Electoral Review of Newcastle Our Council

Electoral review of Newcastle

Our council: Fit for the future

Evidence to support the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s consideration of the appropriate number of councillors for Newcastle City Council

Presented by Newcastle City Council’s Constitutional Committee

Contents

Background: Electoral review of Newcastle 2

Section One: Our council size proposal 3

Section Two: About Newcastle 5

Section Three: Evidence relating to governance and decision making 12

Section Four: Evidence relating to scrutiny functions 33

Section Five: Evidence relating to the representational role of councillors 38

Section Six: Evidence relating to the future 50

Section Seven: Comparisons to similar authorities 55

Section Eight: Views of other interested stakeholders 57

Section Nine: Options considered 59

Section Ten: Conclusions 60

Appendix 1: Cabinet portfolios 63

Appendix 2: Details of North East Combined Authority and joint authorities / 66 committees

Appendix 3: Schedules of appointments made by City Council 68

Appendix 4: Case studies provided by councillors 99

Appendix 5: Feedback received from other stakeholders 101

Background: Electoral review of Newcastle

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (the Commission) is undertaking an electoral review of Newcastle between November 2015 and September 2016.

An electoral review examines a council’s electoral arrangements and aims to ensure, as far as possible, that the ratio of electors to councillors in each ward is the same. The review will cover:

 The total number of councillors to be elected to the council (council size);  The number and boundaries of electoral areas (wards) for the purposes of the election of councillors;  The number of councillors for any electoral area of a local authority; and  The name of any electoral area.

The review begins after a preliminary period during which the Commission will reach a ‘minded to’ decision on our council size. The Commission aims to recommend a council size that allows that council to take decisions effectively, manage the business and responsibilities of the council successfully and provide effective community leadership and representation. They state in their guidance that the key factors to be taken in to consideration when developing a council size proposal are:

1. Governance and decision making – what is the right number of councillors to take decisions and manage the business in an effective way?

2. Scrutiny functions – what is the right number of councillors to administer scrutiny responsibilities in a convenient and effective way?

3. Representational role of councillors – what is the right number of councillors to present and provide leadership to local communities?

4. The future – what governance changes are being considered and how do these impact on the number of councillors needed in the future?

As Newcastle currently elects by thirds, and could only change this through a statutory process and a decision by City Council, there is a presumption that the Commission will seek to achieve a pattern of three member wards wherever possible.

The Commission will consider this council size proposal at their meeting on 17 November 2015 and reach a ‘minded to’ decision. Following this, they will begin to consult on the future pattern of wards in the city. The timetable for our review is:

 17 November 2015 – The Commission meet to consider our council size  24 November 2015 – 1 February 2016 – The Commission invite proposals for the future pattern of wards in the city  10 May 2016 – The Commission publish their draft recommendations for the future pattern of wards in the city and invite feedback  4 July 2016 – The Commission closes consultation on their draft recommendations  6 September 2016 – The Commission publish their final recommendations  October 2016 – The Commission lays the lays an Order before both Houses of Parliament to implement their final recommendations  May 2018 – Final recommendations are implemented through whole-council elections

Section One: Our council size proposal

1.1 Newcastle City Council is an ambitious authority, proud to be doing great things for a great city.

1.2 As a core city and a prominent regional capital, with a diverse and growing economy, a popular tourism destination with a vibrant culture, a national and international transport hub and a university city, the good governance of our city is a profound responsibility.

1.3 As a city of diverse and engaged communities, including areas of significant social, health and economic challenges, our councillors play a key leadership role. We are committed to delivering excellent services and meeting the core statutory requirements that apply to all councils. But we see our role as far wider – playing an active role in improving the wellbeing of our city and the wider region, investing for the future and tackling deep seated inequalities.

1.4 This ambition sets the basis for our electoral review. We have examined in detail the demands placed on our councillors in their city-wide leadership role and in the role they play within our communities. We have looked at the time they spend on this role, the expectations of communities and the implications of radical changes to resources, means of communication and engagement.

1.5 The City Council’s Constitutional Committee is the primary governance committee of the council and has therefore led the council’s input into the review. The Committee’s discussions were informed by the following principles and observations:  The statutory responsibilities of the council, which in Newcastle include significant planning and regulatory functions associated with a vibrant and growing core city;

 The need for effective scrutiny, including the opportunity to participate in task and finish groups on specific issues;

 The distinctive tradition of ward-based working, including in areas with diverse communities and areas of significant deprivation;

 The impact of public sector cuts, both in terms of the reduction in services and facilities provided by the council and the pressures this creates in generating community-led solutions, often led or supported by local councillors;

 The importance of attracting a diverse range of individuals to stand for the council and to encourage councillors who also have other full- or part-time work commitments;

 The range of council sizes within the ‘Cipfa nearest neighbour’ group which the Commission identifies as the most appropriate comparator base; and

 The commitment of councillors to external bodies, including boards and partnerships within the city and to regional and national bodies, including the new North East Combined Authority.

1.6 In addition, Constitutional Committee agreed to recommend a number divisible by three, in keeping with the current model of elections by thirds. Any change to this arrangement 3

would need to be agreed by City Council following a statutory period of consultation with residents. It is not proposed to move to a model of un-equal sized wards, on the grounds that this would be difficult to reconcile with ward governance arrangements that allow groups of three councillors to take decisions, by majority if required.

1.7 Taking these factors in to account, it is the view of the council’s Constitutional Committee that the evidence does not justify a change in the number of councillors, therefore we propose that we retain 78 councillors.

1.8 We submit this proposal and the underlying evidence which has informed it to the Commission for independent assessment and challenge. We acknowledge that the Commission will reach an independent view based on this evidence, taking into account the council’s views and any others submitted to the Commission.

1.9 This submission has been informed by:  Discussions within Constitutional Committee, who are leading this process on behalf of the council as a whole, and within the political group;

 Desk-top research and analysis based on information held by officers, for example, committee structures, attendance at meetings, numbers of decisions at different levels and annual reports from the overview and scrutiny process;

 An understanding of the future pressures likely to be placed on councillors in Newcastle; from our statutory obligations, the need to support a growing city, the pressures arising from austerity in the public services and welfare benefits and the nature of ward-based working adopted within Newcastle;

 Feedback received through a survey completed by 47 councillors exploring their approach to their councillor role and average time spent on activity throughout the municipal year;

 Information received through a time recording exercise completed by 40 councillors during July 2015;

 Case studies of ward-based working, illustrating the diverse challenges facing councillors in their ward role; and

 The views of other interested parties in the city including Members of Parliament, Parish Councils, and other political parties not represented on the City Council but who had candidates in the May 2015 local elections. We will provide these separately to the Commission but they are summarised in Section Eight.

1.10 The remainder of this document provides the detailed evidence and rationale for our proposal, set out using the questions provided by the Commission to help guide thinking on the key factors.

Section Two: About Newcastle

Population and demography

2.1 The population of Newcastle is 289,800 according to the latest Office of National Statistics (ONS) estimates. It is the smallest of the eight Core Cities but has seen relatively rapid growth over the last ten years, by 8.6%, higher than the North East (3.1%) Great Britain (7.8%). Over the next six years to 2021, we expect the city to continue to grow by 2.3% to around 2.2 294,500 people. Due to developments and improvements in electoral registration we expect the electorate to grow faster by 12.3% from 193,045 electors to 216,045 electors over the same period. This will increase the number of residents and electors represented by each councilor.

Figure 1. Wards in Newcastle

Deprivation

2.3 Newcastle is currently the 40th most deprived local authority in the country according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010. There are people living in areas amongst the most deprived in the country as well as the most affluent. Almost a quarter of people in Newcastle live in the 10% most deprived areas nationally and a further 13% live in the 10%-20% most deprived areas. Around 7% live in the 10% least deprived areas nationally.

2.4 There are 46 of 175 Lower Level Super Output Areas (LLSOAs) in the 10% most deprived areas nationally, spread across 16 of the 26 wards in Newcastle. Wards located

along the River Tyne have concentrations of the most deprived areas. There are also pockets of deprived areas in the north and outer west wards. The more affluent wards, i.e. those in the 50% least deprived areas nationally, are located in the outer east, north and outer west wards.

Figure 2. Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 by LLSOA in Newcastle

Communities of interest, identity or experience

2.5 Newcastle has a diverse range of communities of interest, identity or experience. 40,600 (14.7%) of people living in Newcastle are from a black and minority ethnic background (BME), compared with 6.9% for the UK as a whole. Of these, 9.8% are Asian. 81.7% of Newcastle’s population (230,000 people) are White British and a further 3.7% are White Other. Of the non-white people:

 9.8% are Asian (including Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese and Other Asian, totaling 27,100 people)  1.9% are Black (5,200 people)  1.6% are Mixed (4,300 people) and  1.4% are from an Other ethnic group (4,100 people).

2.6 Elswick, Westgate (covering large parts of the city centre) and Wingrove wards are the most diverse.

Figure 3. Percentage of Black minority ethnic population by ward Source: Census 2011

2.7 There is also a consistent pattern of an increasing proportion of children from BME backgrounds in the school population each year from 2007 to 2012. In 2007, BME children accounted for 16% of the school population. In 2012 this figure had risen to 23%. The pattern is similar for children with English as an additional language (EAL), although the rise over time is slower.

The Proportion of BME and EAL Children in the School Population 2007-2012 25%

20%

15%

10%

% of School Population 5%

0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 School Year BME% EAL%

Figure 4. School population trend for children from (BME) communities and those with EAL

2.8 There is a higher concentration of non-UK born residents in particular wards. For example, one third of people living in Wingrove, Westgate and Elswick wards were born outside the UK.

Figure 5. Percentage of ward population born outside of the UK. Source: Census 2011.

2.9 ONS 2013 mid-year population estimates tell us that compared to the North East and England as a whole, Newcastle has:  A similar proportion of early and school age children;  A higher proportion of people in the transition years, influenced by students living in the city;  A lower proportion of people of working age; and  A lower proportion of people in later life.

Newcastle North East England

Life stage Number % % %

Early years (0 – 4 years) 17,200 6.0 5.8 6.3

School years (5 – 14 years) 29,100 10.1 10.8 11.4

Transition years (15 – 24 years) 60,100 21.0 13.4 12.7

Working age (25 – 64 years) 139,600 48.7 51.6 52.2

Later life (65+) 40,800 14.2 18.4 17.3

Total 286,800 100.0 100.0 100.0

2.10 In Newcastle the most notable changed to the pattern is in the increase of people in the later life stages (65+). The national pattern also reflects increases in later life stages as

well as increases in some of the younger life stages such as school years and working age males. The longer term projections, up to 2037, indicate:  A significant increase in the later life group, by almost 50% (20,000). A third of these are aged over 85;  A 8% increase in the school years stage;  Those in working age stage and those in transition years will remain similar over the period.

Figure 6. The structure of the population, by five year age bands, in 2013 and 2037 for Newcastle and national.

2.11 Census 2011 suggests that 18.7% of people in Newcastle have a long-term health problem or disability that limits their day-to-day activity to some degree, a reduction from 21.6% in 2001. Of the 18.7%, just over half are limited ‘a lot’ (26,661 people) and the rest ‘a little’ (25,916 people). As would be expected the proportion of people with limited health or disability issues increases with age, although half of all those with a long-term health problem or disability are aged between 16 and 64 years.

Figure 7. Percentage of people with a long-term health problem or disability by ward. Source: Census 2011.

2.12 In 2011 (the latest data available), 29.0% of children aged under 16 (equivalent to 13,235 children) lived in low income families in Newcastle. This compares with an England and Wales average of 20.7%.

Figure 8. Percentage of children in poverty by ward. Source HMRC September 2011

Figure 9. Population of children living in poverty as a percentage of the total population of children by LLSOA. Source: HMRC Sept 2011

2.13 Additional insights into children living in poverty can be gained from data on the number and proportion of children entitled for free school meals. The 2012 School Census data suggests 27% of children who live in Newcastle and attend a Newcastle state funded school are entitled to free school meals, equivalent to 7,413 children.

Students

2.14 There are two large universities in Newcastle. Over the last 10 years, there have been significant increases in the number of students attending these universities living in the city. In 2013-14 there were more than 40,000 full-time students living in the city. In six wards, more than 30% of the population are students (Census 2011) and a further three wards with more than 10%. These wards are predominantly concentrated in the east of the city in North Jesmond, South Jesmond, North Heaton, South Heaton, Ouseburn and Westgate wards. The city is experiencing a significant increase in new-build student developments in the city centre, although into the future this growth is likely to slow.

Section Three: Evidence relating to governance and decision making

Leadership

3.1 Newcastle City Council is currently composed of 78 councillors who represent 26 three- member wards. Councillors are elected by thirds each year which means that elections are held for one seat per ward (26 seats) each year for three successive years out of four. There is a ‘fallow year’ every four years where no elections are held.

3.2 Electoral arrangements in Newcastle were last reviewed by The Boundary Committee for England between 14 May 2002 and 21 October 2003. The review recommended that the existing council size of 78 councillors be retained and that all ward boundaries should be changed to create greater electoral equality. The new warding pattern as a result of this review was implemented through whole council elections in May 2004.

3.3 Our most recent local elections took place in May 2015 with candidates standing from the Conservatives, Green Party, It’s Time to Put Newcastle First, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts and UK Independence Party. Independent candidates also stood in three wards.

3.4 There are currently 53 Labour councillors, 22 Liberal Democrat councillors and three independent councillors.

3.5 Councillors play a prominent role in partnership arrangements within and outside Newcastle, reflecting our role within the North East region and with partners in the public and private sector within the city.

Question(s): What kind of governance arrangements are in place for your authority? Does the council operate an executive mayoral, Cabinet / Executive or committee system?

3.6 Since 1999 the council operated under an Executive style of political management. Following the enactment of the Local Government Act 2000, City Council resolved to adopt a Leader and Cabinet form with effect from May 2002. City Council later resolved to retain this following changes to the 2000 Act made by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

3.7 All 78 councillors meet together as the City Council providing a public forum for debating key issues facing the city. At its Annual Meeting the City Council appoints the Leader of the Council, the regulatory and non-executive committees of the council, advisory committees, ward committees and overview and scrutiny committees as well as appointments to the North East Combined Authority (NECA) and joint authorities / committees and outside bodes. Details of appointments are provided throughout the relevant sections of this document and are listed in full in the schedules attached at Appendix 3.

3.8 The current committee structure consists of:  Cabinet – responsible for most strategic decisions.  Ward Committees – deal with service issues at a ward level and involve local people in decision making.

 Scrutiny Committees – scrutinise the work carried out by the Cabinet and officers to ensure that the council delivers its objectives.  Non-Executive Committees – some decisions such as those about planning, licensing, employment and the constitution cannot be made by Cabinet. Separate committees have been set up to either make these decisions or to make recommendations to the City Council. They include: o Constitutional – council's constitution, corporate governance and strategic human resources issues. o Planning Committee – deals with planning functions. o Regulatory and Appeals – regulatory and licensing functions except those in the Licensing Act 2003. o Licensing – all licensing functions defined in the Licensing Act 2003 along with a range of appeals. o Standards – promotes high standards of conduct by councillors.  Advisory Committees – set up to advise City Council, Cabinet and officers before they make decisions. They include: o Audit Committee – oversees issues relating to financial probity. o Corporate Parent Advisory Committee – monitors the work of the council and other related agencies in contributing towards positive outcomes for looked after children. o Mansion House Trust Advisory – in its function as sole trustee. o Voluntary Sector Liaison Group.

3.9 Committee meetings need to be quorate to enable decisions to be made.

3.10 A strong and transparent democratic process underpins the effective governance of Newcastle City Council. Elected councillors play a vital role in this by providing community and political leadership through their decision making roles. The council’s decision making process reinforces these roles by being open and accountable to the public. We continually monitor, review and improve the way that this process operates, always with the aim of strengthening political leadership and enhancing the democratic process in the city.

3.11 In May 2011 we implemented a range of important changes to streamline and simplify committee structures. This included integrating responsibility for taxi licensing, street trading applications, housing appeals, personnel appeals, local tax and revenue appeals and objections to traffic orders into a single Regulatory and Appeals Committee, as well as streamlining various partnership arrangements. Monthly Policy Cabinet meetings were introduced, in addition to the existing monthly Cabinet meetings, to improve public engagement in and visibility of Cabinet decisions and policy development. The reduction in the number of committees has not, however, been matched by a proportionate reduction in the demands on those committees, which typically means that the number of meetings and the volume of decisions has not reduced in consequence. Some recent increases in the membership of some committees has been necessary to accommodate this workload.

3.12 Scrutiny arrangements were simplified, reducing from nine committees in 2010 to four in 2011. These were reviewed again in 2013 and replaced by two new committees with an Overview and Scrutiny Committee taking overall responsibility for the scrutiny process 13

and a Health Scrutiny Committee to meet our statutory obligation to scrutinise the NHS and care system. A scrutiny working group on finance and budget issues, initially established on a task and finish basis to focus on the development and delivery of a three year budget, has become a permanent group to deal with the scale of difficult financial decisions which the council has had to take in recent years. The scrutiny process is also supported by other subgroups and task and finish groups which enable a greater range of councillors to get involved, particularly on specific issues of public concern. All non- Cabinet members are invited to participate in these groups and many have done so since this arrangement was instituted.

3.13 Building on this continual improvement process, in 2014 Constitutional Committee undertook a further review of some committees and identified where further changes could be made. From the Annual Meeting of City Council in 2014, Cabinet took on responsibility for procurement decisions, which meant there was no need for a separate Procurement Committee. A committee of Cabinet was established to take decisions on discretionary rate relief. A review of Audit Committee and Standards Committee concluded earlier in 2015 and although no change was proposed to either committee, new terms of reference and reporting were agreed for Audit Committee. There are strong links between our Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Audit Committee, see Section Four for more details. Changes to the operation of City Council meetings were implemented from the Annual Meeting in 2015, with the number of meetings reduced from 11 per year (including the Annual Meeting) to eight meetings per year, starting in 2015-16. A further review of the planning, regulatory and licensing committees will be undertaken later in the current municipal year.

3.14 The council is also supported by a number of independent people, who play an important role and bring an independent perspective to the governance of the council. Independent people are co-opted onto Audit Committee (four, including the Chair), Standards Committee (two, the Chair and Vice-Chair) and the Independent Remuneration Panel (up to five). The council also draws on the support of two independent persons to provide advice to the Monitoring Officer on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for councillors.

Ward governance

3.15 Ward-based working has a long history in Newcastle, with roots in arrangements in place since the 1970s. Whereas other councils have tended to adopt area-based approaches, the distinctive communities in Newcastle, and the tradition of councillors taking direct governance responsibilities within their ward, have tended to focus locality working at the ward level.

3.16 Each ward has a ward committee, made up of the three councillors representing the ward, which meets four times a year. The purpose of ward committees is to inform and involve residents in issues that are relevant to them and to gain feedback about what is happening in their area. The meetings are referred to as ‘Get Togethers’ and provide residents an opportunity to meet their councillors, share views about their neighbourhoods and make decisions about where they live. This supplements ‘walkabouts’ which councillors do as often as possible within their wards, to encourage different people, who perhaps wouldn’t attend a ward committee, to also interact with councillors. They take place in a variety of locations and formats across wards to ensure they are accessible as possible. Council officers and other agencies also attend the meetings and are tasked to get things done and improve the local area. The frequency of ward committees has reduced in recent years and feedback from councillors is that this has increased the number of informal meetings that take place in the ward. 14

3.17 Each ward is different and ward committees have taken different approaches based on their own distinctive communities and the needs of their residents. The local role of councillors also differs between wards. To illustrate this diversity, and to provide a greater insight into the pressures and expectations on councillors within their neighbourhoods, this paper provides a series of case studies. These case studies are edited from information provided directly from councillors for those wards, as provided in Appendix 4. Further information on the neighbourhood role of councillors is provided in Section Five.

Case study: Castle ward Castle ward has a population of 8,554 people living in five distinct areas across the 25 square miles. The ward is changing with development taking place at several sites and others ear marked for the near future. Dinnington is represented by Dinnington Parish Council and facilities include a first school, village hall, association building from which a volunteer run library is operated, a post office, two pub restaurants, a shop and a doctors surgery. Sheltered accommodation and dementia care bungalows are currently being build and two other sites are earmarked for development which will increase the size of the village by 80%. Brunswick is also represented by a Parish Council and the majority of homes are council owned, including a number of sheltered accommodation and dementia care bungalows and unit. The parish has one shop and take away and a Sure Start Centre which the councillor opens for our of hours groups following the community group disbanding. Hazelrigg village is also represented by a Parish Council and has a village hall and junior football team. There is poor private housing and development is taking place which will double the size of the village. Kingston Park was built in the 1970’s and most residents own their own home. There is a primary school, large shopping centre with a 24 hour supermarket and other well-known high street stores. The Metro station and good bus service provide access to other parts of the city but not to or from other villages within the ward. Newcastle Great Park is a new development of 3,250 homes and is growing weekly, for example, admissions to the first school have increased to 90 this year, with 194 applications. There is a community building and a private nursery. New residents raise numerous issues with councillors around completions, adoptions and the lack of shops. There are farms and other villages to the north of the ward where there are no facilities or local transport to other parts of the ward or city. There are no links to provide access between villages in the ward. Councillors hold surgeries, including two per month is Dinnington, and use local newsletters to areas within the ward to engage with residents as well as chairing community groups and attending neighbourhood forums.

