capacity’

‘As required’

‘I attend Hugglescote Parish Council as I live in the Parish with an interest in what is happening within the village’

‘Bi monthly. Give a District Council report and update. Offer help and support where needed’

6. Do you have a formal process in place for other elected Members to take over your workload while you are absent?

If yes, what is the process?

Response:

Yes – 8 No – 5

‘As a two Member Ward this is no problem’

‘Because we represent a multi Councillor Ward, my colleague takes over any urgent casework in my absence’

‘I pass my work load onto my fellow Councillor for the same ward and he does likewise’

‘Telephone or email fellow Councillor to let him know if I am away for any length of time giving full details’

‘Informally with other Labour Councillors’

‘Not a formal process – but as we are a 3 member ward usually a councillor is available at all times. I leave a message on my answer phone if I am away asking residents to contact my fellow Councillor’

‘If on holiday or sick the other elected member deals with the workload, phone each other and email regularly. Attend the Parish meeting that each other cannot go to’

‘Whilst there is not a formal process in place Labour Councillors in multi member wards are expected to notify other members who will act in their place’

‘As my ward is a two member ward, all casework will be passed to either colleague in their absence due to holidays. I have recently taken on another wards casework due to holidays’

7. Are there any changes to the format of the meetings that you would like to see introduced?

If yes, please explain?

Response:

Yes – 7 No – 5

‘The Council should revert back to the Committee System’

‘Something to work with and on instead of just listening to reports and decisions made by Cabinet’ ‘Go back to the Committee System’

‘More involvement of Councillors who do not have a place on Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet’

‘We need more time to read and comprehend/question Reports and other papers. 7 days is simply not long enough. Due to nil Scrutiny at NWLDC – there should be an expectation from both the Chair and Officers that there will be a high level of Scrutiny at meetings. Long meetings such as Planning breaks in meetings need to be considered for Member comfort!’

‘Some meetings start at 5pm which if working makes it impossible to attend. The format is satisfactory’

‘I believe that the integrity of the council would be better maintained through a process of alternating chairmanship of council and committees between political groupings’ ‘Return to the Committee System’

8. Do you think that decisions made at Council and Cabinet meetings are communicated quickly enough?

Response:

Yes – 9 No – 3

9. In a hypothetical scenario where the Council Size was increased or decreased by 10%, how would you suggest things could be done differently?

Response:

‘I think we work very well at the moment with the councillors we have’

‘The Council size should be increased for better representation of the people’ ‘It would be necessary to increase or decrease workload as required as multi councillors remain in place’

‘The workload for Councillors is increasing and will continue to do so and a decrease would put an increased strain on Councillors in problem areas. Public expect Councillors to be available when they want them. They also like a choice of Councillor’

‘If Council increased in size there would be an opportunity for full participation by way of Committee System, making the Council more democratic. A decrease in my view would have the opposite effect’

‘Whether or not the Council is reduced by 10 or any other percentage – Ward member’s need more communication from individual officers on activates or arrangements/work/discussions with third parties being undertaken in the Ward. I take a position that democracy and the democratic/accountability process has an ultimate cost in funds and officer time’

‘I believe that the current number of Councillors is about right. I would like to see the present ‘system of multi-member wards maintained. I think it works well in Ibstock and Heather’

‘From a perspective of meetings council size is not particularly important however it is essential that scrutiny functions be more thorough and I feel with a reduction in Council size casework could suffer’

‘I do not believe a change either way would be workable. Too many members and you lose a level of influence, too few and the ability to be effective in representing constituents and scrutinising the work of the council would be weakened’

‘In my view the size of the Council wholey and ideally is representative of all the residents who we represent’

‘No changes needed’

10. If you had a free hand, are there any changes you would make to the political management, scrutiny and governance arrangements? How do you think that might impact on the number of Councillors required to run the Council effectively?

Response:

‘Back to the Committee System with 4 Committees and 2 scrutiny Committees. All Members would then be part of the decision making process. It may take a little longer but would have a better result’

‘The Council should resort to the Committee System which impact would be for the Council size to remain the same’

‘Go back to the Committee System, no need to change the number of Councillors’

‘Scrutiny in particular should have more flexibility and accountability with finance in place o call witnesses allowing scrutiny to be really democratic. This is not the case in its current format’

‘Councillors do not run Council’s. The Political Leadership is in place to set Policy and Direction and to be accountable to the electorate. Opposition Councillors are accountable for Scrutiny of the process. There is no formalised Scrutiny at NWLDC & this activity has to take place in Councillor’s own time and expense. One change I would make is to return to independent scrutiny process. Management of the political direction is the responsibility of officers & I have complete trust & confidence in this process’

‘Re-introduction of Scrutiny. No impact on current number of Councillors’

‘All Councillors had an equal voice. Return of Committee System with a fairer process. Ownership of decision making, better scrutiny’

‘Scrutiny needs to be strengthened. More decisions should be taken at council to enable stronger democracy’

‘I believe that there should be full scrutiny by councillors of all services. Currently one consultative committee meets 4 times a year, this is not enough to ensure proper scrutiny. I believe that there are just enough councillors to enable this role’

‘I am very puzzled by this question’

11. Are you aware that you can find minutes and agendas online via the Council’s website?

Response:

Yes – 12 No – 0

12. Are there any additional services that you would like to receive in terms of meeting administration?

If yes, please explain

Response:

Yes – 2 No – 8

‘Webcasting of meetings, consideration of making meetings later, consideration of alternating venues to enable greater public participation in the democratic process’

‘There should be more in depth briefings on all subjects’

13. Are you satisfied with the training you have been offered and received?

If no, what else would you like to see on offer?