Question(s): How many portfolios are there?

3.18 Cabinet is responsible for most strategic decisions. Section 9C of the Local Government Act 2000 provides that the number of a local authority executive may not exceed 10. The Cabinet may therefore consist of the Leader together with at least two, but not more than nine, councillors.

3.19 Our Cabinet portfolio structure was put in place in May 2015, details of the remit for each portfolio listed below is included in Appendix 1:  Leader of the Council – Councillor Nick Forbes  Deputy Leader of Council – Councillor Joyce McCarty  Cabinet Secretary – Councillor Stephen Powers  Cabinet Member for Communities and Facilities – Councillor David Stockdale  Cabinet Member for Resources – Councillor Veronica Dunn  Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regulatory Services – Councillor Nick Kemp  Cabinet Member for Public Health and Housing – Councillor Jane Streather  Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health – Councillor Karen Kilgour  Cabinet Member for Children and Young People – Councillor Joanne Kingsland  Cabinet Member for Investment and Development – Councillor Ged Bell

3.20 Two Liberal Democrats are also appointed to be observers at Cabinet.

Decision making

Question(s): To what extent are decisions delegated to portfolio holders or are most decisions taken by the full Executive and / or Mayor?

3.21 In May 2011, the Leader delegated the power make executive decisions to any individual Cabinet member. Decisions are either made by the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet, individual members of the Cabinet or officers.

3.22 When major decisions are to be discussed or made, these are published in the Cabinet's Forward Plan. The Forward Plan is widely available so that other councillors and the public are aware of the major matters that will be considered in the future so they can express their views to the Cabinet members. This Forward Plan goes beyond the minimum 28 days’ notice required for key decisions, providing a forward plan for four months.

3.23 The Cabinet has to make decisions which are in line with the council's overall policies and budget. If it wishes to make a decision which is outside the budget or policy framework, this must be referred to City Council as a whole to decide.

3.24 During the 2014-15 municipal year a total of 525 formal decisions were made under our delegations. Many of which were delegated to officers but big strategic decisions are taken by councillors:  Cabinet decision – 86 (16.4% of all decisions)  Planning Committee decision – 96 (18.3% of all decisions)  Cabinet delegated decision – 44 (8.4% of all decisions)  Officer delegated decision – 299 (56.9% of all decisions)

Partnership arrangements

Question(s): Do Cabinet members serve on other decision making partnerships, sub-regional, regional or national bodies?

3.25 Newcastle is involved in a number of prominent partnership arrangements within and beyond the city. The role of the city within the North East region, as a Core City and as a prominent participant in a number of interest and advocacy groups, is an important element of our outward-looking role. For many years Newcastle has sought to influence national policy agendas, to play an active role within our region and to contribute to the development of the wider local government sector. We expect this role to continue into the future and to develop strongly, particularly in the light of the prospect of devolution to Combined Authorities.

3.26 The Wellbeing for Life Board fulfils the statutory requirement to have a Health and Wellbeing Board. It also acts as the inter-sectoral steering group for Newcastle’s involvement in the World Health Organisation (WHO) European Healthy City Network. Section 194 of the Health and Social Care Act 2000 provides that there must be at least one councillor on the Health and Wellbeing Board. Six councillors are members of the Board:  Leader of Council – Chair  Deputy Leader of Council – Vice-Chair  Cabinet Member Adult Care and Health  Cabinet Member Children and Young People  Cabinet Member Public Health and Housing  Opposition Member

3.27 Our Chief Executive, Director of Wellbeing, Care and Learning and Director of Public Health are also on the Board.

3.28 All Cabinet members take a lead on partnership and other external bodies, both within the city and the wider region. Cabinet members, and other councillors, are appointed by City Council to be representatives on the North East Combined Authority and joint authorities / committees. Including:  North East Combined Authority  Transport North East Committee and Tyne and Wear Sub-Committee  North East Local Enterprise Partnership  North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO)  Joint Street Lighting Committee  Joint Tyne Bridges Committee  LA7 Airport Board  Northumbria Police and Crime Panel  Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums Joint Committee  Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Authority  Gateshead Newcastle Partnership  Tyne and Wear Pensions  Tyne and Wear Joint Trading Standards Committee

3.29 More detail about the scope of each of these bodies is included in Appendix 2. More information about the North East Combined Authority is provided in later sections of this

document. The full schedules of appointments made by City Council are included in Appendix 3.

3.30 Our Cabinet, in particular the Leader of the Council, also represent the council and the city through other organisations, for example, the Local Government Association (LGA), Core Cities, Association of North East Councils (ANEC) and Transport for the North. Other councillors, including opposition and backbench councillors, also have specific roles within the LGA, for example, the Leader of the Opposition is a member of the LGA Safer Communities Board, and are involved in the work of ANEC and other regional organisations.

3.31 On a national level, the Leader of the Council is the LGA Deputy Chair, on the LGA Leadership Board and LGA Executive, as well as the City Regions, Councillors Forum, Local Government Finance Advisory Group and Labour’s National Policy Forum. He is also the Vice Chair of the Core Cities and on the Reform group and has associated leadership responsibilities for report writing, speeches, events and press activity. Regionally, the Leader has a key role in the combined authority which as well as formal meetings involves regular councillor only meetings and conference calls, officer briefings and leading of topic-specific seminars. The Leader is the transport Lead for the North East Combined Authority and also Rail North, Transport for the North, HS2 East and City Regions Transport Specialist Interest Group. He is the Vice Chair of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service as well as being on the Policy and Performance Sub Committee and the Appointment Panel. Finally, the Leader chairs the Regional Health and Wellbeing Chairs Network and FRESH, the campaign for a smoke-free North East. Locally, additional roles of the Leader include chairing the City Deal Steering Group and City Deal Working Group, and being a member of the Newcastle Culture Investment Fund and the Newcastle University Court.

3.32 The Deputy Leader of the Council also has additional informal roles which include the Newcastle Transport Forum, substitute role on a number of transport forums, for example, East Coast Mainline and transport seminars, Tynexe Board, Your Homes Newcastle as well as their Commercial Committee and attending regular training and visits, the Welfare Rights Group, chairing the Domestic Violence Working Group, leading financial inclusion workshops and being a member of the Economic Development and Regeneration Board of the North East Combined Authority.

Question(s): In general, are leadership and / or portfolio roles considered to be full time roles?

3.33 Cabinet meets once a month to discuss business issues. The meetings usually last between one and two hours. Cabinet also hold a series of Policy Cabinets throughout the year focussing on key issues facing the city. However the role of Cabinet members goes well beyond the times required for formal meetings.

3.34 All councillors were invited to complete a survey and time recording exercise during July (see below for more details). During July, on average Cabinet members recorded 44.7 hours in total on their Cabinet roles. This commitment tends to be variable depending on the pressures of business. Time spent by Cabinet members on their Cabinet duties ranged up to 12 hours a day, with time spent in one week ranging up to 29 hours. The time recording exercise and comments from Cabinet members suggest that some are approaching a full time role, while all face many demands on their time alongside their Cabinet commitments. Five of our ten Cabinet members are employed (four on a full-time basis) and one is self-employed.

3.35 The Leader of the Council and Deputy Leader of the Council also have significant roles within the wider Labour Group as well as leading and attending meetings of Group Officers, Executive and full Labour Group, including planning and preparation. They lead of a range of Cabinet related internal meetings, such as Informal Cabinet, Cabinet and Directors Team, Leader’s Board (with the Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive) and Quad meetings specifically looking at the budget. There are regular away days for planning purposes, for Cabinet, Labour Group, Cabinet and Directors Team and with Your Homes Newcastle. Both the Leader and Deputy Leader also serve regularly on a range of task and finish groups, for example, set up through Cabinet or with Your Homes Newcastle. They hold an on-going series of portfolio meetings with each portfolio holder and lead Director, respond to questions to City Council and public questions time.

3.36 Operationally, the Leader and Deputy Leader are responsible for the sign off of the Forward Plan for Cabinet, clearing Cabinet reports and leading the budget through a Star Chamber process. A monthly Cabinet update is produced, alongside annual reports of Cabinet to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and City Council. They take the leadership role which includes proactive and reactive press and communications, delivering keynote speeches, welcoming VIPs and international visitors to the city (for example, High Commissioners, Ambassadors, twin town visitors, potential investors), hold regular meetings with key stakeholders in the city, for example, through State of the City events, sectoral business breakfasts, with faith leaders, schools and head teachers. They are also heavily involved in discussions across the city and region relating to devolution and have key roles in Peer Reviews, those reviewing the council, such as the Health and Wellbeing Peer Review, and also as panel members for reviews of other authorities.

Councillors’ survey and time recording During July, councillors were asked to complete a time recording exercise to supplement a survey about the average time they spent on specific activities. Councillors were asked to record their time spent on: 1. Governance and decision making  Cabinet responsibilities  Chair / Vice-Chair responsibilities  Other meetings  Preparing for formal council meetings, partner organisations / outside bodies (excluding scrutiny)  Roles within a political party, e.g. whip  Sitting on formal council meetings, partner organisations / outside bodies (excluding scrutiny)  Training

2. Representational role  Carrying out home visits  Community engagement (newsletters, surgery, blogs, website, social media, walkabouts)  Meetings with other community organisations, e.g. Parish Councils, Residents' Associations etc  Responding to enquiries  Ward issues

3. Scrutiny

4. Other activity Forty councillors provided completed time recording spreadsheets in time to be included in the analysis. Some councillors who completed the survey noted that July was not a ‘normal’ month as there are less council meetings, schools have broken up and councillors, staff and residents are on holiday. It should be noted however that during July there was a meeting of Cabinet, Licensing Committee, Standard Committee, Planning Committee, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Constitutional Committee, Regularly and Appeals Committee and some ward committees. The same activities were explored in more detail in a survey, asking councillors to reflect on their approach and the average time they spent on specific activities during the 2014-15 municipal year. Forty seven councillors completed the survey in time to be included in the analysis. The findings from the survey and time recording exercise are included throughout this document.

Regulatory and Licensing Functions

Question(s): In relation to licencing, planning and other regulatory responsibilities, to what extent are decisions delegated to officers? How many councillors are involved in committees? Is committee membership standing or rotating? Are meetings ad hoc, frequent and / or area based? What level of attendance is achieved? Are meetings always quorate? Does the council believe that changes to legislation, national or local policy will have influence on the workload of committees and their members which would have an impact on council size?

3.37 Newcastle has a particularly prominent role in its regulatory and licencing functions. We have a flourishing night time economy, which attracts visitors from across the world, with a successful leisure, bar, restaurant and entertainment sector. Although one of the safest cities in the UK, this feature of our city creates an important responsibility to promote community safety and good public health, through an active licensing and regulatory system. We are at the forefront of new developments, for example, as the first authority in the country to introduce a Night Time Levy, taking an active role to the promotion of high standards in licensed premises and to combat threats to public safety and health such as so-called ‘legal highs’.

3.38 Our licensing functions are performed through the Regulatory and Appeals and the Licensing Committees. Section 6(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 provides that each licensing authority must establish a Licensing Committee of at least 10, but no more than 15, councillors. There is no specific legislation relating to the size of the Regulatory and Appeals Committee.

3.39 The Regulatory and Appeals Committee has a very important role to play in the life of the city. It determines licensing applications under many different statutory regimes, from taxi licences to street trading. Premise licences and matters concerning the Licensing Act 2003 are heard by the Licensing Committee.

3.40 The decisions made by the Regulatory and Appeals Committee are very important to the applicants since they can affect their ability to earn their living and can have serious financial consequences. But the role is also important for the wider community because of the impact on health and safety, the local community and competing economic interests.

3.41 There are 14 councillors on the Regulatory Appeals Committee (10 Labour and four Liberal Democrats). The Committee discharges its responsibilities via Regulatory and Appeals Sub Committees, which consider applications and appeals. These consist of three members drawn from the main committee and must include a Chair or Vice Chair. There is a rota of councillors which helps to ensure that workload is distributed across the full members. The number of councillors on this committee was increased from 12 in 2011-12.

3.42 Meetings are held once every two weeks and typically last three hours with an agenda of between five and ten applications/appeals to consider, but some can last a whole day. Between 150 and 160 applications are considered by councillors each year over 20 meetings.

3.43 The Regulatory and Appeals Committee make decisions in respect of the grant of licences on the following matters:  Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 (As Amended)  Street Trading (Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 – Schedule 4  Street Collections - Police, Factories, Etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916  House to House Collections Act 1939  Pet Shops (Pet Animals Act 1951)  Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963  Riding Establishments Act 1964  Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976  Zoo Licensing Act 2002  Dog Breeders (Breeders of Dogs Act 1973 / Breeding of Dogs Act 1991)  Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013  Civil Marriages and Civil Ceremonies Marriage Act 1949 & Religious Premises Approved Premises Registration  Private Hire Drivers, Vehicles & Operators - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976  Hackney Carriages Drivers & Vehicles (Town Police Clauses Act 1847)  Poisons Act 1972  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as inserted in the Highways Act 1982  Hypnotism Act 1952  Commons Act 2006  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Part VIII

3.44 Following a change in 2011, the Committee also deals with personnel and housing appeals.

3.45 The meeting is reconstituted with three different members to hear traffic appeal matters in the afternoon.

3.46 The Licensing Committee discharges its functions via the Licensing Sub Committee, which consists of 14 councillors who meet once every fortnight. In 2010-11 there were 15 councillors on the committee, this was reduced to 12 from 2011-12 and increased to 14 in 2015-16. Meetings can last up to six hours, depending on the number of applications. The Licensing Committee makes decisions on alcohol premises licences, the licensing of sexual entertainment establishments and gambling matters. The committee review licensing and other policy on a three year programme. The Licensing Sub Committee panel hearings are heard by three councillors, drawn from the main committee, one of whom acts as the meeting Chair.

3.47 In Newcastle, decisions on applications are delegated to officers, with the Licensing Sub Committee hearing only those applications where representation has been made by either a responsible body or members of the public or where it is proposed that a license is revoked or refused. 56 hearings took place during 2014-15 over 24 meetings. In recent years the workload of the committees has been relatively static with some minor fluctuations and the anticipated number of meetings for 2015-16 will mirror 2014-15 levels.

3.48 The Law Commission has not recommended changes that are likely to give rise to a significant reduction in hearings. Given the current and anticipated workload of the

committees, it is not considered by officers that any reduction in the size of the two committees would be appropriate or manageable.

Planning and Development

3.49 Newcastle is a growing city with ambitions to expand the range and quality of housing, to support inward investment and new developments. We are one of the first authorities to complete the statutory process for a Local Development Framework, and to do so jointly with our neighbouring authority of Gateshead. Now the Framework is in place, we expect a substantial increase in applications for planning permission. As the economy grows, and our investments in key development sites bears fruit, the level of business and developer interest in Newcastle is growing significantly. For this reason, our planning function is likely to be particularly active in the years ahead and the obligation on the council to support growth and manage the social and environmental consequences will be particularly critical.

3.50 The Planning Committee carries out our regulatory functions under the relevant planning legislation. The committee consists of 14 councillors (10 Labour and four Liberal Democrats) and meets every three weeks. Membership of committee was increased in May 2015 from 12 to 14 in anticipation of the increase in workload resulting from the approval of the Local Development Framework and release of land in the green belt for 6,000 houses. There is no specific legislation relating to the size of Planning Committee, but given the pressures arising from planning applications over the next few years we expect to maintain a committee of at least current numbers, with the possibility that numbers may need to increase to accommodate peaks in workload.

3.51 The delegation scheme reflects national best practice models in that all application decisions are delegated, unless they are identified as falling within the following terms of reference: 1. Applications (other than those for the discharge of reserved matters or conditions or for applications under Section 73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended) for major development as defined for the purposes of the government PS2 statistical return i.e.:  Residential development of 10 or more dwellings or, where numbers not specified, the site area is more than 0.5 hectares;  Other development where the floor space is 1000 sq. metres or more or the site is 1 hectare or more; or  Where a major development is subject to a change of use, it will be classed as a major development and not as a change of use.

Provided that officers may determine applications for major development which consists of external alterations to 10 or more flats. 2. Mineral Applications (other than those for the discharge of conditions or for applications under s73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) as defined for the purposes of the government PS2 statistical returns, i.e. applications under the National Land Use Classification M101D, MA06A, TR05B. 3. Applications (other than applications under s73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) which are a departure from the Development Plan and which would need to be notified to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Directions 2009 if the council was minded to grant permission for them. 4. Applications which are subject to an objection from a statutory consultee (as defined in Article 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 which has not been resolved by negotiation or the imposition of conditions. 5. Applications submitted by or on behalf of the council for its own development which are the subject of substantive planning objections which have not been resolved by negotiation or the imposition of conditions. 6. Applications submitted by or on behalf of a city councillor or their spouse/partner. 7. Applications submitted by or on behalf of any member of staff of the Investment and Development Directorate.

3.52 The scheme of delegation also provides officers the opportunity to refer applications which would normally be delegated to the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee to consider whether the application should be determined by the Planning Committee having had regard for: 1. A councillor, applicant or other person with a significant interest has, within the statutory publicity period, requested in writing with reasons that the matter be determined by committee. 2. It is desirable that representations for and/or against a development proposal should be heard by the committee. 3. The impact of the development on communities, businesses or individuals. 4. The number, strength and issues raised in public representations. 5. There are significant national planning policy or development plan implications raised in the proposal. 6. Formal Environmental Impact Assessment is involved. 7. The scale and/or complexity of the development. 8. The characteristics and sensitivity of the site or adjacent sites, including amenity and heritage considerations. 9. The nature of the planning history and the history of previous committee involvement. 10. Council owned land is involved and it is prudent and in the public interest that the decision is taken by committee. 11. The matter is likely to involve either a fine balance between alternative decisions or disputed / uncertain matters of fact or law which ought in the interests of natural justice to be considered by committee.

There are legal consequences arising from the determination of the application which are of such significance that they ought to be considered by committee. 12. There are other factors which indicate a committee decision to be appropriate.

3.53 Taking into account the all of the circumstances identified above around 96% of decisions made are delegated to officers. The number of applications received has been broadly similar for a number of years with around 1,500 received each year. However this period has also witnessed a significant increase in the number of large or complex schemes being received that would normally be decided by Planning Committee. It is highly likely that this trend will continue if targets on housing and employment outlined in the recently adopted Core Strategy document are to be delivered. The Core Strategy sets a target of delivering 19,000 new homes across the city by 2030 in order to keep pace with a rising population. Independent estimates forecast that the population of Newcastle and Gateshead will continue to grow. To support that anticipated population growth the Core Strategy also outlines plans to create 14,000 additional jobs within Newcastle through continuing to build on its reputation as a vibrant retail centre, but also by exploring employment opportunities in new sectors such as offshore engineering, life sciences and digital industries. To make these aims a reality, in most cases Planning Committee approval will be required beforehand.

3.54 We have also seen a significant increase in the number of large / complex schemes which will often need to be decided at committee. Following adoption of the Core Strategy and subsequent release of green belt sites this trend is likely to continue and therefore increase the workload of Planning Committee.

Question(s): Is there a formal role description for councillors in your authority?

3.55 We do not have a formal job description for councillors. The Newcastle Charter outlines the role and functions of councillors as: a) Key roles. All councillors will: i. Collectively be the ultimate policy-makers and carry out a number of strategic and corporate management functions; ii. Represent their communities and bring their views into the council’s decision-making process, i.e. become the advocate of and for their communities; iii. Deal with individual casework and act as an advocate for constituents in resolving particular concerns or grievances; iv. Respond to constituents’ enquiries and representations, fairly and impartially; v. Balance different interests identified within the ward and represent the ward as a whole; vi. Contribute to the good governance of the area and actively encourage community participation and citizen involvement in decision making; vii. Effectively represent the interests of their ward and of individual constituents; viii. Be involved in decision-making; ix. Participate in the governance and management of the council;

x. Be available to represent the council on other bodies; and xi. Maintain the highest standards of conduct and ethics.

3.56 b) Rights and duties: i. Councillors will have such rights of access to such documents, information, land and buildings of the council as are necessary for the proper discharge of their functions and in accordance with the law; and ii. Councillors will not make public information which is confidential or exempt without the consent of the council or divulge information given in confidence to anyone other than a councillor or officer entitled to know it.

3.57 The roles of City Council and individual committees are also laid out within the Newcastle Charter including responsibilities for setting a balanced budget for the council each year, carrying out scrutiny functions, deciding on planning and licensing matters and other non- Executive functions. Details of these are included in relevant sections of this document.

3.58 Being a councillor also carries responsibilities for individuals representing a political party and they have to be accountable to both their political party and the local political organisations too. Reporting back on their achievements as well as being held to account by party members for decisions are a crucial part of the activity of local councillors as well as of the democratic process. In addition, councillors also produce newsletters for residents to ensure they are informed about the work of the local elected councillor team.

Question(s): Do councillors receive formal training for all or any roles at the council?

3.59 Councillors are invited to speak to Human Resources about any training and development needs they may have. This is done on a one to one basis and helps to form their Personal Development Plan for the municipal year which councillors are responsible for maintaining. A Member Learning and Development form is included in the papers pack for every City Council meeting, councillors can use this form each month to highlight any training requirements. Councillors have access to our Learning Management System which has a wide range of short, online courses ranging from managing conflict through to data protection and safeguarding. Councillors are also offered training if they are appointed to any committees which require specific knowledge, such as planning, licensing and appeals.

3.60 All newly elected councillors are invited to an induction. In 2015 the New Members Induction Programme was held immediately following the local elections on 7 May 2015. All candidates were informed of the initial induction date by the letter once the nominations for the election closed on 9 April 2015 so they had the opportunity to schedule the session with as much notice as possible. Additional dates were included in the Members Induction Pack, given to councillors immediately after they were elected on the night. The induction consisted of four sessions, with between four and seven of the councillors attending each.

3.61 Following the City Council Annual Meeting on 27 May 2015, a series of training sessions was provided for councillors newly appointed to committees:  Planning Committee – five new members  Licensing Committee – four new members  Regulatory and Appeals Committee – two new members

3.62 Other briefing sessions have also been held either at the request of City Council or on key issues facing the city such as Universal Credit, which 23 councillors attended, and Child Exploitation with courses being held this year. Training and briefings are also provided throughout the year at the request of specific committees on particular subjects, for example, for the last two years we have provided additional training for councillors appointed scrutiny committees on effective questioning and joint briefings for both scrutiny committees and Audit Committee on how performance is monitored, governed and reported.

3.63 71.7% of those councillors who responded to the survey stated that they had received appropriate training to fulfil their role as a councillor. In response to a separate question, 78.3% of respondents said that they had received training in relation to a specific role they hold as a councillor, as appointed by City Council.

3.64 Councillors were also asked to outline how much time, on average, they spent attending training or briefings during the 2014-15 municipal year:  Not applicable – 21.3% of respondents (10)  1-5 hours – 38.3% of respondents (18)  6-10 hours – 14.9% of respondents (7)  11-15 hours – 8.5% of respondents (4)  16-20 hours – 4.3% of respondents (2)  Over 20 hours – 12.8% of respondents (6)

3.65 Of those councillors who completed the time recording exercise during July, the average time spent attending training was 1.8 hours in total during the month. 22 councillors said they attended training during this period, with one spending up to 18 hours in one week.

Question(s): Do councillors generally find that the time they spend on council business is what they expected?

3.66 62.2% of respondents to the survey indicated that, in general, the time they spend on being a councillor is as they expected. The total time recorded by the 40 councillors who took part in the time recording exercise in July was 3,785.2 hours, an average of 94.6 hours each, or just over three hours on average per day during the 31 day period. All councillors Cabinet Non-Cabinet (40) (10) (30) Governance and decision making 11511.2 804.5 706.7 Representational role 1896.7 270.8 1,626.0 Scrutiny 115.3 6.0 109.3 Other 262.0 96.5 165.5 Total hours recorded 3,785.2 1,177.8 2,607.4 Average per councillor 94.63 117.78 86.91 Average per day (31 days) 3.05 3.80 2.80 Average per week 21.35 26.6 19.6 3.67 Details of the range of time spent on each activity are included throughout this document. Question(s): How much time do councillors generally spend on the business of your council? 3.68 Analysis of appointments to City Council, ward committees, other committees and delegated sub-committees shows that:

 Ten councillors are appointed to City Council and ward committee only.  18 councillors are appointed to City Council and ward committee plus one other committee.  19 councillors are appointed to City Council and ward committee plus two other committees.  11 councillors are appointed to City Council and ward committee plus three other committees.  Ten councillors are appointed to City Council and ward committee plus four other committees.  Ten councillors are appointed to City Council and ward committee plus more than five other committees.

3.69 Time spent on the business of the council during 2014-15 was explored through the survey, key findings were:  37.8% of respondents spend over 20 hours per month on average sitting on formal council committee meetings, partner organisations / outside bodies to which they had been appointed by City Council.  Time spent by respondents preparing for these meetings varied, with 28.9% spending between 1-5 hours per month on average and 17.3% spending over 20 hours per month.  51.2% of respondents said that they held a position of Chair or Vice-Chair, with the majority spending 6-10 hours per month carrying out this role.  Cabinet members tend to spend over 20 hours per month on average fulfilling their Cabinet role.  35.9% of respondents were a member of scrutiny during 2014-15 and 10 respondents stated that they spend between 6 and 10 hours per month on this role.  Just over half of the respondents stated that they also undertake a specific role within their group, for example, treasurer or whip.

3.70 33.9% of all of the time recorded during July was spent on activity relating to governance and decision making. This equated to 1,511 hours in total, 37.8 hours on average per councillor who took part, or 1.2 hours per day. Of this:  29.6% (447.0 hours) was spent on Cabinet member responsibilities, with councillors on average spending 11.2 hours on this (see above for more details on time spent on Cabinet activity).  2.6% (39.5 hours) was spent on Chair and Vice Chair responsibilities, with councillors on average spending one hour on this in total but individuals spending between one and four hours in one week.  19.8% (299.2 hours) was spent on attending other meetings, with councillors on average spending 7.5 hours on this in total, or 1.7 hours each per week, but individuals spending between half an hour and 20 hours in one week.  19.1% (288.2 hours) was spent preparing for formal council meetings, partner organisations / outside bodies, with councillors on average spending 7.2 hours on this in total, or 1.62 hours each week, but individuals spending between half an hour and 12 hours in one week.

 6.8% (102.8 hours) was spend on roles within a political party, such as treasurer or whip, with councillors on average spending 2.6 hours on this in total, or 0.6 hours each week, but with individuals spending between one and 12 hours in one week.  17.8% (269.5 hours) was spent sitting on formal council meetings, partner organisations / outside bodies, with councillors on average spending 6.7 hours on this in total, or 1.5 hours per week on average, but individuals spending between 1.5 and 13 hours in one week.  4.3% (65.0 hours) was spent on attending training (see above for more details about time spent on training).

Question(s): Does the council appoint councillors to outside bodies? If so, how many councillors are involved in this activity and what is their expected workload?

3.71 As well as appointing to committees and joint authorities, City Council also appoints councillors to be representatives on other bodies. Of our 78 councillors, 50 are formally appointed to outside bodies.

3.72 There are 61 other bodies appointed to which range from the Youth Offending Board, Students in Newcastle Forum, Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education, North East of England Refugee Service, Newcastle Armed Forces Forum, Heart of the City Partnership, Newcastle and Gateshead Partnership, Byker Community Trust and the Adoption Panel. Appendix 3 outlines the full list as part of the schedules of appointments made by City Council.

Question(s): Does the council attract and retain councillors?

3.73 We continue to attract a range of people to stand to be councillors. The number of candidates who stood for seats in the May 2015 local elections increased by 29 from the May 2014 local elections. The number of parties represented decreased between the two elections however parties in the May 2015 elections had candidates in more wards and there were more independent candidates. This is likely to be as a result of Parliamentary elections taking place at the same time. The main political parties continue to have representatives in each ward. Party 2014 2015 Brit Dems Stop Immigration Leave EU 4 0 Conservatives 27 27 Green Party 6 24 Independent candidates 1 5 It’s Time to Put Newcastle First 3 6 Labour 27 28 Liberal Democrats 27 28 Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts 7 7 UK Independence Party 19 26 Total 122 151 3.74 We also continue to retain councillors. Eight of our councillors were newly elected or re- elected in May 2015 while one councillor has served for over 48 years.

Length of service No. of councillors Over 40 years’ 1 Between 30 and 39 years 1 Between 20 and 29 years 12 Between 10 and 19 years 19 Less than 10 years 45 Total 78 3.75 Of those councillors with less than 10 years’ service, 20 have served less than four years, i.e. they are within their first electorate cycle, and six of these councillors were newly elected to the council in May 2015. A significant decrease in the number of councillors could increase workload for each councillor which could result in people not being attracted to the role.

3.76 Political groups within the city have been successful in recruiting candidates from different backgrounds across the city. This is shown in the diversity of our councillors and helps to ensure that they are representative of our residents and communities. Of those councillors who have declared personal information:  61.84% are male, this has remained fairly static over the last five years  27.63% are aged between 25 to 44, 38.16% are aged between 45 to 64, 31.58% are aged between 65 and 74 and 2.63% are aged over 75. This has changed from 2011 when 1.3% were aged 16 to 24, 28.57% were aged between 25 and 44, 48.05% were aged between 45 to 64, 20.78% were aged between 65 and 74 and 1.3% were aged over 75.  88.16% are White, British while 2.63% are Asian Bangladeshi, 1.32% are Asian Pakistani and 7.89% have not declared their ethnicity. Again, this has remained relatively static over the last five years.  13.16% are Christian, 1.32% are Muslim, 22.37% have no religion, 6.58% prefer not to say what their religion is while it is unknown for 56.58%.This has changed from 2011, mainly through more people providing the information, 9.09% were declared as Christian, 1.30% Muslim, 1.3% no religion, 1.3% preferring not to say and 87.01% unknown.  5.26% have a disability, this has increased from 3.90% in 2011.

3.77 Anecdotally, the age profile of councillors in Newcastle is lower than that of neighbouring authorities who have more councillors who are retired from employment, and therefore less work pressures.

3.78 Of the 47 councillors who completed the survey, 32 said that they are employed or have caring responsibilities, of these:  17 are employed full time, working over 30 hours per week  2 are employed part-time, working less than 30 hours per week  6 are self-employed, either full time or part time  10 have caring responsibilities

3.79 As a result, the majority of our committee meetings are scheduled to take place late in the afternoon or early in the evening, such as City Council which starts at 6pm.

3.80 The majority of councillors who responded to the survey (67%) feel that being a councillor had impacted upon their career or has affected their career progression. Five of the respondents stated that they have had to reduce their working hours, four respondents

stated that being a councillor has meant that they are less flexible at work or need to take more time off to attend meetings, two respondents said they had to give up work due to their councillor role while four respondents stated being a councillor impacts upon their chances of promotion or limits the jobs that they could apply for.

Question(s): Have there been any instances where the council has been unable to discharge its duties due to a lack of councillors?

3.81 There have not been any instances where a significant failure to discharge our duties has occurred as a result of a lack of councillors. There have however been occasions where meetings have proved difficult to diary as a result of the work pressures of councillors.

Question(s): Do councillors have an individual or ward budget for allocation in their area? If so, how is such a system administered?

3.82 Every ward committee has money available for voluntary and community sector organisations to that help local residents.

3.83 Applications should be made to the ward where the people who will benefit live. Applications can be made to up to four ward committees using a standard application form to provide details of the project and what it will achieve, how local residents will be encouraged to participate, the amount being applied for, what the money will specifically be spent on and any other resources to support the project.

3.84 The decision to approve or decline an application is made by the three ward councillors who make up the ward committee, usually at a ward committee meeting.

3.85 We measure how successful ward committee grant aid has been. Every organisation receiving grant aid must complete and return a monitoring form, providing details of how the grant has been spent, confirmation that all of the grant has been spent, details of how the organisation has benefited from the grant and evidence that shows whether the project was successful.

3.86 Ward budgets are allocated using a formula that considers population, social and economic need and a fixed element. This formula was revised in 2010 following a scrutiny review. Due to the financial challenges facing the city the total amount of funding for ward budgets has reduced from £1,090,450 in 2014-15 to £890,440 allocated for 2015-16. The reductions have been applied evenly across the wards to preserve the allocation formula. In addition, some ward budgets are supplemented to include devolved funding for community buildings previously supported centrally, but where funding responsibility has been devolved to ward level. This was not ring-fenced and ward committees have been able to explore alternative options for better supporting community activity and/or assets. Following the establishment of a three-year budget for 2013-2016, ward committees are given the freedom to carry-over unspent resources between financial years.

Case study: Newburn ward Work carried out by councillors through ward committees can be large scale and strategic in nature, often carrying out devolved activity that other councils may choose to deliver centrally. Newburn is a diverse ward varying from fairly affluent to pockets of severe deprivation. There are four established villages and a modern ‘executive’ housing estate, all separated by agricultural land. As well as ward committee meetings, Newburn councillors undertake a considerable amount of work at ward level, holding four surgeries each month in venues across the ward and regular walkabouts to identify any issues. The committee have supported a range of projects over the last three years. In response to residents’ concerns Newburn and Lemington wards used ward funding to work in partnership with Northumbria Police to provide extra mobile CCTV cameras to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. After consideration of evidence, the position of the cameras are agreed by ward councillors. The police and have had a positive impact on the detection and prevention of crime. Faced with cuts to city-wide play provision, and in response to local priorities, Newburn ward commissioned alternative provision from Northumberland Clubs for Young People who undertake youth work and engage with disadvantaged young people. This has provided children with positive role models, built social awareness, respect and developed life skills. The ward is also proud of the part it has played historically in the invention of the steam locomotive – William Hedley’s Puffing Billy. So much so that as part of the 200th anniversary of the engine’s first commercial journey in 2013, the ward provided seed funding from the ward budget to establish the Friends of Puffing Billy, an alliance of interested groups across Newcastle and Northumberland. This partnership included Beamish Museum who contributed a consideration financial sum to the project and their outreach team working with community groups across the local authority boundaries. The event worked with over 1,000 people and brought communities and villages together in a celebration of their rich industrial heritage and what was possible by working together. That same community spirit was tested in 2012 when a culvert in the ward collapsed leading to the demolition of private apartment blocks, resulting in national headlines. From the beginning, ward councillors assisted affected residents by offering help and financial support to set up their own residents association and were at the forefront of helping to liaise with all parties involved. This personal tragedy for some arguably brought the community closer together making it even more resilient and increasing community cohesion within a relatively new housing development. A final council report into what happened had a significant contribution from the Newburn ward councillors and has been used to aid learning of culverts, and their significance, across the country.

Conclusions

3.87 Key conclusions from the evidence relating to governance:  The expected increase in planning and licensing activity, and subsequent decisions required, mean it is not appropriate to reduce the number of councillors needed on these committees. Future changes will in fact increase the demands upon these committees and therefore the workload of the councillors involved.  A reduction in the number of councillors would result in a reduction to the number of backbench and opposition councillors, therefore reducing challenge and councillor capacity not taken up in committees.

Section Four: Evidence relating to scrutiny functions

Question(s): How do scrutiny arrangements operate within the authority? How many committees are there and what is their membership?

4.1 The scrutiny role of councillors is a high priority for the council. As an active council undergoing significant change, we are frequently involved in matters of substantial public interest and scrutiny plays a highly visible role in identifying matters which require enhanced democratic oversight. Overview and scrutiny plays a role in pre-decision scrutiny, helping to shape policy and in holding the Cabinet to account.

4.2 Overview and scrutiny is a statutory function established by the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended by the Localisms Act 2011) to act as a counterweight to the executive form of local authority governance created by the Act (elected mayors or leaders and cabinets). It aims to make council decision-making more transparent, accountable and inclusive.

4.3 Section 9F of the Local Act 2000 provides that executive arrangements must include provision for one or more overview and scrutiny committees. There is no specific requirements relating to size, however Cabinet members cannot be members of a scrutiny committee. Our scrutiny structure was approved by City Council in May 2013 and comprises of two scrutiny committees with 14 members on each (10 Labour and four Liberal Democrats); Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Health Scrutiny Committee. This increased from 12 councillors appointed to each committee in 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Chair and Vice Chair of each Committee is drawn from the Opposition. Meetings, which are open to the public, take place each month. The committees also establish task and finish groups to scrutinise aspects of council activity in more detail, inviting all backbenchers to take part.

4.4 Prior to the changes implemented in May 2013, there six scrutiny committees in place between 2011-12 and 2012-13, with more councillors appointed to them:  Service Delivery Scrutiny Committee – 14 councillors  Policy Scrutiny Committee – 10 councillors  Public Services Scrutiny Committee – 10 councillors  Health Scrutiny Committee – 10 councillors (2011-12 only)  Scrutiny Chairs and Vice Chairs – 8 councillors (2012-13 only)  Wellbeing and Health Scrutiny – 10 councillors (2012-13 only)

4.5 In their Annual Report for 2013-14, Overview and Scrutiny Committee stated that the changes to the scrutiny structure aimed to revitalise and streamline the function and to make the most effective use of resources available. Overall, the changes have been seen as an improvement, providing a more unified approach and focussing on the core roles of the two committees which have clear remits without any of the previous overlaps.

4.6 In addition to its service specific responsibilities, which encompass all major functions apart from health, wellbeing and social care, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee has responsibility for the co-ordination, management and monitoring of the scrutiny process. It establishes the task and finish groups, manages the work programme, approves the final reports and monitors the implementation of agreed recommendations.

4.7 In carrying out its scrutiny functions, Overview and Scrutiny Committee may: a. Make reports or recommendations to City Council, the Cabinet or other committees or sub-committees or relevant partners or other organisations. b. Conduct or commission research, subject to resources being available. c. Consult with relevant individuals, groups, communities and experts. d. Require members of the Cabinet and senior officers of the council (Head of Service and above) to attend to answer questions in accordance with the Newcastle Charter. e. Review and scrutinise the performance of other organisations and public bodies relevant to their area of work, utilising where necessary the powers conferred by Section 9F(2) of the Local Government Act 2000. f. Question and gather evidence from any person or organisation (with their consent). g. Make appropriate use of any resources allocated to them to help them carry out their functions. h. Task small groups or individual councillors to carry out work on their behalf including areas related to their work programme (for example, making a site visit or interviewing witnesses), subject to all such work being agreed by the relevant committee in advance and a report back to the committee at the appropriate time.

4.8 The Health Scrutiny Committee has the power to review and scrutinise any matter relating to the planning, provision and operation of the health service in Newcastle. This encompasses health and public health services commissioned by the Clinical Commissioning Groups, the NHS Commissioning Board and the local authority, as well as health and public health services provided by NHS bodies and any other health service providers, including those from the independent and voluntary sectors providing services under contract with the NHS.

4.9 In addition to the function of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Health Scrutiny Committee has the power, through legislation, to: a. Require information to be provided by certain NHS bodies about the planning, provision and operation of health services. b. Require employees of certain NHS bodies to attend before it to answer questions. c. Make reports and recommendations to certain NHS bodies and expect a response within 28 days. d. Refer (with the support of council) NHS substantial reconfiguration proposals to the Secretary of State it considers there has been inadequate consultation or if the proposal is not in the best interests of the health service in the area.

4.10 The Chair of the Health Scrutiny Committee is also a representative on the Regional Health Scrutiny Committee. The Vice Chair of Health Scrutiny Committee also attends as Vice Chair of the regional committee. This is a joint committee comprising the 12 authorities in the North East, who meet to consider health issues and NHS service changes that cross local authority boundaries.

4.11 The two scrutiny committees attract a high level of attendance, with 82% attendance during 2014-15 at Overview and Scrutiny Committee and 84% at Health Scrutiny Committee.

Question(s): What is the general workload of scrutiny committees? Have the council ever found that it has had too many active projects for the scrutiny process to function effectively? How is the work of scrutiny committees programmed? Is the work strictly timetabled?

4.12 Whilst they are now well established with significant and varied work programmes, the size of the committees’ remits mean that prioritising key topics is always an issue. The Chair and Vice Chair of each committee lead their work. To provide a clear link between the two committees, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Health Scrutiny Committee are also members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

4.13 Outside of the monthly meetings, more detailed or longer-term work is undertaken by standing and/or time limited sub-committees and task and finish groups established by Overview and Scrutiny Committee as required and in accordance with available resources. Membership is drawn from a scrutiny pool comprising all non-executive councillors and the statutory education co-optees with advice provided by officers and external representatives.

4.14 The Finance and Budget Monitoring Scrutiny Group has become a standing group meeting on a quarterly basis with special meetings as required. In addition to reviewing the quarterly Council Performance reports to Cabinet and pursuing specific issues of concern, the group also makes a significant contribution to the budget scrutiny process by carrying out early and detailed examination of the budget proposals on behalf of the committees. There are close links between the Finance and Budget Monitoring Scrutiny Group, Overview and Scrutiny Comimttee and the Audit Committee due to their work on scrutinising and assuring the financial and overall performance of the council.

4.15 In 2014-15 there were three task and finish / working groups:  Scotswood working group – with three councillors attending and one external representative. The group met three times, twice to interview stakeholders and once to finalise their report.  Communications task and finish group – with ten councillors attending. The group met five times, two were evidence gathering sessions with a number of external witnesses. The remaining meetings were used to examine other information and prepare the final report.  Autism task and finish group – with five councillors attending and one co-optee. The group met three times, with one meeting held as a half-day session with stakeholders and the others used to examine other information and prepare the final report.

4.16 Generally all meetings took between 1.5 and two hours with additional sign-off and amendments to final reports completed by councillors electronically.

4.17 Positive outcomes from the scrutiny work programme range from examination of key issues, such as training and skills for young people, through to the large number of significant recommendations arising from major scrutiny reviews including the development and management of the capital programme, the citywide flooding in 2012 and the Newburn culvert collapse.