Response:

Yes – 11 No – 0

‘I was elected at a by-election. I thought the induction training I received was not comprehensive enough, it was fairly brief’

‘When I was newly elected it would have been courteous to have someone show me around the Council and have a plan of rooms and who worked in them’

14. When would you prefer training sessions to be held?

Response:

Evenings after 6.30pm – 8 Weekends – 0 Daytime am – 3 Daytime pm – 4 In the hour prior to the meeting – 2 After the meeting – 1

15. Would you be interested in taking a leading role in in-house training/briefing sessions where the topic is something you have extensive experience of?

If yes, is there a topic you would be interested in helping with?

Response:

Yes – 5 No – 5

16. Do you find the Members Bulletin which is emailed to you each Friday beneficial?

Is there anything we can do to improve it?

Response:

Yes – 9 No – 1

‘A list of the weeks planning applications’

‘Would like to know if Officers or Members are involved in a community or charitable event – so we could support’ 40

‘Waiting a week for information is not responsive enough. Information should be cascaded to councillors contemporaneously’

‘Send a hard copy of all Council meetings for the coming month with payslip’

17. Are you happy with the work facilities provided in the Members Room?

Is there anything we can do to improve it?

Response:

Yes – 5 No – 3

‘All the local area telephone directories’

‘I never use the Members Room for various reasons’

‘Don’t use it – except for odd discussion before/during/after meetings’ ‘Took a year to find out we had one’

‘Publications are not updated regularly’

‘The newspapers are always out of date, I can never get the printer to work. The large desk with the chair behind it should be removed and a round table and chairs be put in instead. There should be wi-fi available’

‘Move the facilities closer to other offices so advice and support is closer at hand’

18. Are there any further comments that you would like to make about the support services that you receive from the Council?

Response:

‘To date I have been very satisfied with the support received’

‘Support from Member Support is good but Members should have access to all officers at all times’

‘No problems, they do a good job’

‘Under difficult circumstances at the moment but Officers are always helpful where possible’

‘I get an excellent service from Democratic Services – and my casework questions/requests always get answered in a reasonable time. However, getting answers for scrutiny purposes is like drawing blood out of a stone!’

‘The support services from staff I have received are very good’

‘A better phone answering service that is lacking promptness’

Appendix C

Dual / Triple hatted members – 4 September 2012

Councillor District Member County Member Parish Member

Councillor R Adams  Councillor G Allman   Councillor R Bayliss   Councillor R Blunt   Councillor A Bridges  Councillor J Bridges  Councillor N Clarke  Councillor P Clayfield  Councillor J Cotterill   Councillor J Coxon    Councillor D De Lacy  Councillor D Everitt   Councillor J Geary  Councillor T Gillard    Councillor R Holland  Councillor J Hoult   Councillor D Howe   Councillor P Hyde   Councillor R Johnson  Councillor G Jones    Councillor C Large  Councillor J Legrys  Councillor L Massey  Councillor C Meynell  Councillor T Neilson  Councillor T Pendleton  Councillor V Richichi  Councillor J Ruff  Councillor N Rushton    Councillor T Saffell   Councillor S Sheahan  Councillor A V Smith   Councillor N Smith  Councillor M Specht   Councillor L Spence   Councillor D Stevenson   Councillor Woodward   Councillor M Wyatt  

Appendix D

Position of Wards against the Variance Thresholds

Current Electorate: 73,907 Average: 1945 Upper limit: 2139 Lower limit: 1751

2019 Electorate: 78,703 Average: 2071 Upper limit: 2278 Lower limit: 1864

Current No. of electors to 2019 Electorate 2019 % variance Ward Electorate take ward over Forecast Based on 38 Cllrs 10% threshold

Appleby 1831 309 1838 -11%

Ashby Castle 2099 41 2148 +4%

Ashby Holywell 3980/2 cllrs = 300 4780/2 = 2390 +15% 1990

Ashby Ivanhoe 3817/2 cllrs = 462 3876/2 = 1938 -6% 1909 Already over by Bardon 2499 359 2534 +22%

Breedon 2037 103 2067 0

Castle Donington 5746/3 cllrs = 675 6787/3 = 2262 +9% 1915

Coalville 4267/2 cllrs = 12 4438/2 = 2219 +7% 2134

Greenhill 5332/3 cllrs = 1089 5385/3 = 1795 -13% 1777

Hugglescote 3783/2 cllrs = 496 4539/2 = 2270 +10% 1892

Ibstock & 5784/3 cllrs = 636 6170/3 = 2057 -1% Heather 1928

Kegworth & 3669/2 cllrs = 610 4142/2 = 2071 0 Whatton 1835

Measham 3930/2 cllrs = 350 4181/2 = 2091 +1% 1965

Moira 3936/2 cllrs = 344 4098/2 = 2049 -1% 1968

Oakthorpe & 2037 103 2056 -1% Donisthorpe

Ravenstone & 2037 103 2078 0 Packington

Snibston 4346/2 cllrs = Already over by 4716/2 = 2358 +14% 2173 68

Thringstone 3570/2 cllrs = 708 3594/2 = 1797 -13% 1785

Valley 3606/2 cllrs = 672 3661/2 = 1831 -12% 1803

Whitwick 5601/3 cllrs = 816 5615/3 = 1872 -10% 1867

Appendix E

Planning Data