4.18 Call-in is the statutory process whereby non-executive / scrutiny members can challenge an executive decision through the appropriate scrutiny committee resulting in a delay to the implementation of the decision at least until a scrutiny hearing has been held. During 35

2014-15 there were three special meetings of Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider call-in requests in respect of decisions made by Cabinet, an increase from two the previous year. An additional special meeting was also held to consider a detailed service review proposal. All special meetings took approximately two hours each. None of the meetings resulted in a referral back to the decision maker or any additional work outside of normal committee meetings.

Question(s): What activities are scrutiny committee members expected to carry out between formal meetings?

4.19 A focus on question planning and preparation for meetings has helped to strengthen councillors’ approach to challenge and debate, therefore councillors are expected to read all materials and prepare before each meeting.

4.20 The scrutiny function is currently supported by two full time officers supplemented by additional capacity for some reviews as required. The committees also benefit from the advice and professional expertise of relevant public and private sector partners and Directors, Heads of Service and other officers as appropriate. Their involvement can vary from attending all meetings to occasional appearances before committees on request in addition to providing reports, briefings and presentations. In the case of Health Scrutiny Committee, Directors and staff from NHS bodies can be required from time to time to provide evidence, attend meetings and participate in discussions in the same way as council officers.

4.21 Health Scrutiny Committee has also adopted a ‘lead member’ arrangement whereby six members of the committee will act as a point of contact for the three NHS trusts based in Newcastle in relation to preparation of their annual Quality Accounts and any potential significant changes in NHS services. Members generally met their respective trusts twice during the year.

4.22 35.9% of respondents to the survey stated they were a member of scrutiny during 2014- 15 and 10 respondents stated that they spend between 6 and 10 hours per month on this role. During July, 18 of those councillors who completed the time recording exercise stated that they spent some time on scrutiny activity, totalling 115.3 hours, 3.0% of all time recorded during the month but with individuals spending between one and seven hours on this in one week.

Conclusions

4.23 Key conclusions relating to scrutiny:  Support available from officers continues to decrease due to budget restraints therefore increasing the workload of scrutiny committees to lead on scrutiny activity and drafting of reports.  Scrutiny committees continue to have busy agendas and forward plans. This is expected to increase as the nature of services provided continues to change.  Section Six outlines changes we expect in the near future, including cuts and changes to services as a result of budget decisions, continued asset transfers, closer integration with other organisations and devolution of powers. This will require continued effective scrutiny and could further increase the workload for the committees.

 Reducing the number of councillors could result in there being less opportunity for all councillors to get involved as effectively in scrutiny. This would be as a result of appointments and workload from other committees and potential increase community caseload per councillor.

Section Five: Evidence relating to the representational role of councillors

Question(s): In general terms, how do councillors carry out their representational roles with electors? Do councillors mainly respond to casework from constituents or do they have a more active role in the community?

5.1 Community leadership is central to the role of Newcastle councillors – the time recording exercise identified that over half of councillors’ time is spent working in communities. This element of the role is expansive, particularly responding to enquiries and undertaking case work (which councillors expect to increase as a result of austerity measures), and a cooperative council approach that encourages coproduction and devolution of services so that residents are able to take a greater role in shaping their neighbourhoods.

5.2 50.1% of all of the time recorded during July was spent on activity relating to the representational role. 1,896 hours in total, 47.4 hours per councillor who took part or 10.7 hours per week each, of this:  3.9% (74.7 hours) was spent carrying out home visits, with councillors on average spending 1.9 hours on this in total, 0.4 hours per week each on average, but individuals spending between half an hour and four hours on this in one week.  19.2% (364.3 hours) was spent on community engagement, such as newsletters, surgeries, blogs, websites, social media and walkabouts, with councillors on average spending 9.1 hours, just over two hours per week each on average, on this but individuals spending between half an hour and 10.5 our hours in one week.  18.8% (356.6 hours) was spent meeting with other community organisations, e.g. Parish Councils and Residents’ Associations, with councillors on average spending 8.9 hours on this in total, just over two hours each per week on average, but individuals spending between one and 19 hours in one week. Councillors who completed the time recording also noted that they attended meetings with community organisations and management committees of community centres, SNAPS meetings and other board meetings within their wards.  36.6% (694.5 hours) was spent responding to enquiries, with councillors on average spending 17.4 hours on this in total, just under four hours each per week, but individuals spending between one and 15 hours in one week.  21.4% (406.7 hours) was spent on ward issues, with councillors on average spending 10.2 hours, or 2.3 hours per week each, on this but with individuals spending between one and 11.5 hours in one week.

Case study: Lemington ward In Lemington the ward committee have worked in partnership with the community and other agencies to fund and deliver a range of services, including health provision following a decision by the Medical Practitioners Council not to replace a retiring GP. The ward committee worked with various partners to secure funding to build a centre and secure GP services on an outreach basis from neighbouring wards. The ward committee has contributed towards the costs of the Exercise of Referral Programme for people aged over 50 with long-term health conditions. The programme, through HealthWORKS, also provided health literacy and self-management skills for people who live in less affluent areas. This programme helps to connect people in to a range of local services and to meet others in a similar position. It also helps with the mental health of people living with chronic ill health. Between April 2014 and March 2015 there were a total of 7,548 attendances, with 15,794 attendances overall to the community gym :  298 new referrals to the service at Lemington  6,342 attendances to exercise on referral gym sessions, 7,155 attendances to the mainstream gym  1,206 attendances to exercise on referral classes, 1,091 attendances to the mainstream gym  525 new members to the community gym in Lemington The committee has also contributed to capital costs to extend a playgroup to double the number of local families benefitting from increased eligibility for 15 hours a week child care. All ward councillors regularly attend Safe Newcastle Action and Problem Solving groups in their ward. These are multi-agency groups involving the police, fire service, housing and council officers and councillors to discuss issues relating to local crime and anti-social behaviour. Where specific issues arise, ad hoc Stand-Alone Problem Solving (SAPS) groups are set up. In Lemington a SAPS group was set up to deal with an issue in a particular area of the ward which was identified through a councillor’s regular contact with residents. A group of youngsters were consuming alcohol and harassing and threatening people of all ages. They were also causing serious damage to street furniture, at one point disabling the whole cable TV network. Some residents were suggesting that they take matters in to their own hands. The SAPS group consisted of councillors, police and the local secondary school. Each of the youngsters were spoken to individually by the group, making it clear what the outcome of their continued behaviour would be. This approach resolved the problem quickly.

Question(s): How do councillors generally deal with casework? Do they pass on issues directly to staff or do they take a more in-depth approach to resolving issues?

5.3 Respondents to the survey indicated that the top five issues that make up ward caseload are:  Highways issues including pot holes, drainage, gully emptying, cutting of grass verges, street lighting – selected by 93.6% of respondents  Rubbish / litter and dog fouling – selected by 91.5% of respondents  Planning issues – selected by 74.5% of respondents  Other issues – selected by 63.8% of respondents  Family and social care issues – selected by 42.6% of respondents

5.4 Other issues listed by respondents were predominately housing but also anti-social behaviour, parking and traffic and welfare reform. The issues that residents have and 39

therefore the basis for casework differs from ward to ward depending on the tenure of the residents, the age profile of the ward and the levels of deprivation. For example, more deprived wards with high levels of social housing tend to generate more casework for councillors as opposed to more affluent wards where residents are more able to resolve issues for themselves.

5.5 The survey asked councillors to indicate on average how many enquiries they received each week during 2014-15, most respondents received less than ten:  1-5 – 27.6% of respondents  6-10 – 27.6% of respondents  11-15 – 23.4% of respondents  16-20 – 6.4% of respondents  Over 20 – 14.9% of respondents

5.6 The average time spent on responding to enquiries varied:  1-5 hours – 31.9% of respondents  6-10 hours – 40.43% of respondents  11-15 hours – 17.0% of respondents  16-20 hours – 6.4% of respondents  Over 20 hours – 4.3% of respondents.

5.7 In relation to home visits, 90.9% of respondents carried out 1 to 5 home visits per week, followed by 9.9% who carried out, on average, 6 to 10, with the majority of respondents (63.0%) stating that they spent 1 to 5 hours per week doing so.

5.8 Councillors were asked to outline how they deal with casework and what support they get. The main ways of dealing with this were through officers or directly with residents via emails, surgeries, letters, home visits and Envirocall, or by working with other ward councillors. Respondents indicated that they monitor the progress of an issue until it is resolved and keep residents informed throughout.

Case study: Fenham ward

Ward committees try to take a more strategic approach in their thinking and funding for community activity, being creative about how relatively small amounts of money can have a significant impact in meeting priorities identified by local residents.

In Fenham councillors have used the ward committee to consult with residents and identify what their top priorities are. Children’s activities and the environment were the main issues.

Funded by the ward committee, the Children and Young People’s Network (CYPN) was set up and commissioned a local organisation provide a wide range of co-ordinated activities and events six days a week. Sessions have taken place in the local pool, library, badminton centre and Hindu Temple as well as church halls and community centres. Over 1,300 young people took part in 2014 and the CYPN has now made successful bids to Children in Need and the Community Foundation. It’s now in the process of becoming a community interest company which will open up new opportunities to seek funding.

An environmental enforcement project was also piloted using ward funding for a dedicated officer employed one day a week for three months. This has cracked down on illegal bonfires, dog fouling, littering and fly-tipping – even leading to prosecutions following 59 Trade Waste

40 duty of care inspections, 20 legal notices on businesses for trade waste and 15 Fixed Penalty Notices. Neighbouring wards have since adopted this model

Some families in Fenham are finding life hard in the current economic climate. In response a welfare rights officer has been funded by the ward committee to help families in financial difficulties. Advising people on claiming benefits to which they are entitled to has not only helped families but also led to more money being spent in local shops thus helping the local economy.

Question(s):

What support do councillors receive in discharging their duties in relation to casework and representational role in their ward?

5.9 Cabinet receive officer support in their roles through two Policy and Communication Business Partners supporting the Leader’s Office along with one Senior Administration Support Officer. Two Senior Administration Support Officers support the Cabinet Office. The Opposition Office is supported by one Policy and Communication Business Partner and one Senior Administration Support Officer. 5.10 Members Services also provides a base for all councillors when they are in the Civic Centre providing computers, printing and copying facilities, meeting rooms, local newspapers and tea / coffee facilities. 5.11 The Members Services team provide help and assistance with councillor queries, including:

 Typing – councillors can post up to 200 letters per month, 2nd class, to their residents in relation to individual casework  Updating details on the website such as surgery details, register of interests  Updating personal details such as change of address or contact numbers  Changes to courier arrangements  Basic stationery  Travel passes and car park passes  New ID cards and security fobs  Business cards  Surgery invoices  Contacting the IT Service Desk to reset passwords or other IT queries  Photocopying and scanning  Locker keys and bike shed keys  Booking meeting rooms  Copies of forms

5.12 In terms of mailshots, between 1 January 2014 and 3 December 2014 Members Services printed 8,966 letters, provided 5,531 envelopes and posted 4,993 letters for 23 councillors. So far in 2015 they have printed 9,043 letters, provided 7,748 envelopes and posted 7,573 letters for 22 councillors. Although there has been a slight reduction in the number of councillors accessing the service, the demand has increased. Many councillors produce their own letters, mainly electronically, or hand-deliver mailshots themselves.

5.13 Members Services also monitor who accesses the service, either in person or by telephone, during the day. During the 2014-15 financial year there were a total of 3343 councillor visits to Members Services, 64.3 on average per week, ranging from 11 to 100 visits per week. During the same period there were 2,630 councillor telephone calls to

Members Services, 50.6 on average per week, ranging from 11 to 83 calls per week. There was one week where recording did not take place due to annual leave.

5.14 Councillors tend to use the facilities within Members Services, such as the meeting rooms, during early evenings and first thing in the morning. Officers believe that this reflects the fact that many of our councillors now work full time, as opposed to 10 years ago. There are meetings most evenings however these aren’t logged as we don’t have office cover after 4.30pm.

5.15 The Co-operative Communities Service provides support to councillors, through Communities Facilitators who support councillors to:  Organise and hold the 26 Ward Committee meetings (four each per year) and deal with associated issues raised;  Manage Ward Committee budgets in relation to grant aid and procuring services;  Identify local priorities with councillors, communities and stakeholders;  Plan and organise ward based action groups e.g. councillor and officer meetings each month; and  Deliver local consultations when needed.

5.16 Councillors who completed the survey indicated that they do not rely heavily on officers for support, citing that they are able and confident to deal with casework themselves. However, when support is required, this tends to be done via the Leader’s Office, Cabinet Office and Members Services or directly with officers in the relevant teams and Your Homes Newcastle. Ten respondents indicated that they do not receive any other support in their role as councillor.

5.17 Councillors also receive a members’ allowance. On 4 March 2015, City Council endorsed the recommendation of its Independent Remuneration Panel that the members’ allowance scheme for 2015-16 remain unchanged, subject to an increase in the Dependent’s Carers’ Allowance to £7.75 per hour, in line with the Newcastle Living Wage and the introduction of a Special Responsibility Allowance of £1,035 for members of the Transport North East Committee.

5.18 The basic allowance is £8,775 with special responsibility allowances applied for various roles:  2 x basic allowance for Leader of Council  75% basic allowance for Leader of Opposition and Cabinet members  50% of basic allowance for Chairs of non-executive and scrutiny committees,  25% of basic allowance for Vice-Chairs  12.5% of basic allowance for members of Overview and Scrutiny, Northumbria Police and Crime Panel  10% for members of Planning Committee  5% for members of Regulatory and Appeals and Licensing Committees

5.19 The basic allowance is amongst the lowest basic allowance in the region:  Gateshead - £10,120  Sunderland - £8,369  North Tyneside - £9,759  South Tyneside – 7,226

 Northumberland - £12,625  Durham - £13,300

Question(s): How do councillors engage with constituents? Do they hold surgeries, distribute newsletters, hold public meetings, write blogs etc?

5.20 The survey also asked councillors how they engage with communities in addition to Ward committees. Of the 47 respondents:  Everyone uses walkabouts / street work  95.7% use surgeries  93.6% use newsletters  72.3% use home visits  61.7% use social media  44.7% use other methods  34.0% use a website  6.38% use a blog

5.21 ‘Other’ methods include emails, post, community groups, local social events, door to door visits, generally being out and about in wards, telephone and Skype surgeries.

Case study: Walker ward A diverse range of complex issues and problems are presented to councillors on a regular basis and a diverse range of methods are required to respond to these. Dealing with cases can take up a considerable amount of councillor time. As one of the most deprived wards in the city, Walker also suffers from one of the lowest broadband take-ups among residents and therefore residents rarely use electronic ways of contacting councillors. To improve communication and to ensure that residents can raise issues, councillors regularly hold street surgeries where they knock on doors in designated streets to find out what issues are concerning residents. Through this approach a councillor came across an elderly lady who lived alone and was suffering from health problems. The properties in the street, including her home, were having their roofs improved which required council staff to access the loft. This disruption caused her further health problems. The lady was reluctant to move to a more suitable property but the councillor has worked closely with a health visitor to persuade the lady and to help find a new home better suited to her needs, this will be available next year This has been a difficult problem to resolve, requiring a lot of councillor time, working with various agencies. In another instance a councillor received a phone call from a resident to visit their daughter’s home urgently. The daughter was a council house tenant and was sadly in the last stages of cancer and wanted to ensure that her own children, one of whom is disabled, would not be evicted from the property upon her death. As the children were not tenants they did not have rights to inherit the property. The councillor led negotiations with Your Homes Newcastle and was able to secure their tenancy within 48 hours of receiving the initial call. In a third case, a ward councillor, took up the case of a resident whose home was flooded as a result of a leaking water pipe. Thanks to the councillor the resident was permanently rehoused and is now trying to get compensation for the damage to her belongings.

Question(s): How has the role of councillors changed since the council last considered how many elected councillors it should have?

5.22 The role of councillors has changed significantly since the electoral arrangements in Newcastle were last reviewed by The Boundary Committee for England between 14 May 2002 and 21 October 2003 and the new warding pattern was implemented in May 2004. The role continues to change. Key reasons for this include changing policy landscape, the impact of austerity and the changing nature of the city.

5.23 We are ambitious for our residents with a clear place-shaping role in creating the conditions for economic growth and facilitating public service reform that concentrates on the outcomes that matter to our residents. This requires influence at a national and regional level through Core Cities, LGA and the North East Combined Authority.

5.24 We are an active member of the Core Cities group which represents the councils of England’s eight largest city economies outside London along with Glasgow and Cardiff. Through the group we:  Work as a voice for our cities, maintaining a constructive and open dialogue with Government, MP’s, national agencies and business representatives, to create the right policy environment for our cities to thrive;  Publish and promote agenda setting research and influential ideas on economic policy affecting our cities; and  Work collaboratively, bringing the cities together to share and explore ideas and best practice, driving improvement and efficiency.

5.25 Throughout its existence Core Cities have influenced Government and other’s policy and thinking, working to ensure aspiration matches delivery.

5.26 The North East Combined Authority (NECA) is a new legal body that brings together the seven local authorities which serve County Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland. It has been formally established since April 2014.

5.27 The ambition of NECA is to create the best possible conditions for growth in jobs, investment and living standards, to make the North East an excellent location for business, to prioritise and deliver high quality infrastructure and to enable residents to raise their skill levels and to benefit from economic growth long into the future. To deliver these aims we have united to speak with one voice to Government, business, investors and partners. NECA also fulfils the role of the transport authority.

5.28 The North East Leadership Board is the strategic decision-making body of NECA. It has eight members – the six Council Leaders and the elected Mayor, together with the Chair of the North East Local Enterprise Partnership. The Transport North East Committee is a joint committee of the NECA and seven individual councils that advise NECA and oversee the delivery of transport functions across the area. NECA also has an Overview and Scrutiny Committee and an Audit and Standards Committee which report directly to the Leadership Board. Councillors from Newcastle contribute activity in each of these committees, with the Leader and Deputy Leader appointed to committees and the Leader of the Opposition appointed to the scrutiny committee.

5.29 There is now a broad consensus across the public sector that greater integration of services, tailored to the needs of individuals, families and their communities, is required. Many of the longstanding intractable challenges that the city faces – low skills, high unemployment, poor health and high mortality rates – are better tackled in an integrated way with partners. There is now a greater emphasis on rethinking of whole systems to focus on early intervention and work is underway (for example, the Better Care Fund) to reduce demand on services through more local joining up, seeing issues and solutions as linked across all sectors and not in silos.

5.30 NECA was successful in putting together a powerful case for the area to have devolved powers to stimulate economic growth, job creation, skills development and improved transport links. The benefit of having devolved funding, powers and responsibilities from central Government will enable us to make decisions based on local knowledge that will maximise the area’s opportunities and potential. Devolution of powers and responsibilities to the North East region, as well as greater integration of public services, will require councillors to influence national policy, be strategic and work at a high level to get the best deal for Newcastle.

5.31 The scale of the financial crisis since 2008 has place significant pressures on all parts of the public sector. Austerity began to impact on us in 2010, with the first reductions affecting the existing plans for government spending in the financial year 2010-11. Subsequent budgets made more significant reductions, by 2017-18 we expected to have needed to make savings of £241 million over the seven years to address funding cuts and rising cost pressures. Budget decisions now take significantly more councillor time.

120

100

80 £241m over 60 seven years

40 £90m gap £151m gap for 2015-18 20 2010-15 £245m over 0 seven years 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (20)

(40)

(60)

(80)

(100)

(120) (140) Cost pressures Funding cuts

Figure 10. Cost pressures and funding cuts

5.32 The council has had to reduce its activities and staffing because of central government funding cuts, during a period of significant increases in the costs of meeting our statutory obligations. Our gross revenue budget 2010-11 was £896 million (£270 million net) and in 2015-16 is £799 million (241 million net). The number of employees (FTE excluding

schools) at 31 March 2010 was 10,031 and at 31 March 2015 was 6,775 with further reductions likely to be necessary.

5.33 Austerity measures have required a cultural shift from a traditional dependence on the council to developing a new relationship with residents that empowers them to take responsibility for their local areas. This has required councillors to manage residents’ expectations of what can be provided within the resources available, and in many cases councillors have been actively involved in supporting, leading, encouraging and advising residents and community groups on how to respond.

5.34 In response to the financial challenge the council has had to change the services it delivers and how it delivers them. We have put in place alternative models of delivery, for example, a Leisure Trust, partnership libraries and an asset transfer programme. Councillors continue to play a key role in holding service providers to account and encouraging resident participation. There is an emphasis on coproduction of services (for example, the Family Services Review) where councillors take an important community leadership role.

5.35 Austerity measures are also having an impact on residents beyond the delivery of council services. Changes to the welfare system and budget reductions in other parts of the public sector has had an impact on the representational role of councillors. Some councillors report a significant increase in workload in representing and supporting residents experiencing loss of income as a result of cuts in social security, with so-called ‘bedroom tax’ having a substantial impact in parts of the city.

Case study: Denton, Lemington, Newburn, Westerhope and Woolsington wards Following the introduction of welfare reforms, in particular the introduction of ‘bedroom tax’ and reduction in council tax benefit, our Welfare Rights Team were experiencing unprecedented demand for their services. Denton, Lemington, Newburn, Westerhope and Woolsington ward committees came together to fund a Welfare Rights Project to provide benefits advice to local residents across the five wards. The time limited project aimed to work with the most vulnerable people who found it difficult to engage with the benefit system and were being impacted by the government’s austerity measures. The project ended in July 2014. It worked with 42 people and achieved cumulative financial gains of £511, 674. At the time of the project ending there were 36 benefit claims awaiting decision. This was a hugely successful project:  Denton: 59 cases, £156, 212 annualised financial gains  Lemington: 35 cases, £93, 386 annualised financial gains  Newburn: 45 cases and £74, 532 annualised financial gains  Westerhope: 49 cases and £72,033 annualised financial gains  Woolsington: 45 cases and £102,521 annualised financial gains The ward councillors also arranged for local volunteers to be given basic training to try to ensure a degree of sustainability for the project. Thanks to these volunteers the project left the wards with people who could continue to advise individuals and help to make referrals to the relevant agencies.

Question(s): Has the council put in place any mechanisms for councillors to interact with young people, those not on the electoral register or minority groups or their representational bodies?

5.36 The Newcastle Youth Council was established in June 2010 to be a voice for 11-18 year olds living, studying or working in the city and to make it a friendlier place for young people. It is supported by our Co-operative Communities Team and seeks to:  Represent the views of young people, aged 11-18, in Newcastle upon Tyne, but also seek to improve quality of life for those who are younger.  Raise awareness of youth.  Improve the image of young people.  Promote young people’s issues to adults and local governance.  Operate as an independent council.  Work with the local council and local organisations to improve opportunities for young people.  Create an active interest in local affairs.

5.37 Each year the Youth Council has a ‘takeover’ day and a presentation to City Council. The Youth Council also have a dedicated room in Members Services. Takeover Day is designed for young people to be provided with opportunities to play a real part in decision making and this may include being a head teacher in their school, running a youth project or a council department for the day. The Youth Councillors shadow a councillor and participate and observe them in their decision making roles first hand and where the adult decision maker shares a challenge that they are facing, outlining the issues involved and asking participants to think about what they would do if they were in their position. Young people can also ‘change one thing in one day’ or put recommendations into action this could be anything that relates to their priorities Employment, Facilities, Education.

5.38 Interaction with young people also takes place through the Newcastle Students Forum which the Deputy Leader chairs.

5.39 The Voluntary Sector Liaison Group is formally appointed to by City Council and provides a forum for Cabinet members to frequently meet with senior representatives from the voluntary and community sector, including the Chief Executive of Newcastle Council for Voluntary Services.

5.40 We endeavour to ensure that everyone in Newcastle can have their say, regardless of their being on the electoral register or their background. For example, when consulting on our budget proposals specific conversations take place with communities of interest to explain proposals and to understand potential impacts. This includes the Elders Council, Disability Forum, local church leaders and BME communities, through means such as a dedicated programme on the local BME radio station. Councillors are also actively involved in events which celebrate and promote the diversity of our city, including the successful Pride march and events, Chinese New Year and the Newcastle Mela.

5.41 Our councillors are active in engaging minority groups within their communities. Examples provided through the time recording exercise in July include mosques and engaging with Islamic communities during Ramadan.

5.42 Underrepresentation on the electoral register has changed particularly as a result of individual electoral registration (IER). IER makes made everyone personally responsible for registering to vote, rather than relying on the head of a household to do it for them.

This had a big impact on the city as a whole, particularly in student areas where in previous years all eligible first year students where registered automatically.

5.43 The introduction of IER in December 2014 saw over 18,000 voters disappear from our electoral register. We undertook an intensive campaign with the city's universities which has resulted in nearly 12,000 voters being added back on to the register. We worked closely with Newcastle and Northumbria Universities, Newcastle College and their student unions to make sure that students were aware of the need to register themselves. We used advertising, social media and events to get the message out while the universities, college and their student unions encouraged Newcastle's students to make sure they didn't miss out on their chance to vote on 7 May 2015.

5.44 Newcastle also saw a huge jump in the number of people registering for a postal vote on election day. Nearly 70,000 people in the city chose to cast their vote by post rather than visiting a polling station - an increase of over 17,000. We will continue to carry out canvassing and targeted work to ensure our electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible.

Question(s): Are councillors expected to attend meetings of community bodies such as parish councils or residents associations? If so, what is the level of their involvement and what role are they expected to play?

5.45 91.5% of respondents to the survey said that they attend other meetings in their councillor roles, with residents’ and community groups being the example most frequently cited. Other examples include SNAPS meetings, multi-agency meetings with partners and school governor meetings.

5.46 There was a wide range of average time per month spent on this activity during 2014-15:  Not applicable – 8.7%  1-5 hours – 13.0% of respondents  6-10 hours – 28.3% of respondents  11-15 hours – 10.9% of respondents  16-20 hours – 10.9% of respondents  Over 20 hours – 28.2% of respondents

5.47 The range of time spent on ward issues week also varied:  Not applicable – 6.5% of respondents  1-5 hours – 13.0% of respondents  6-10 hours – 32.6% of respondents  11-15 hours – 19.6% of respondents  16-20 hours – 15.2% of respondents  Over 20 hours – 13.0% of respondents.

Conclusions

5.48 Key conclusions relating the representational role of councillors are:  Casework is increasing, particularly in areas where there are high numbers of social housing and deprivation. We expect casework to increase as a result of continued government austerity measures, such as welfare reform, new developments take place in the city, changes continue to the services we provide

due to reduced budgets and our relationship with residents continues to change as a result.  Councillors already spend a considerable amount of time dealing with casework and this might not be as responsive or sustainable if the number of councillors reduces.  Officer support to councillors in their representative role is also decreasing.  Increased workload could become a barrier to attracting people who work or have caring responsibilities to become councillors, potentially resulting in councillors no longer being representative of the city.

Section Six: Evidence relating to the future

Localism and policy development

Question(s): What impact do you think the localism agenda might have on the scope and conduct of council business and how do you think this might affect the role of councillors?

6.1 The role of all local authorities is changing dramatically and Newcastle is at the forefront of many of those changes. Councillors are playing an active role in supporting those changes, both through our role in governing the city and as representatives and supporters of communities undergoing change. Amongst the many drivers for change are:  An emphasis on localism and community participation, helping communities to do more for themselves and take responsibility for their community.  Devolution from central government, creating greater opportunities to exercise responsibilities at a local level, and requiring enhanced democratic representation at the regional tier.  Pressures arising from continued growth and development, directly from the need to govern a substantial capital programme, and through the council’s planning and development functions.  Continued reductions in funding for local government, necessitating further reductions in the staffing and resources available to the council, difficult choices about the priorities for council funding and the need for innovative local solutions to maintain the highest priority facilities and services.  Pressures on communities arising from welfare cuts.

6.2 The aim of the Localism Act 2011 was to devolve more decision making powers from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. Through the neighbourhood planning element, two Neighbourhood Areas have been designated in Newcastle, in Dinnington Parish and Woolsington Parish, to enable the Parish Councils to undertake neighbourhood planning and in particular prepare a Neighbourhood Development Plan for the area. Consultation on an application from Kingston Park is being consulted upon until 18 August.

6.3 Neighbourhood planning potentially creates additional work for councillors in two main ways:  Advising and supporting neighbourhoods that are considering becoming designated Neighbourhood Areas, or doing anything else under the Localism Act such as Community Right to Challenge; and/or  Participating in meetings once the designation has been approved.

6.4 The North East Combined Authority (NECA) has outlined initial proposals to secure a significant programme of devolution of power, funding and responsibilities to the North East, to meet the needs of communities and deliver the North East’s strategic economic plan for more and better jobs.

6.5 During a series of events held in March, over 3,000 residents, business leaders and representatives from the public, voluntary and community sectors gave their feedback on the initial proposals and a meeting has taken place with North East MPs and Lords. 50

Analysis of the feedback was reported to the NECA Leadership Board in June 2015. Overall the feedback indicates that there is strong support for the principle of devolution and broad positive agreement with the proposals. The full devolution prospectus is now being developed which will form the basis of discussions with Government in the coming months.

6.6 It is not yet known what the final agreement will be or whether this will result in an Elected Mayor, but in the short term all councillors are likely to be scrutinising proposals in detail which will inevitably lead to additional work. As the deal emerges and more detail is known about the governance arrangements we will need to review the impact for the councillor roles in Newcastle and the region.

Question(s): Does the council have any plans to devolve responsibilities and / or assets to community organisations? Or does the council expect to take on more responsibilities in the medium to long term?

6.7 Our budget plans for 2013-14 to 2015-16 included a large number of asset related proposals. The 2016 Asset Programme was established to ensure that these were dealt with in a consistent and fair way. The Programme includes community buildings, libraries, leisure facilities, park buildings, play and youth centres.

6.8 Newcastle has strong, vibrant communities with active citizens who are ready and able to get involved and make a difference to their local area. We encourage anyone with an interest in taking forward community ownership of relevant buildings, land and or services through community asset transfer. Our priority is to secure community asset transfer where appropriate and possible. We believe community asset transfer can help to unlock the potential of communities by:  Empowering local communities by putting local organisations in control.  Stimulating the involvement of local people in shaping and regenerating their communities and can be a catalyst for local volunteering and increasing community cohesion.  Building confidence and capacity amongst the individuals involved and can support the creation of community leaders and inspire others to improve their community.  Creating stronger, more sustainable voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations which can create a wide range of benefits for the communities they serve. An asset can provide VCS organisations with financial security, recognition and management capacity.  Offering opportunities to extend the use of the asset, increasing its value to the community.

6.9 Since 2013 Blakelaw library service is now commissioned by the Blakelaw ward Community Partnership and three libraries, Jesmond, Fawdon and Dinnington are run by communities. We have also established partnership arrangements for five libraries:  Cruddas Park with Newcastle College and YHN  Denton Burn with Newcastle College  Fenham with YHN  High Heaton with Newcastle College

 Outer West and Customer Service Centre with Newcastle College will open in Summer 2015

6.10 Discussions remain on-going with interested parties regarding asset transfer of a number buildings. Including Gosforth Civic Hall, Mill Lane Play Barn and Raby Street former youth centre.

Case study: North Jesmond When the council announced the decision to close Jesmond Library in June 2013, councillors sprang into action. They organised a public meeting to try and persuade the council to reverse the decision but when that failed pursued the idea of turning it into a community-run library. Many hours of discussions with officers followed about where responsibilities and liabilities would lie if the community stepped up to the plate. A short term lease with ward funding was agreed which saved the library from closure and work has continued to finalise a long term lease. The community has decided that the library should do more than just loan out books and has diversified into providing a whole host of new services. A board of trustees and an advisory committee has been set up to oversee the building and meets monthly. A considerable amount of councillor time was spent establishing what was required and negotiating with all parties involved. The success of the library would not have been possible without the commitment of the community who regularly donate their time and money to keep its doors open to the public. The community led library has recently celebrated its second anniversary.

6.11 We have procured external advice and support for groups through the voluntary and community sector to help ensure that asset transfer is a long-term solution. This is provided by the Open Doors Consortium.

6.12 A Community Ownership and Management of Assets programme application has been submitted. This Department of Communities and Local Government funded programme builds on work around Community Rights, Neighbourhood planning and Our Place. We have submitted the application in partnership with Your Homes Newcastle and the Open Doors Consortium to support the work around the asset transfer of community buildings. We have successfully transferred two community buildings and are actively working with community groups in 20 community buildings on community asset transfer.

6.13 We have also transferred a large proportion of our leisure estate and are working towards transfer of the remaining facilities.

6.14 Devolution to communities has led to additional activity for councillors through supporting community groups to take on responsibility and be consulted about proposals for assets in their wards.

Service delivery

Question(s): Have changes to the arrangements for local delivery of services led to significant changes to councillors’ workloads? (For example, control of housing stock or sharing services with neighbouring authorities).

6.15 In recent years the council has taken significant steps to redesign services, change the culture of the organisation and redefine our relationship with residents. For example, Family Insights is changing the way we deliver children’s social work, we’ve set up partnership libraries that allow local residents to take control of services in their communities and we’ve reviewed family services, transferred leisure facilities into a trust and undertaken a behaviour change programme.

6.16 Of particular significance, since our last electoral review, Your Homes Newcastle was set up (2004) to manage council properties, improve housing in order to meet the Government’s Decent Homes standard and provide a range of support services. They currently manage:  26,700 council homes on behalf of Newcastle City Council  1,800 homes on behalf of the Byker Community Trust  330 homes on behalf of Leazes Homes

6.17 Austerity has required a cultural shift from a traditional dependence on the council to developing a new relationship with residents that empowers them to take responsibility for their local areas – and it is recognised that this has required councillors to manage residents’ expectations of what can be provided within the resources available. See earlier responses about how the role of councillor has changed.

Question(s): Are there are developments in policy ongoing that might significantly affect the role of elected councillors in the future?

6.18 There are ongoing policy developments that we anticipate will affect the role of councillors, including:  Economic growth in the city resulting in a greater number of planning applications and licensing issues;  Increased casework due to continued cuts and impacts upon services and other government austerity measures;  Representational role and involvement in communities will increase as councils change from providers of services to enablers;  Devolution of powers to the region will mean working differently with nearby councils and councillors;  Greater integration of public services requiring a different way of working with partners and increased strategic leadership role for the city; and  Further reductions in support for councillors.

6.19 We have set out robust plans for new housing. The successful conclusion of our Local Development Framework, shared with Gateshead, will support an additional 21,000 houses over the next 20 years, whilst managing the consequences for infrastructure,

services and existing communities. During 2015 we will begin to move forward with substantial new investment in homes and communities across the city. This significant development has impacted upon the role of councillors in how they engage with communities in those areas included in the Framework, as well as the workload of councillors to develop the plan and the subsequent increase in workload of our Planning Committee as developments come through the pipeline.

Finance

Question(s): What has been the impact of recent financial constraints on the council’s activities? Would a reduction in the scope and / or scale of council business warrant a reduction in the number of councillors?

6.20 Information provided earlier in this report illustrates the scale of reductions in staff and funding which Newcastle has experienced as a result of government cuts and cost pressures. Evidence from councillors suggests that the consequences of cuts is to increase, rather than reduce, the pressures on councillors’ time. Although a reduced size of the council might, all other things equal, reduce the need for governance arrangements to oversee its work, in practice the process of reducing expenditure involves pressure on communities and a need to manage the consequences of cuts to facilities and services which has in practice created new pressures created new pressures on the role of councillors within their communities.

Question(s): If you are proposing a reduction in the number of councillors for your authority, to what extent is this a reflection of reduced activity of the council overall, an anticipation of efficiency plans or a statement to local people? Or none of these things?

6.21 Not applicable as a reduction in the number of councillors is not being proposed.

Conclusions

6.22 Key conclusions relating to the future are:  Our councillors, particularly the Leader of the Council and Cabinet, are at the forefront of lobbying government for a better deal for local government and for devolution of powers and finding to the region. We need to sustain the current number of councillors to sustain the capacity to do this.  We need to retain this capacity whilst also having the increased amount of councillor time required to make difficult budget decisions and then support communities as these are implemented, including supporting communities to take on more responsibility and changing their relationship with the council.  We expect the population to increase and as a result of this, and targeted activity to increase registration, our electorate will also increase, as will the ratio of electorate to councillors and the resultant casework for councillors.

Section Seven: Comparisons to similar authorities (Cipfa Nearest Neighbours)

7.1 In their technical guidance, the Commission states: “In cases where the authority’s proposal would mean its council size differs to a significant extent from similar authorities, we will require particularly strong evidence”.

7.2 The graph below shows the council size for our similar authorities, as provided by the Commission:

7.3 This provides us with a range within which the Commission would expect our council size to be – i.e. between 48 and 99 councillors. Our proposal to retain 78 councillors remains within this range. We accept that the proposal to retain 78 councillors keeps us towards the higher level of the other authorities however we believe that the specific needs of the city, fulfilling our role of regional capital and managing the demands of a diverse range deprived and affluent wards demands this council size.

7.4 The Commission included the identified councils in the nearest group because they are what the Cipfa Nearest Neighbours model said were our most similar metropolitan councils. They use the Cipfa model because that’s what a lot of councils use.

7.5 Within the Cipfa model you can select which factors you want the model to work with in drawing up the nearest neighbours group. The Commission chose to use the default list so it would not be them choosing the factors. They advised that this is important because it’s possible to get the result you want by choosing which factors to operate the model with and they do not do this as they don’t have a preconceived view of what the answer should be.

7.6 Since the Commission provided the original information above, Cipfa have updated some of the underlying data in the model – it is not known if they have altered the default settings on what classes of information are used. This meant that our list of nearest neighbours changed.

7.7 Manchester, Sandwell, North Tyneside and South Tyneside have dropped out of the grouping and Knowsley, Tameside, Rochdale and Walsall have come in.

7.8 Based on data from December 2014, the updated nearest neighbours information is:  Leeds – 99 councillors  Liverpool – 90 councillors  Sheffield – 78 councillors 55

 Newcastle – 78 councillors  Sunderland – 75 councillors  Dudley – 72 councillors  Gateshead – 66 councillors  Knowsley – 63 councillors  Rochdale – 60 councillors  Walsall – 60 councillors  Wolverhampton – 60 councillors  Salford – 60 councillors  Bolton – 60 councillors  Tameside – 57 councillors  Coventry – 54 councillors  St. Helen’s – 48 councillors 7.9 This has no impact on the range within which the Commission would expect our council size to be – it is still between 48 and 99 councillors. Our understanding of the Commission’s policy and practice is that, unless a council proposals a council size towards the extremes of these ranges, it would not normally consider that the position within this range necessitates a particular level of council size.

Section Eight: Views of other interested stakeholders

8.1 Constitutional Committee agreed that as well as current councillors, we should seek the views of specific stakeholders with a direct stake in the council size. As such, we wrote to the three Members of Parliament for Newcastle and other political parties who had a candidate in the May 2015 local elections. Copies of the responses received can be found in Appendix 5. Responses were received from:  Liberal Democrats (opposition group)  Independent councillors  Nick Brown MP  Catherine McKinnell MP  Chi Onwurha MP  Newcastle Green Party  Newcastle Conservative Federation  It’s Time to Put Newcastle First

8.2 The Liberal Democrats, the opposition group on City Council, suggest that the council size should be reduced to 60 with three councillors each representing 20 wards. Their main reasons for this are the significant reduction in the resources available to the council and therefore the reduced time required to manage and oversee activity and reduced commitments in committee work as a result of changes to governance arrangements. They state that there have been changes, such as the end of the demanding Audit Commission inspection regime and abolition of the Regional Development Agency, that have reduced the workload of the council and councillors. They also describe how the representational role of councillors has changed as a result of changes to the ward committee infrastructure, removal of neighbourhood charters and budgets for local road and pavement improvements and the reduction in officer support.

8.3 We received feedback from independent councillors, who suggest that Newcastle keeps the number of councillors at 78 after the review. This proposal was based upon a discussion at the Westerhope Community Partnership and Ward Committee where residents particularly highlighted the large scale developments and resulting increase in housing, particularly on green belt land and in the west of the city and in the Newcastle Great Park. Officers were also invited to attend the Westerhope Ward Committee (which returns all three independent councillors), where debate with members of the public reinforced the importance attached to adequate councillor representation and an active community role.

8.4 Nick Brown MP expressed the view that there is not a case for change of the council size. Catherine McKinnell MP and Chi Onwurha MP responded to confirm that they did not have any comments to make at this stage of the review.

8.5 The Newcastle Green Party did not outline a specific council size proposal but agreed that we should retain three councillors per ward, although that other options be ‘kept on the table’. Their reason for this is that not all neighbourhoods are identical in size so wards of different sizes might be needed to achieve coherent wards that local people can easily identify with. They state that although a reduction in councillors could reasonably be considered due to continuing austerity, they caution against any very substantial reduction in councillors for the same reason, as local people will require more support to

take on more responsibilities. They ask that we plan for an increased local role for elected councillors over the next generation.

8.6 The Newcastle Conservative Federation suggest that the council size be reduced to 52, with single member wards. Their reasons for single member wards were better representation of local communities and neighbourhoods with a more direct and accountable relationship between councillors and electors. They suggest that even if three councillor wards are retained the number of councillors should be reduced to 54, with three councillors each representing eighteen wards. Their reasons for this reduction are that the core workload of councillors is decreasing, bringing Newcastle in line with other Core City local authorities and reducing the cost of politics in Newcastle.

8.7 Newcastle First suggest that the number of councillors per ward be reduced to two and the number of wards increase to 28 smaller wards to better represent their constituents with more local accountability. This would result in a council size of 56 councillors. They also commented on the portfolio system and the evolution of the combined authority.

8.8 All respondents said that they will engage with the Commission in the next stages of the review. Some respondents also commented on the electoral cycle, however this is outside of the scope of this review.

Section Nine: Options considered

9.1 In reaching conclusions about the council size needed in Newcastle a range of options were considered and discounted, including any changes to the number of councillors per ward and potential reductions to the number of councillors overall. An option to increase the number of councillors was not considered.

9.2 Constitutional Committee made an early decision to retain three councillors per ward as this is what the residents of Newcastle are familiar with and what helps to retain transparent and effective decision making at a local level. This would not be possible if wards are represented by only one councillor.

9.3 The Committee also considered representations from political parties advocating a significant reduction in the number of councillors. The evidence base suggests that a significant reduction in council size would create risks for the operation of council business, in particular restricting the ability of the council to respond to pressures on our statutory functions.

9.4 Specific reasons for discounting a reduction include:  It would limit the capacity for councillors to fulfil the increase representational role and could result in less work taking place in wards. It was reported in the time recording and survey that this essential activity takes up the majority of time for councillors now and it would not be sustainable with a significantly reduced number of councillors.  More decisions will be needed particularly around planning and licensing therefore workload on councillors involved in relevant committees would increase, reducing capacity for involvement in other committees as well as ward activity.  Reduced capacity could result in reduced effectiveness of the scrutiny function as backbench councillors not appointed to the committees might have less capacity to get involved through joint task and finish groups due to increased workload through involvement in other committees.  It could reduce the diversity amongst our councillors, potentially resulting in only those who do not work or have the financial means not to work having the time available to fulfil the governance and representational councillor role.

9.5 The conclusions set out in Section Ten explain why it is recommended that we retain 78 councillors.

Section Ten: Conclusions

10.1 Newcastle City Council is an effective and ambitious council and we must ensure that our duty to provide governance of the council and representation of our residents is fulfilled. After careful consideration of the evidence presented, Constitutional Committee agreed that the number of councillors should remain at 78. Key conclusions from the evidence are summarised below.

Strategic leadership role for the city

10.2 We are ambitious for our residents with a clear place-shaping role in creating the conditions for economic growth and facilitating public service reform that concentrates on the outcomes that matter to our residents. This requires influence at a national and regional level through Core Cities, LGA and the North East Combined Authority. Devolution of powers and responsibilities to the NE region, as well as greater integration of public services, will require councillors to influence national policy, be strategic and work at a high level to get the best deal for Newcastle. Although this work is primarily led by a small number of Cabinet councillors, this would be more difficult to sustain with a significant reduction to the number of councillors.

10.3 Our councillors, particularly the Leader of the Council and Cabinet, are at the forefront of lobbying government for a better deal for local government and for devolution of powers and finding to the region. We need to sustain the current number of councillors to sustain the capacity to do this. We will need to retain this capacity whilst also having the increased amount of councillor time required to make difficult budget decisions and then support communities as these are implemented, including supporting communities to take on more responsibility and changing their relationship with the council.

Leadership of the council

10.4 Newcastle City Council operates under a Leader and Cabinet model of governance, with two scrutiny committees and five non-executive committees. A significant number of decisions are delegated to officers where they are operational in nature but big strategic decisions are taken by councillors. There has been a recent review of committee structures to ensure efficiency while maintaining a strong and transparent democratic process. The workload of councillors remains significant particularly in licensing and regulatory committees due to our thriving night time economy. Furthermore, we anticipate an increase in the workload of Planning Committee due to the recent adoption of our Local Development Framework. City Council also appoints councillors to be representatives on a wide range of outside bodies.

10.5 The current number of councillors should be retained to continue to deliver effective leadership and governance. A significant reduction to the number of councillors could significantly increase the workload of fewer councillors. The expected increase in planning and licensing activity and decisions required means it is not appropriate to reduce the number of councillors needed on these committees. Future changes will in fact increase the demands upon these committees and therefore the workload of the councillors involved. A reduction in the number of councillors could also result in a reduction to the number of backbench and opposition councillors, therefore reducing challenge and councillor capacity not taken up in committees.

10.6 Support available from officers continues to decrease due to budget restraints therefore increasing the workload of scrutiny committees to lead on scrutiny activity and drafting of reports. Scrutiny committees continue to have busy agendas and forward plans. This is 60

expected to increase as the nature of services provided continue to change. Cuts and changes to services as a result of budget decisions, continued asset transfers, closer integration with other organisations and devolution of powers will require continued effective scrutiny and are likely to increase the workload for the committees. Reducing the number of councillors would result in there being less opportunity for all councillors to get involved as effectively in scrutiny. This could be as a result of appointments and workload from other committees and increase community caseload per councillor.

Impact of austerity

10.7 Newcastle City Council has experienced significant budget reductions in recent years, with further reductions anticipated. This will require further service redesign, a changing relationship with residents and greater partnership working / integration of services. The council will continue to influence and shape investment in the city, and where we may directly deliver less there will be clear role for councillors in maintaining democratic oversight of services. The workload of councillors has and will continue to increase as a result of this.

Councillors’ community leadership role

10.8 Community leadership is central to the role of Newcastle councillors – the time recording exercise identified that over half of councillor time is spent working in communities. This element of the role is expansive, particularly responding to enquiries and undertaking case work (which councillors expect to increase as a result of austerity measures), and a cooperative council approach that encourages coproduction / devolution of services so that residents are able to take a greater role in shaping their neighbourhoods.

10.9 A significant reduction in the number of councillors could detrimentally impact upon the community leadership role by reducing the time councillors can spend on this activity. Casework is increasing, particularly in areas where there are high numbers of social housing and deprivation. We expect casework to increase as government austerity measures continue, new developments take place in the city, changes continue to the services we provide due to reduced budgets and our relationship with residents continues to change as a result. Councillors already spend a considerable amount of time dealing with casework and it might not be as responsive or sustainable if the number of councillors reduces. Officer support to councillors in their representative role is also decreasing.

Newcastle’s communities

10.10 Newcastle is a diverse city with different needs within different communities, for example, we have an ageing population but there are also concentrated parts of the city with high student populations. There are distinctive communities within the city, including villages and urban centres. The development that will happen through delivering the Local Development Framework will further impact upon the diversity, potentially leading to migration into and within the city. We expect the population to increase and as a result of this and targeted activity to increase registration, our electorate will also increase, as will the ratio of electorate to councillors and the resultant casework for councillors.

Diverse membership

10.11 We are keen to attract and retain a diverse range of councillors with different backgrounds, employment status, caring responsibilities, age, sex and ability represented. It is important to recognise that any increase in workload could be detrimental to attracting and retaining diverse membership. In particular, the responses to the survey indicated that current workloads have had an impact upon the careers of some councillors.

Appendix 1 – Cabinet portfolios

Leader of Council  Provide leadership within the organisation and on behalf of the organisation and the city to the wider world  Ensure the council is working effectively towards its priorities  Thematic lead for devolution

Deputy Leader of Council  Political governance – corporate plan and forward plan, risk management  Strategic, economic, transport and planning policy  Voluntary and community sector liaison and Newcastle Fund  International policy  Delivering the digital change programme  Implementation of the Learning Challenge  Promoting social inclusion and cohesion, including embedding Fairness Commission principles, fair pay policy and financial inclusion  Thematic lead for promoting social inclusion, fairness and equalities

Cabinet Secretary  Policy development and co-ordination  Effective communication  Co-ordinating manifesto priorities across the council  Council, Cabinet and Committee forward planning  Ensuring effective political accountability  Thematic lead for Co-operative Council

Cabinet Member for Communities and Facilities  Public engagement and co-operative communities  Neighbourhood devolution  Community buildings and assets, including asset transfers  Ward governance  Culture and tourism  Neighbourhood facilities, including libraries, customer services and registrars, leisure services, sports and physical activity, cemeteries and crematoria  Thematic lead for community empowerment

Cabinet Member for Resources  Budget framework and financial planning  Corporate resources and assets, including legal services, exchequer services, revenues and benefits, ICT, human resources  Performance and financial risk management, including audit, insurance, value for money  Industrial relations framework / staff side relations, including health and safety and learning and development  Thematic lead for commissioning and procurement

Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regulatory Services  Delivering decent neighbourhoods standards, including street cleaning, graffiti removal, neighbourhood response teams, waste collection, recycling, garden waste collection, environmental awareness and horticultural services  Protecting the natural and built environment, including climate change, wildlife protection heritage and conservation 63

 Promoting community safety, including tackling anti-social behaviour (wardens, night time noise service), liaison with Northumbria Police including the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable, liaison with other crime and criminal justice partners, leading Safe Newcastle Partnership, Crime and Policing panel, CCTV policy and delivery, delivery of licensing and regulatory policy, trading standards, resilience planning, parking enforcement  Promoting effective regulation  Thematic lead for civic enterprise

Cabinet Member for Public Health and Housing  Housing delivery and management, including Fairer Housing Unit, new house building programme, Your Homes Newcastle, HMO licensing policy, private landlords and tenants, homelessness  Public health activities, including co-ordinating the work of the council in early years and preventative health, early intervention, embed public health across the work of the council, delivering on the public health outcome framework, promoting healthy neighbourhoods  Thematic lead for Age Friendly City

Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health  Adult social care, including personalisation and direct payments, co-operative service design and commissioning, early intervention and prevention, carer support, asylum seekers, strategic migration, wellbeing and health of adults, adult safeguarding  Health and social care integration, including joint working with the NHS including CCGs and Hospital Trusts and devolution for health  Thematic lead for disability

Cabinet Member for Children and Young People  Early years, primary and secondary education  School improvement, including inspections, behaviour, attendance, enjoyment and enrichment  Relationships with education providers, including 1-19 year olds (schools, further education, training, connexions) and higher education links  Wellbeing and health of children and young people  Children’s safeguarding and social care services, including looked after children and child protection  Integrated services for children, young people and families, including Sure Start Children’s Centres, Connexions, youth offending, drugs and alcohol, NEETs, SEN and children with disabilities  Thematic lead for tackling child poverty

Cabinet Member for Investment and Development  Delivery of infrastructure, including major transport schemes, cycling, broadband and local highways schemes  Delivery of major projects including the capital programme, City Deal, Science City and Local Development Framework  Skills, including promoting employment-related skills, liaising with employers and training / skills providers, promoting apprenticeships, promoting a living wage, lifelong learning  Jobs, including promoting new jobs and sectoral growth, Business Improvement District development and business relations  Thematic lead for climate change

All members of Cabinet work collectively to:

 Deliver a capital programme and revenue budget  Contribute to the Newcastle Future Needs Assessment  Improvement the wellbeing and health of the city

Appendix 2 – Details of North East Combined Authority and joint authorities / committees

 North East Combined Authority – comprises the seven Local Authorities – Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland - and was established in April 2014 with the aim of improving: o The exercise of statutory functions relating to transport in the Combined Area; o The effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the Combined Area; o The exercise of statutory functions and general powers relating to economic development and growth in the Combined Area; and o Economic conditions in the Combined Area.

 Transport North East Committee and Sub-Committee – a joint committee of the Constituent Authorities and NECA. NECA has also established a sub-committee of TNEC (the Transport North East (Tyne and Wear) Sub-committee TWSC) comprising representatives from the five Tyne and Wear authorities only and an Economic Development and Regeneration Advisory Board (EDRAB). NECA has also established a Governance Committee, to oversee audit and standards issues, and an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Together these discharge the responsibilities of NECA, under the Constitution.

 North East Local Enterprise Partnership – a cross-sector partnership with membership drawn from the public sector (7 Constituent Authorities), the private sector, as well as higher and further education, whose vision is to promote and develop economic growth in the North East. The key roles of the LEP are: supporting enterprise and private sector business growth; building on key economic strengths; improving skills and performance; and strengthening transport, connectivity and infrastructure.

 North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO) – undertakes high-value procurement in major strategic areas of spend (such as construction, energy, and social care) on behalf of the twelve North East local authorities and a range of associate members. The twelve north east local authorities represented by NEPO, via the Association of North East Councils (ANEC) are: Darlington Borough Council; Durham County Council; Gateshead; Hartlepool; Middlesbrough; Newcastle; North Tyneside; Northumberland; Redcar & Cleveland; South Tyneside; Stockton; Sunderland. NEPO is governed by a Collaborative Procurement Sub-Committee, comprising of a councillor from each of the ANEC Member Authorities, to advise, scrutinise and inform collaborative procurement activity across councils The key objectives of NEPO are: o To deliver significant savings to the north east public sector through collaborative procurement. o To support and develop the region's supply base, making it better able to win public sector contracts. o To act as a strategic, commercial, efficient and technology enabled body that is able to mobilise the procurement and commissioning talent of north east local authorities for the benefit of the region.

 Joint Street Lighting Committee – a committee joint committee with North Tyneside Council to administer, maintain and develop the joint street lights private finance initiative project and any other such matters considered necessary or proper to facilitate such purposes. Two councillors are appointed by each council and meet at least four times per year.

 Joint Tyne Bridges Committee – joint committee with Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council, approving the revenue budget, providing for the upkeep of the bridges and overseeing of the functioning of the bridges. Each year it has responsibility to make recommendations to

each Council as to the programme of maintenance to be undertake in the following year and the estimated costs to be incurred. There are four councillors from each council.

 LA7 Airport Board – set up to assist in shaping the strategic direction of the Airport and in particular from a local authority shareholder perspective.

 Northumbria Police and Crime Panel - the five Tyne and Wear Councils and Northumberland County Council have established the Panel as required by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The Panel scrutinises the performance of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Vera Baird QC, and also promotes openness in the delivery of police services throughout Northumbria. The Panel’s powers and responsibilities include: o Reviewing the draft Police and Crime Plan o Publicly scrutinising the PCC's annual report o Reviewing and scrutinising decisions and actions of the PCC o Reviewing and vetoing the PCC's proposed precept levels o Reviewing and confirming the PCC's proposed appointments of Chief Constable, Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer, and Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.

 Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums Joint Committee – governs the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums. 12 members drawn from the four local authorities on Tyneside. The Joint Committee is responsible for: o The preparation of a policy statement for TWAM and its revision from time to time, o The monitoring and review of the work of TWAM, o The determination of the budget and staffing of TWAM, and o Commenting on matters affecting museums, archives and records regionally, nationally and internationally insofar as they affect TWAM.

 Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Authority – The statutory fire and rescue service for the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear. The service provides emergency fire cover to the five comprising metropolitan boroughs of Sunderland, Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and South Tyneside, serving a population of 1.09 million people and a total geographical area of 538 square kilometres. The Authority is responsible for the running of the service, as well as the publication of performance indicators in accordance with its legal obligations.

 Gateshead Newcastle Partnership – set up to oversee and ensure a joined-up approach to issues of strategic importance to both Gateshead and Newcastle.

 Tyne and Wear Pensions Committee – responsible for the control of the Tyne and Wear Pension Fund and meets quarterly to consider all pension matters. The Committee has eighteen members. South Tyneside Council has legal responsibility for the Fund and nominates eight members, whilst the other four district councils within the County area each nominate one member. The trades unions and the employers nominate three members each, who sit on the Committee in an advisory capacity.

 Tyne and Wear Joint Trading Standards Committee – co-ordinates and reviews the management of trading standards and the Metrology Laboratory. Tyne and Wear Metrology Laboratory achieved UKAS accreditation in 1993 and has been offering a mass calibration service to local industry since then. The Committee oversee the management of the laboratory on behalf of the following councils: Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland.

Appendix 3 – Schedules of appointments made by City Council

Schedule A – Committee Membership 2015-16

(A) Cabinet (A) 1 Cabinet Proposed day and time of meeting: Policy meetings on 2nd Wednesday quarterly at 4.30pm and Business meetings on 4th Wednesday monthly at 4.30pm. (with exceptions) Cabinet Appointments - for information Councillors: 10 (plus 2 Liberal Democrat Observers) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of Council Labour Joyce McCarty Portfolio: Deputy Leader Labour Stephen Powers Portfolio: Cabinet Secretary Labour David Stockdale Portfolio: Communities and Facilities Labour Veronica Dunn Portfolio: Resources Labour Nick Kemp Portfolio: Neighbourhoods and Regulatory Services Labour Jane Streather Portfolio: Public Health and Housing Labour Karen Kilgour Portfolio: Adult Care and Health Labour Joanne Kingsland Portfolio: Children and Young People Labour Ged Bell Portfolio: Investment and Development Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Observer Liberal Democrat Wendy Taylor Observer

(A) 1.1 Ad-hoc Cabinet Committees (Discretionary Rate Relief, Licensing of Houses in Multiple occupation and Selective Licensing) Proposed day and time of meeting: As and when required. Cabinet Appointments for information Councillors: 3 Cabinet members

(B) Governance Committees (B) 1 Constitutional Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: Bi-monthly 1st Tuesday at 4.00pm Nominations (Councillors): 13 (9+4) Party Councillor Comments Labour Chris Bartlett Chair / Delegated Sub-Committee Member Labour David Wood Vice Chair / Delegated Sub-Committee Member Labour Nick Forbes Labour Joyce McCarty Labour George Pattison Labour Barry Phillipson Labour Stephen Powers (continued over) Labour Hazel Stephenson Labour David Stockdale Liberal Democrat David Faulkner Delegated Sub-Committee Member Liberal Democrat Henry Gallagher Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Liberal Democrat Greg Stone

(B) 2 Standards Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: Quarterly Nominations (Councillors): 6 members (4+2) plus 2 non-voting independent members (one of whom to be Chair) and 2 non-voting parish council members Party Name/Councillor Comments Labour Arlene Ainslie Joint Vice Chair Labour Jeremy Beecham Labour Kim McGuinness Labour Dan Perry Liberal Democrat Greg Stone Liberal Democrat Bill Shepherd n/a Mick Garry Independent Member (Joint Vice Chair) n/a Mark Scrimshaw Independent Chair n/a Parish council representatives to be confirmed n/a Parish council representatives to be confirmed

(B) 3 Audit Committee (advisory) Proposed day and time of meeting: Quarterly – June, September, December and March Nominations (Councillors): 5 (3+2) plus 4 independent members (one of whom to be Chair) Party Name/Councillor Comments Labour Jeremy Beecham Labour Michael Burke Labour Marion Talbot Vice Chair Liberal Democrat Robin Ashby Liberal Democrat David Slesenger n/a Malcolm Lumsden Independent Member n/a Paul Miller Independent Member n/a Hamish Moore Independent Chair n/a Mark Scrimshaw Independent Member

(C) Non-Executive Committees (C) 1 Chief Executive’s Appraisal Panel Proposed day and time of meeting: As and when required Nominations (Councillors): 3 (2+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of the Council (Chair) Labour Joyce McCarty Deputy Leader (Vice Chair) Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Leader of the Opposition

(C) 2 Planning Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: Friday 9.30 am – every 3 weeks Nominations (Councillors): 14 (10+4) Participation subject to relevant training for new members with attendance at annual update training. Party Councillor Comments Labour George Allison Chair / Delegated Sub-Committee Member Labour David Cook Vice Chair / Delegated Sub-Committee Member Labour Hilary Franks Labour Brian Hunter Labour Karen Kilgour Labour Felicity Mendelson Labour Sue Pearson Labour Hazel Stephenson Labour John Stokel-Walker Labour Marion Talbot Liberal Democrat David Slesenger Delegated Sub-Committee Member Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Liberal Democrat Catherine Walker Liberal Democrat Karen Robinson

(C) 2.1 Planning Enforcement Action Sub-Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: As and when required Nominations (Councillors): 3 (2+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour George Allison Chair Labour David Cook Vice Chair Liberal Democrat David Slesenger

(C) 3 Licensing Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: As and when required Nominations (Councillors): 14 (10+4) Individual applications will be considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee - meets twice per month on 2nd and 4th Tuesday - from 9:30am to all day) comprising 3 Members from the full membership below. As far as possible each Sub-Committee meeting to be cross-party and include the Chair or Vice-Chair. Party Councillor Comments Labour George Pattison Chair Labour Steve Fairlie Vice-Chair Labour Kerry Allibhai Labour Melissa Davis Labour Brian Hunter Labour Maureen Lowson Labour Margaret Wood Labour Ann Schofield Vice-Chair Labour Jane Streather Labour Marion Talbot 70

Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Liberal Democrat Brenda Hindmarsh Liberal Democrat Catherine Walker Liberal Democrat Karen Robinson

(C) 4 Regulatory and Appeals Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 1st and 3rd Mondays from 9:00am. Nominations (Councillors): 14 (10+4) Applications and appeals will be considered by a 3 member Regulatory and Appeals Sub-committee drawn from the full membership below. As far as possible each Sub-Committee meeting to be cross-party and include the Chair or Vice-Chair. Members must be able to attend a minimum of one meeting every three weeks. Party Councillor Comments Labour Linda Wright Chair Labour Rob Higgins Vice Chair Labour Jacqui Robinson Vice Chair Labour David Cook Labour Maureen Lowson Labour Felicity Mendelson Labour Sue Pearson Labour Ann Schofield Labour John Stokel-Walker Labour Stephen Wood Liberal Democrat Robert Renton Liberal Democrat Peter Leggott Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Liberal Democrat Karen Robinson

(C)5 Wellbeing for Life Board Proposed day and time of meeting: To be agreed Organisation Basis Newcastle City Council (Chair) Leader of Council Statutory Newcastle City Council (Vice-Chair) Deputy Leader of Council Newcastle City Council Cabinet Member, Children and Young People Newcastle City Council Cabinet Member, Adult Care and Health Newcastle City Council Cabinet Member Public Health and Housing Newcastle City Council Opposition Member (David Faulkner) Newcastle City Council Chief Executive Newcastle City Council Director of Wellbeing, Care and Learning Statutory Newcastle City Council Director of Public Health Statutory Healthwatch Newcastle Chair 1 Statutory Chief Executive Newcastle Gateshead NHS CCG  Newcastle Clinical Lead 1  One member of CCG governing body 1 (nominated by CCG)  Accountable Officer for CCG 1 71

NHS England Nominated director Statutory at times Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service Chief Executive Newcastle Futures Chair Newcastle University Pro-Vice-Chancellor - Faculty of Medical Sciences Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Chair Foundation Trust Chief Executive Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Chair Foundation Trust Chief Executive Representative of Primary care provision Vacancy Northumbria University Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Business & Engagement) North East Ambulance Service Chief Executive Voluntary & Community Sector 2 places at sector discretion Schools representative Head Teacher - tbc

(D) Scrutiny Committees (C) 1 Overview and Scrutiny Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4th Thursday 2:30pm – monthly Nominations (Councillors): 14 (10+4) Plus 4 statutory education co-optees (who have voting rights on any education matters). Membership to include the Chair and Vice Chair of the Health Scrutiny Committee Position Councillor Comments Labour Kerry Allibhai Labour David Denholm Labour Steve Fairlie Labour Hilary Franks Vice-Chair (continued over) Labour Brian Hunter Labour Stephen Lambert Labour Felicity Mendelson Labour Barry Phillipson Labour Jacqui Robinson Labour Marion Talbot Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Chair Liberal Democrat Nick Cott Liberal Democrat David Faulkner Liberal Democrat Wendy Taylor

(D) 1.1 Scrutiny Sub Committees and/or Task and Finish Groups Proposed day and time of meeting: As and when required Nominations (Councillors): Membership to be drawn from all non-executive members who agree to put themselves forward with the support of their groups, where appropriate.

(D) 2 Health Scrutiny Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 2nd Thursday 4:30pm – monthly Nominations (Councillors): 14 (10+4) Party Councillor Comments Labour Arlene Ainslie Labour Jeremy Beecham Labour Mick Bowman Labour David Cook Labour Denise Jones Labour Felicity Mendelson Vice-Chair Labour Sue Pearson Labour Ben Riley Labour Ian Tokell Labour Linda Wright Liberal Democrat Wendy Taylor Chair Liberal Democrat Henry Gallagher Liberal Democrat Pauline Allen Liberal Democrat Jackie Slesenger

(E) Ward Committees (E) 1 Benwell and Scotswood Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Jeremy Beecham Labour Rob Higgins Labour Hazel Stephenson

(E) 2 Blakelaw Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Sue Pearson Labour Ben Riley Labour David Stockdale

(E) 3 Byker Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour George Allison Labour Veronica Dunn Labour Nick Kemp

(E) 4 Castle Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Brian Hunter Liberal Democrat Ian Graham Liberal Democrat Anita Lower

(E) 5 Dene Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Liberal Democrat Robert Renton Liberal Democrat Karen Robinson Liberal Democrat Wendy Taylor

(E) 6 Denton Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Simon Bird Labour Michael Burke Labour Melissa Davis

(E) 7 East Gosforth Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Liberal Democrat Henry Gallagher (continued over) Liberal Democrat Peter Leggott Liberal Democrat David Slesenger

(E) 8 Elswick Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Dipu Ahad Labour Habib Rahman Labour Ann Schofield

(E) 9 Fawdon Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Antoine Tinnion Liberal Democrat David Faulkner Liberal Democrat Brenda Hindmarsh 74

(E) 10 Fenham Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Karen Kilgour Labour Ian Tokell Labour Marion Talbot

(E) 11 Kenton Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Labour Stephen Lambert Labour Jane Streather

(E) 12 Lemington Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour David Cook Labour Barry Phillipson Labour Kim McGuinness

(E) 13 Newburn Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Steve Fairlie Labour Hilary Franks Labour Linda Wright

(E) 14 North Heaton Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Mick Bowman Liberal Democrat Doreen Huddart Liberal Democrat Greg Stone

(E) 15 North Jesmond Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Dan Perry Liberal Democrat Peter Breakey Liberal Democrat Catherine Walker

(E) 16 Ouseburn Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Stephen Powers Liberal Democrat Gareth Kane Liberal Democrat Stephen Psallidas

(E) 17 Parklands Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Liberal Democrat Pauline Allen Liberal Democrat David Down Liberal Democrat Robin Ashby

(E) 18 South Heaton Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Christopher Bartlett Labour Sophie White Labour Denise Jones

(E) 19 South Jesmond Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Arlene Ainsley Labour Kerry Allibhai Labour Felicity Mendelson

(E) 20 Walker Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour John Stokel-Walker Labour Dave Wood Labour Margaret Wood

(E) 21 Walkergate Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Stevie Wood Labour David Denholm Labour Maureen Lowson

(E) 22 West Gosforth Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Liberal Democrat Nick Cott Liberal Democrat Bill Shepherd Liberal Democrat Jackie Slesenger

(E) 23 Westerhope Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Independent Bill Corbett Independent Marc Donnelly Independent Pat Hillicks

(E) 24 Westgate Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Labour Joanne Kingsland Labour Geoff O’Brien

(E) 25 Wingrove Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour Irim Ali Labour Joyce McCarty Labour Nigel Todd

(E) 26 Woolsington Ward Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 4 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): All Ward Councillors Party Councillor Comments Labour George Pattison Labour Sharon Pattison Labour Jacqui Robinson

(F) Advisory Committees (F) 1 Adult Learning Service Proposed day and time of meeting: 3 times per year (date/time TBC) Nominations (Councillors): 3 (2+1) plus 10 other members. Party Name/Councillor Comments Labour Hilary Franks Labour Ged Bell Liberal Democrat Jackie Slesenger

(F) 3 Corporate Parent Advisory Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: Last Thursday at 5.30 pm – bi-monthly Nominations (Councillors): 7 (5+2) Party Councillor Comments Labour Joanne Kingsland Chair, Cabinet member Labour Ben Riley Vice Chair Labour Arlene Ainsley Labour Rob Higgins Labour Jane Streather Liberal Democrat Jackie Slesenger Liberal Democrat Stephen Psallidas

(F) 4 Historic Environment Advisory Panel Proposed day and time of meeting: Quarterly at 11:30 on the last Wednesday of the month – Jun/Sept/Dec/March Nominations (Councillors): 5 (3+2) + 7 external members Party Councillor Comments Labour Stephen Lambert Labour Stephen Fairlie Chair Labour Sue Pearson Liberal Democrat Pauline Allen Liberal Democrat Ian Graham

(F) 5 Mansion House Trust Advisory Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: as and when required Nominations (Councillors): 3 (2+1) plus Lord Mayor and 3 external advisors Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Chair Labour Felicity Mendelson Vice Chair, Ward member Liberal Democrat Catherine Walker Ward member Alderman Colin Gray External adviser Malcolm Lumsden External adviser John Pescott External adviser

(G) Joint Consultative Committees (F) 1 Council Joint Committee Proposed day and time of meeting: 3 per year – Jan/May/Sept Nominations (Councillors): 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Chair, Leader of Council Labour Joyce McCarty Vice Chair, Deputy Leader of Council Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Leader of Opposition

(H) Informal Groups (H) 1 Town Moor Joint Working Group Proposed day and time of meeting: As and when required Nominations (Councillors): 4 (1+1+ two relevant Cabinet/Deputy Members (plus Freemen) Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Chair Labour Stephen Lambert Labour Nigel Todd Liberal Democrat Peter Breakey

(H) 2 Voluntary Sector Liaison Group Proposed day and time of meeting: Quarterly 2nd Thursday at 4:30pm - September, December, March and June Nominations (Councillors): 6 (4+2) Membership to comprise 4 Cabinet Members, Chairs of Scrutiny Committees and 6 voluntary sector members one of whom is Co-Chair). Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member Labour David Stockdale Cabinet member Labour Joyce McCarty Co-Chair, Cabinet member Labour Karen Kilgour Cabinet member Liberal Democrat Nick Cott Liberal Democrat David Faulkner

Schedule B – Representatives on North East Combined Authority and Joint Authorities/Joint Committees 2015/16

North East Combined Authority

North East Leadership Board (NELB) Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of Council Labour Joyce McCarty Substitute member

Transport North East Committee (TNEC) Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Chair (appointed by the NECA Leadership Board) Labour Joyce McCarty Cabinet member Labour Ged Bell Substitute member*

Transport North East (Tyne & Wear) Sub-Committee (TWSC) Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Joyce McCarty Cabinet member Labour Ged Bell Substitute member* same sub member as TNEC

NE Combined Authority Governance Committee Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Hilary Franks Labour Denise Jones Substitute member

NE Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee Number of Representatives: Party Councillor Comments Labour Sue Pearson Liberal Democrat Anita Lower

NE Combined Authority Economic Development and Regeneration Advisory Board Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Joyce McCarty Cabinet member Labour Ged Bell Substitute member

North East Local Enterprise Partnership Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of Council

Joint Authorities/Joint Committees 2015/16

Collaborative Procurement Sub-Committee Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member

Joint Street Lighting Committee Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Steve Fairlie Labour Nick Kemp Cabinet member Labour Rob Higgins Substitute member Labour George Allison Substitute member

Joint Tyne Bridges Committee Number of Representatives: 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour George Allison Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member Labour Steve Fairlie Liberal Democrat Ian Graham Liberal Democrat David Down Substitute member

LA7 Airport Board Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of Council Labour Ged Bell Alternate director

North East Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee Number of Representatives: 1 – Chair of Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee or another nominated deputy Party Councillor Comments Liberal Democrat Wendy Taylor Chair of Health Scrutiny Committee

North East Purchasing Organisation – Joint Committee Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet Member Labour David Denholm Scrutiny Member (requirement of NEPO constitution)

Northumbria Police and Crime Panel Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Kemp

Labour Geoff O’Brien

Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums Joint Committee Number of Representatives: 3 (2+1) & 3 substitutes (representatives to have access to a pool of deputies) Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Labour David Stockdale Cabinet member Labour Hilary Franks Substitute member Liberal Democrat Peter Leggott Liberal Democrat Ian Graham Substitute member Liberal Democrat Robert Renton Substitute member Liberal Democrat Greg Stone Substitute member

Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Authority Number of Representatives: 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Labour Hazel Stephenson Labour David Stockdale Liberal Democrat Robert Renton

Tyne and Wear Pensions Committee Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Labour Ged Bell Substitute

Tyne and Wear Joint Trading Standards Committee Number of Representatives: 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Kemp Cabinet member Labour Stephen Lambert Labour Maureen Lowson Liberal Democrat Doreen Huddart Liberal Democrat Stephen Psallidas Substitute member

Schedule C – Representatives on Other Bodies 2015/16

Adoption Panel Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour TBC (Vacancy)

Armstrong Centre Company Number of Representatives: 3 (2+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Labour Joyce McCarty Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Liberal Democrat David Faulkner Alternate

Association of North East Councils Number of Representatives: 7 (5+2) [Named substitutes not required] Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member Labour Nick Forbes Leader of the Council Labour Nick Kemp Cabinet member Labour Joyce McCarty Cabinet member Labour Stephen Powers Cabinet member Labour Karen Kilgour Substitute member Labour Veronica Dunn Substitute member Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Leader of the Opposition Liberal Democrat Greg Stone Liberal Democrat Doreen Huddart Substitute member Liberal Democrat Gareth Kane Substitute member

Association of North East Councils Leaders and Elected Mayor’s Group Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of the Council Labour Joyce McCarty Substitute member

Association of North East Councils Ltd. Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of the Council

Beamish North of England Museum Board Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Sophie White

Bus Lane Adjudication Service Joint Committee Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Kemp Cabinet member

Byker Community Trust Number of Representatives: 1 (+ 1 officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Kemp Ward member

Centre for Life Board Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Chris Bartlett

Centre West (Newcastle) Ltd Number of Representatives: 2 (Members must be from Westgate, Wingrove or Elswick Ward) Party Councillor Comments Labour Geoff O’Brien Labour Habib Rahman

Charity of the Hospital of St Mary the Virgin Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Alderman John O’Shea 6yrs to Dec 2017 Alderman Marion McWilliams 6yrs to May 2018

Children’s Trust Board Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Joanne Kingsland Cabinet member Labour Jane Streather Cabinet member

Eldon Square Company Number of Representatives: 3 (2+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Cabinet member Labour Joyce McCarty Cabinet member Liberal Democrat Bill Shepherd

Eurocities Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member

Exhibition and Brandling Parks Community Trust Number of Representatives: 2 (1 Member from South Jesmond Ward and 1 Officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour Felicity Mendelson Ward member

Fostering Panel Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Ben Riley

Gateshead and Newcastle Partnership Number of Representatives: 6 (5+1) (fixed in accordance with terms of reference) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of Council Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member Labour Karen Kilgour Cabinet member Labour Joanne Kingsland Cabinet member Labour Joyce McCarty Cabinet member Labour Ged Bell Substitute Labour Nick Kemp Substitute Labour Stephen Powers Substitute Labour David Stockdale Substitute Labour Jane Streather Substitute Liberal Democrat Anita Lower Liberal Democrat Wendy Taylor Substitute Liberal Democrat Bill Shepherd Substitute

Groundwork Trust Number of Representatives: 1 (+ 1 officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour Geoff O’Brien

Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Site Partnership Board Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Rob Higgins

Heart of the City Partnership Number of Representatives: 3 (2+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Geoff O’Brien Ward member Labour David Cook Liberal Democrat Pauline Allen

International Newcastle Community Interest Company Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member

Leazes Homes (Your Homes Newcastle Housebuilding) Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Jane Streather Cabinet member Labour Veronica Dunn YHN Board member

LGA City Regions Group Number of Representatives: 1 (+ 1 officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of Council

LGA General Assembly Number of Representatives: 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Leader of Council Labour Joyce McCarty Deputy Leader of Council Labour David Wood Liberal Democrat Anita Lower

LGA Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour David Wood

MEA Trust Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Felicity Mendelson Ward member

NE1 Board Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member Liberal Democrat David Faulkner

Newburn Riverside Recreational Association Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Steve Fairlie Labour Hilary Franks

Newcastle Armed Forces Forum Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Armed Forces Champion

Newcastle Dispensary Relief in Sickness Charity Number of Representatives: 1 (+ 1 officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour Joyce McCarty Expiry Date October 2016

Newcastle Fairtrade Partnership Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nigel Todd

Newcastle Futures Limited Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member

Newcastle International Airport Consultative Committee Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Liberal Democrat Ian Graham Ward member

Newcastle Law Centre Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour Antoine Tinnion Labour Habib Rahman

Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board Number of Representatives: 1 participant observer Party Councillor Comments Labour Joanne Kingsland Cabinet member

Newcastle Science City Number of Representatives: 1 (+ 1 officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Forbes Cabinet member Labour Stephen Powers Substitute member

Newcastle Transport Forum Number of Representatives: 4 (3 + 1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Joyce McCarty Chair Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member Labour Steve Fairlie

Liberal Democrat Greg Stone

Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust - Council of Governors Number of Representatives: 1 (+ 1 officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour Jane Streather Governor – Members’ Council

North Country Leisure Number of Representatives: 2 (1 Board Trustee) Party Councillor Comments Labour David Stockdale Cabinet member Labour Hazel Stephenson

North East Regional Employers Organisation for Local Authorities Number of Representatives: 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member Labour Nick Kemp Cabinet member Liberal Democrat David Down

North of England Refugee Service Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Ann Schofield

North of England Reserve Forces and Cadets Association Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Liberal Democrat Bill Shepherd

Northern Stage (Theatrical Productions) Limited (trading as Northern Stage) Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Denise Jones

Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust - Council of Governors Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Karen Kilgour Governor – Members’ Council

Northumbria Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member Labour Steve Fairlie Substitute

PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) Adjudication Joint Committee Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Kemp Cabinet member

Rye Hill Youth Club Trust Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Dipu Ahad Ward member

Safe Newcastle Partnership Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Nick Kemp Cabinet member

Sport Newcastle Number of Representatives: 1 (+ 1 officer) Party Councillor Comments Labour David Stockdale Cabinet member

St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust Number of Representatives: 3 Party Councillor Comments Alderman Margaret Carter Expiry Date May 2015 Labour Sue Pearson Liberal Democrat Catherine Walker Expiry Date May 2015

Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) Number of Representatives: 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Irim Ali Labour Habib Rahman Labour Ben Riley Liberal Democrat Jackie Slesenger

Students in Newcastle Forum Number of Representatives: 4 (3+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Kerry Allibhai Ward member Labour Joyce McCarty Chair, Deputy Leader of Council (continued over page) Labour Stephen Powers Ward member Liberal Democrat Gareth Kane Ward member

Taylor’s Educational Foundation Number of Representatives: 3 Members from Newburn, Lemington, Westerhope or Denton Ward Party Councillor Comments

Labour Linda Wright Ward member - expiry date 3years to Oct 2016 Labour Hilary Franks Ward member - expiry date 3years to Sept 2017 Labour Steve Fairlie Ward member - expiry date 3years to May 2015

Thomas Thompson Poor Rate Gift for the People of Byker Number of Representatives: 2 Members must be from Byker Ward Party Councillor Comments Labour George Allison Labour Nick Kemp

Tyne and Wear Local Access Forum Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell

Tyne Port Health Authority Number of Representatives: 3 (2+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Ged Bell Cabinet member Labour David Wood Liberal Democrat Ian Graham

Tyne Theatre and Opera House Preservation Trust Number of Representatives: 2 Party Councillor Comments Labour David Stockdale Cabinet member Ann Schofield

William Moulton Non-Ecclesiastical Charity Number of Representatives: 3 Party Councillor Comments Labour Sue Pearson Expiry date - 4 years expires 2015 Alderman Marion McWilliams Expiry date - 4 years expires 2017 Mr Bill Schardt Expiry date - 4 years expires 2015

World Health Organisation (WHO) European Healthy City Network Number of Representatives: 1 Party Councillor Comments Labour Jane Streather Cabinet member

YHN Board (Your Homes Newcastle) Number of Representatives: 6 (4+2) Party Councillor Comments Labour Veronica Dunn Cabinet member Labour Joyce McCarty Cabinet member Labour Jane Streather Cabinet member

Labour Marion Talbot Liberal Democrat David Down Liberal Democrat Doreen Huddart

Youth Offending Team Board Number of Representatives: 3 (2+1) Party Councillor Comments Labour Rob Higgins Labour Maureen Lowson Liberal Democrat Gareth Kane

Appendix 4: Case studies provided by councillors

Castle ward 25 sq miles, population 8,554. 5 distinct areas: 1. Dinnington village and Northern Farms and Hamlets 2. Brunswick Village 3. Hazlerigg Village 4. Kingston Park 5. Newcastle Great Park

1 Dinnington

Parish Council

Preparing a neighbourhood plan

Local First School (part of Gosforth 3 tier System)

Number of children go to Ponteland Schools in Northumberland

Village Hall

Scout hut

Men’s Association building includes library staffed and run by volunteers, Banks open cast site Banks community liaison and community fund groups both chaired by me as Cllr

Post Office, Social Club, 2 pub restaurants, Doctors surgery, shop, current new build of 200+ units including sheltered accommodation and dementia care bungalows.

Two other sites earmarked for development, Persimmons and Bellway, will increase size of village by 80%

Farms and Hamlets scattered to north of ward, no public transport, no facilities, several livery stables, single dwellings

2 surgeries a month one midweek one weekends, local newsletters

2. Brunswick

Mainly Local housing Authority stock, number of sheltered accommodation blocks and Dementia Care bungalows and Bradbury Centre specialised dementia unit.

One shop, one takeaway Sure Start Centre Community Group managing this has disbanded currently I have keys to open/close for out of hours groups. Large Industrial Estate

Parish Council

3. Hazlerigg Village

Parish council

Village Hall, local junior football team

Poor private housing, building to east of village by Bellway (200 units), and Banks to west of village (400+ units) doubling size of village.

There are several nature reserves, Prestwick Carr site of scientific interest, Big waters, Three Hills, Havannah Nature Reserves no public footpaths outside of villages no access between villages, therefore we attend all three parish councils, hold surgeries in each village monthly ( twice a month in Dinnington) produce specific literature to keep residents informed locally. Bridleways and rights of ways across area.

4. Kingston Park

1970’s built Estate with primary school (feeds into Kenton 2 tier) large shopping centre, Tesco Extra (24 Hours), Marks and Spencer, Boots, Next, 24 hour MacDonald’s, Matalan, TKMax to name a few. Metro stations, good bus services, community building, some private rented, mainly owner occupier,

Kingston Park neighbourhood forum, being established, development on edge of estate in Woolsington ward around Falcons Rugby Club. Surgeries once a month in community room at Tesco store, two pubs. Local junior football team. No public transport links between Kingston Park and Villages or Great Park.

5 Newcastle Great Park

Development of 3250 houses to north of Kingston Park growing weekly, first school admission number increased to 90 this year194 applications. Community building, private nursery, surgeries once a month and regular newsletter from clls, numerous issues around completions, adoptions, and lack of shops. Some affordable rented housing mainly flats and sheltered accommodation. One subsidised bus service and land management by consortium causes issues, no physical link with rest of ward

Newburn ward Newburn is a diverse ward; technically rural in nature but within the city boundaries, it consists of five distinct communities that vary from fairly affluent to pockets of severe deprivation. We have four established villages of varying sizes and a relatively modern “executive” housing estate, all separated from each other by agricultural land. A number of large housing developments are proposed which would see the population increase considerably within the next few years. There is also light industry as well as traditional industries, such as brick making, and a history of mining. Considerable coal reserves still lie beneath the ward and could be exploited by surface mining. Newburn Ward also has many historical and cultural treasures. Hadrian’s Wall, a UNESCO world heritage site, runs through the ward; we host Tyne and Wear’s only registered battlefield site, Newburn Ford (1640) and our parish church is a contender for the oldest church in Newcastle.

Newburn Ward members undertake a considerable amount of work at ward level. We hold 4 surgeries each month in venues across the ward and have regular walkabouts, both with and without officers, to proactively identify issues. The widespread nature of the ward means these can take several hours to complete. We also hold regular monthly meetings with officers to raise and follow up items of business. Local members act as a conduit liasing between the public and officers, using local knowledge to ensure that the priorities of local people are met. There are also up to 6 formal ward committee meetings, open to the public, held at venues across the ward, to enact the formal functions of the ward committee.

In Newcastle we devolve a proportion of our budget to wards to spend on projects deemed important to the local area. In recent years, however, changes in circumstances, have resulted in 93

wards funding a number of projects with a more strategic element, extending beyond the boundaries of individual wards; carrying out work that might previously have been centrally funded. I would like to outline a number of projects that have been supported by Newburn Ward in the last 3 years.

Outer West Welfare Officer. In 2013, following the introduction of welfare “reforms”, in particular the introduction of the “bedroom tax” and reductions in council tax benefit the council’s central welfare rights team were experiencing unprecedented demand for their services. Newburn, together with our neighbours in Lemington, Denton, Westerhope and Woolsington wards used ward funding to pay for welfare officers to provide benefit advice to local residents. This was extremely successful, helping a large number of needy local residents to claim all of the benefits they were entitled to. I don’t have the exact figures to hand but I believe each welfare officer brought in many times more money in extra benefits than the cost of employing them. This had a very significant positive impact on some of our poorest and most vulnerable residents and helped boost the local economy.

CCTV For several years, Newburn and Lemington Wards have acted on public concerns and used ward funding to work in partnership with Northumbria Police to provide extra, mobile CCTV cameras to fight crime in our wards. This is linked with local SNAPS teams of with councillors are a part. The positioning of these cameras is agreed in consultation between ward members and the police. The police have a significant body of evidence to show the positive impact of this initiative. This is another example of a decision being taken at ward level that other council’s may choose to make centrally.

Play Provision – Youth Work Following the cuts to the city-wide play service forced on the council, Newburn ward chose to commission alternative provision from Northumberland Clubs for Young People. They undertake youth work, engaging with young people and children, many of who could be described as disadvantaged. Their intervention provides positive role models to help build social awareness, self-respect and develop skills needed for life.

2012 Culvert Collapse Incident The collapse of the culvert under Millfield Lane in Newburn in 2012, and its aftermath, created headlines not just nationally but was picked up around the world too. From the beginning, ward members assisted the residents affected by offering help and financial support to set up their own residents association. This had the positive impact of bringing people together and creating community cohesion on what was a relatively new housing development that, up until that point, had little sense of community. The incident involved a number of parties, all with their own interests, and for many months the council formed the only constant presence acting to co- ordinate a response to resolve the situation. Ward members were at the forefront of this helping to liase with the parties involved. When the Council’s scrutiny committee commissioned a task and finish group to look at resilience and the city’s response to extreme events, Newburn members were able to draw on their experience to make a significant contribution to the final report which had relevance far beyond Newcastle City Council.

Puffing Billy Festival – Heritage and Culture 2013 marked the 200th anniversary of William Hedley’s steam locomotive “Puffing Billy” first running on the Wylam Waggonway between Wylam, Newburn and Lemington. This is believed to be the first commercially successful use of a steam railway locomotive anywhere in the world. To take advantage of this anniversary, the “friends of Puffing Billy” was formed as an alliance of interested parties from communities along the waggonway route both in Newcastle and Northumberland. The purpose was to bring villages together to celebrate their joint heritage and raise awareness and educate people about this significant event in world history. The group was 94 initiated with a small amount of ward funding which was then used to bring in further support from elsewhere. In particular, Beamish Museum in County Durham became involved contributing a significant five-figure sum in kind, making the series of events a great success. The outreach team from Beamish worked with community groups including children in schools from Lemington as far west as Ovingham in Northumberland on cross-curricular projects and over 1000 people from Newburn Ward were able to visit Beamish on subsidised trips, with free transport, to see the children’s work. The festival has resulted in lasting links between communities that are geographically close but lie within different authority boundaries. This would not have happened without the local support of Newburn Ward Committee.

Lemington ward Across the Outer West Wards of the city in Denton, Lemington, Newburn, Westerhope and Woolsington we had problems with anti-social behaviour and low level crime. No different to other areas of the city but members in Lemington suggested that wards combined resources to purchase new state of the art re-deployable CCTV cameras for each of the wards and by doing so were able to drive down costs for the purchase and future maintenance of the cameras which are monitored 24/7 at the control room in the civic centre giving operators the ability to direct police to incidents in progress as well as helping to identify individuals involved. This has certainly born fruit in Lemington ward with crime figures continuing to fall. The ward committee continues to work effectively with the police, fire services, housing services, city council and other agencies in a multi-agency problem solving forum to address anti-social behaviour and low level crime

The Lemington ward committee convinced the elected members of the other Outer West wards of Denton, Newburn, Westerhope and Woolsington to come together to fund a Welfare Rights Project, which worked in each of the 5 Wards. This was a huge success and advised 242 people during the course of the project, we also arranged for local volunteers to be given basic training to try and ensure a degree of sustainability of the project.

The project ceased in July 2014 with decisions awaited on 36 benefit claims. Outcomes – cumulative financial gains - £511,674 Number of people advised and Annualised Financial gains up to 21st/Oct/2014 Denton - 59 cases -£156,212, Lemington - 35 cases - £93,386, Newburn - 45 cases - £74,532, Westerhope - 49 cases -£72,033, Woolsington - 45 cases - £102,521 Other - 9 cases - £12,990

This limited project was a huge success, coming at a time when government austerity measures were impacting on the most vulnerable people who found it difficult to engage with the benefit system and thanks to volunteers the project left wards with people who could advise individuals and help make referrals to the service and other agencies.

In Lemington ward we have worked in partnership with the community and other agencies to deliver a range of services from the Lemington Centre not least health provision. Many years ago the Medical Practitioners Council took the decision not to replace the retiring GP in Lemington and since the 1990's Lemington ward has been without its own GP practice. The ward committee worked with a range of partners including the City Council, NHS, local GP practices, the Friends of Lemington and HealthWorks to secure funding not only to build the Lemington Centre but to secure GP services on an outreach basis from the practices at Newburn and Throckley as well as continuing to deliver a range of other services for our community.

The ward committee has recently funded a contribution to the capital costs of the extension of the playgroup to allow double the number of local families to benefit from the increased eligibility for 15 hours a week child care and a contribution to provide activity sessions for ALL local families with children under 5, in response to the reduced Sure Start funding.

The committee also made a contribution towards the costs of the Exercise on Referral programme which is for the over 50’s with long term conditions (CVD, MSK problems, diabetes, COPD etc). This is a long term programme to increase functional ability, and improve mental health, through regular exercise in a social setting. It also helps connect people into a range of local services and helps them to meet others in a similar position.This service is kept at a low cost to avoid expense being a barrier to engagement.

Long term conditions account for 70% of hospital bed days and more people, although living longer, do so with long years of ill health due to preventable chronic disease. Appropriate physical activity helps manage long term conditions and also contributes to improving the mental health of those living with chronic ill health. HealthWORKS is also committed to reducing health inequalities and this service helps improve the health literacy and self-management skills of people who live in the less affluent areas of our community.

April 2014 to March 2015 New Referrals to the service at Lemington = 298 (43% male 57% female, 2% BME) Total attendance to exercise on referral gym sessions = 6,342 Total attendance to exercise on referral classes = 1,206 Giving an overall total of attendances = 7,548

The nearest other facility is the Gym at Newburn with no provision of an Exercise on Referral programme

Mainstream Gym service at Lemington = everyone else attending the low cost local gym:

April 2014 to March 2015 New members to the community gym at Lemington = 525 (39% male 61% female) Total attendance to gym sessions = 7,155 Total attendance to classes = 1,091 Giving an overall total of attendances = 8,246

Overall total attendances to the community gym (exercise on Referral plus mainstream, including family gym) = 15,794 per year

Lemington ward committee has carried out extensive research over recent years with the wider community (Life in Lemington) to identify the communities priorities and thoughts upon the place where they live, we have built upon this and put together an outline of an evidenced based Lemington Ward plan, which we hope will enable us to deliver services in a more strategic manner at the local level based upon priorities and importantly reinforce the position that all of us need to play our part in taking Lemington ward forward. We are about engage the wider community once again on this approach which will also allow members to feed directly into the Scrutiny process not just of City Council but other agencies who are or could deliver services for the people of Lemington ward.

Rather than meeting as a Ward committee with officers in a meeting room. Lemington Councillors try to hold as many meetings as possible as walkabouts round the ward. Recently we held an evening session in three different outdoor places in the Ward where residents had issues, and were able to meet a wide range of people who almost certainly would not attend a traditional Ward Councillors meeting.

Newcastle Ward Councillors regularly attend SNAPS groups organised on a ward basis (Safe Newcastle Action and Problem Solving). These are multi-agency groups involving police, fire services, housing officers, council officers and councillors to discuss issues relating to local crime and anti-social behaviour with a view to highlighting issues to be dealt with. 96

They also set up ad hoc SAPS groups (Stand-Alone Problem Solving) when specific issues arise. Lemington Councillors were recently able to deal with incidents of bullying, harassment and terrorising of a vulnerable young woman and her children by getting appropriate agencies together, including a local primary school, and ensuring the woman was rehoused in an area distant from the problems.

Another SAPS team was set up in Lemington to deal with an issue of marauding youngsters, boys and girls, in a particular area of the Ward. The issue was brought into focus as a result of Councillors' regular contact with residents. The group were causing serious damage to street furniture at one point taking out the whole cable TV network. There was a strong element of under- age alcohol consumption involved and serious harassment and threatening behaviour to people of all ages was evident. Some residents were threatening to take matters into their own hands. By forming a multi-agency SAPS team involving the police and with the aid of the local secondary school as well as residents, individuals were identified and spoken to one-by-one by the Head of the local secondary school in the presence of police and parents where it was made clear what the outcomes would be in the event of this behaviour continuing. The problem was quickly solved in this way.

Fenham ward In Fenham Ward we have tried to use the ward committee to consult with residents as well as provide information to them. We asked residents what their top concerns/issues were in the ward and have tried to use the ward committee budget in a more targeted and strategic way to address those concerns, as well as increase resilience and capacity in the ward in the face of public sector cuts and changes to the welfare system.

Via ward committee mechanisms, residents told us that children's activities and the environment were their main issues in the ward. As a result of this we set up the Children and Young People's Network (CYPN), funded by the ward committee and we commissioned a local community organisation to organise and run it. The Network has now been running for 3 years and has expanded to include activities in neighbouring Wingrove Ward.

Activities are provided across the ward (11 different venues) with local groups and organisations working together to provide a full range of co-ordinated activities and events 6 days a week over the 6 weeks school holidays. In order to encourage the use of other facilities in the ward activities have included events at the local pool, library, badminton centre and Hindu Temple as well as more traditional bases such as community centres and church halls. In 2014 the Network recorded over 1300 visits by young people to events in Fenham over the summer (data from this year's activities have yet to be collated). Now that the CYPN is established, ward funds have been supplemented with successful bids to Children in Need, the Community a Foundation and by fundraising by organisations in the ward.

The Fenham CYPN is in the process of becoming a Community Interest Company which will provide it with more opportunities to seek funding, through charitable sources or through being commissioned to deliver a range of services from supporting others to develop their own network, to directly delivering CYP activities . This would not have happened without the ward councillors bringing people together, building relationships and trust over time to discuss and agree a strategic plan for the ward. This has taken a commitment over 3/4 years.

In response to residents' concerns about the environment we used ward committee funds for a pilot environmental enforcement project, funding a dedicated officer to work in Fenham Ward one day a week for a three month period. As well as working with partner organisations to prevent illegal bonfires in the ward where they had been lit previously, the officer carried out 59 Trade 97

Waste duty of care inspections, served 20 legal notices on businesses regarding trade waste, served 15 Fixed Penalty Notices including for litter and dog fouling, and carried out a number of prosecutions. The pilot was so successful that neighbouring wards have since adopted the model. This year (2015/16) we have set aside a fixed sum within the ward budget for environmental projects which has paid for a wide range of improvements, from new 'welcome to Fenham' signs through to a wildflower meadow.

In order to support residents and their families during a time of economic downturn and changes to the welfare system, Fenham Ward teamed up with neighbouring wards to fund a Welfare Rights Officer from ward funds to provide additional support to our residents. The project has been a huge success, helping people to access money they are entitled to but haven't been claiming. Not only does this help the families concerned but also helps support the local economy. To date this financial year, for a modest investment of £4k from the ward budget the officer has helped local people access in excess of £102,600. Similar figures have been achieved for the previous 2 years that the project has been running.

Walker ward As Elected Representatives for the most “deprived” ward in the City we are very conscious that whilst we hold regular advice surgeries at venues in the ward a number of residents are unable to attend these surgeries for a variety of reasons.

Residents do contact us by traditional methods such as telephone and letter but the Broadband take-up by residents is the lowest in the City and consequently residents contact us infrequently by email etc.

In an attempt to alleviate this problem we hold regular “street surgeries” where we will knock on doors in designated streets to see if there are any issues we may be able to help with that residents cannot take up with us by the more traditional methods.

One result of this, that we discovered by door knocking at an elderly lady’s house was that she was living by herself (her husband was living in a care home) and she was experiencing difficulties regarding her domestic circumstances. Her home and surrounding houses were then the subject of roof improvements (installation of solar panels etc), which necessitated Council operatives gaining access to the loft of properties.

Whilst the operatives take great care in minimising disruption there are, occasionally, mishaps! This particular lady was already suffering from emphysema and the disruption caused many health problems. Despite attempts to solve the issues it took many weeks and many visits to remedy the situation.

The lady in questions was also visited on a daily basis by a “health visitor” prior to and during all of the upheaval, with whom I was in daily contact over a significant period of time. The elderly lady has lived for many years in the family home and, understandably, was reluctant to move to a more suitable property. Eventually she agreed to move but the difficulty then was finding a property that was appropriate for her needs.

Many differing agencies have been involved but as a result of various National Government and Local Government policies suitable properties in the local area are extremely difficult to find. Currently there are schemes underway to build suitable properties but these will not be available until 2016 at the earliest.

What seemed to be at the outset a problem that could be solved quite quickly turned out to be one that has been quite difficult to resolve, is still on-going and has taken up many hours of input by various agencies not least of all local Councillors. 98

One of the main points to note is that, because of the uniqueness of the Ward and its deprivation this issue would probably not have surfaced without us knocking on her door, and the lady in question would still be suffering!

Another case that was resolved much more quickly, but was no less harrowing, resulted from a phone call to me from a very distressed resident (whom I had known for many years) who asked me to visit her daughter’s house as a matter of urgency. When I arrived she, her daughter and her daughter’s 2 grown up children were there. The daughter was in a bed in the living room and it was obvious that she was very ill.

It was explained that she was in the last stages of cancer and before she died wanted to ensure that her daughter and son (who had severe special needs) would not be thrown out of the house as they were not joint tenants. The lady’s son had always lived in the house but her daughter had left home a couple of years before but had moved back into her mother’s house to look after her once she had been diagnosed with cancer.

Knowing the family well through my work as a Councillor I was aware that they would be distraught if they could not remain in the house although, under the terms of the tenancy, they had no rights to ‘inherit’ the house.

My visit took place on a Monday evening and some hectic negotiations took place between myself, YHN, the lady’s medical team and family over the next 2 days. Thanks to the involvement of John Lee, the Chief Executive of YHN, the family were informed late Wednesday afternoon that they could remain in the property.

The lady died in the early hours of Thursday.

The final case work example first came to my attention over 18 months ago.

A lady came to one of our advice surgeries complaining of being flooded from the flat above. As she explained, this was not the first time this had happened but it was certainly the severest. The earliest incident, in February 2014, had been caused by a leaking radiator. The 2nd incident, in May 2014, which had ruined her wallpaper, her furniture, carpets and clothing was the result of a worn outlet pipe in the bath in the flat above.

The first objective was to get the lady temporarily rehoused whilst her home was dried out. This was easier said than done as there wasn’t a suitable property available. Consequently, she had to stay put for a couple of weeks while the excess water was being dealt with.

During the latter part of those 2 weeks I managed to get her permanently relocated and YHN paid for removals.

In September of 2014 she put in a claim to the Council for all the damage that had been caused to her possessions.

Earlier this year, she received a response from the City’s Insurance Section stating that they were not liable as the flooding had been caused by a leaking radiator – which had been repaired! Consequently, I have been in long and protracted discussions by phone, and via email for the past several months with the lady, YHN and the Insurance Section in an attempt to get justice for this resident. This struggle is still ongoing.

A lot of casework can be straightforward, but the three cases mentioned took up a significant amount of time and are, by no means, unique!

The demands on our time are difficult to quantify as you never know what casework is ‘just around the corner’. However, being able to help residents is rewarding and we feel that working together as a team of ward elected representatives helps us to assist in a more productive way.

North Jesmond ward Newcastle City Council announced its intention to close Jesmond Library at the end of June 2013, one month after its 50th anniversary. A public meeting was organised by councillors and we had to ensure the publicity was widespread so we could gauge the views of as many residents as possible. The meeting, which lasted approximately 3 hours, was well attended and two aims emerged viz to attempt to dissuade the council from pursuing its decision and, if this could not be achieved, then to try to run the library as a community organisation. Following further discussions, the decision was not reversed and we therefore realised we would have to pursue the idea of a community run library. It was then necessary for us, as councillors, to pursue this aim.

Many hours of consultations with various Council officers were undertaken to establish what would be included in the handover of the building, what aspects of the building the Council would retain responsibility for and what liabilities would rest on the community library. We agreed a short term lease and negotiations have continued to finalise a long term lease. As councillors, we agreed to provide ward funding to the library.

Initially, there was only one full set of keys for the library which I held. This meant that I had to attend the library whenever anyone wanted access, including Council employees, so a considerable amount of time was spent each week on this.

We decided the library should not only be a ‘classical’ library but should host other activities which would produce an income to help sustain a long-term future and be a community hub where all felt welcome. This resulted in further talks with the Council as to what would be permissible under the lease.

We established a board of Trustees and an Advisory Committee whose members include councillors and monthly meetings are held.

It has not been easy to achieve what we have done so far but it would not have been possible without our volunteers who help run the library and many others who have provided expertise and advice and also those who have provided and continue to provide monetary donations.

A considerable amount of councillor time was spent establishing what was required and negotiating with all those involved in setting up the community library. We will be celebrating our 2nd anniversary later this month so we are all very hopeful for the continuation of the community led Jesmond Library.

100

Appendix 5: Responses received from other stakeholders

Liberal Democrats

BOUNDARY COMMISSION REVIEW, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE – COUNCIL SIZE PAPER BY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUP ON THE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY 1. On Friday 25th September, Newcastle City Council’s Constitutional Committee will receive a report to assist it in its consideration of the optimum number of city councillors, having been asked by the Boundary Commission for its views.

2. Liberal Democrats in Newcastle believe that the report under consideration is a largely accurate description of how the council is currently organised and operates but that it fails to cover the many ways in which council activity, and the role of councillors, has reduced in recent years. The report seem to us designed to lead the Committee towards endorsing the current number of councillors, if not more.

3. The report therefore reflects a snapshot of council activity and governance but to be of full use to Constitutional Committee and the Boundary Commission we believe that it needs to be assessed against changes in recent years – we suggest the past five years as it covers both austerity and administration/governance changes.

4. Much of the extra work that it is contended that councillors perform relates to the work of the Cabinet and not the Council as a whole, for example the Combined Authority and Core Cities (see para 29 below). The Boundary Commission Review is about the role and total number of councillors, not the size of the Cabinet or the way in which it works – although we would contend that there is no evidence to suggest that Cabinet members are busier than in former times.

5. Our own view, long-held, previously expressed on several occasions, and now backed up by the evidence submitted in this paper, is that the number of members should be reduced. We suggest 60 members in 20 wards instead of the current 78 members in 26 wards.

We believe that the significant reduction in the resources available to the council, reflected in much-reduced activity, impacts upon the role of members in managing and overseeing this activity, and the time needed to perform that role.

The number of people employed by the Council (excluding schools, Your Homes Newcastle and the Museums Service) has fallen from 10,031 in 2010 to 6,499 today

Gross expenditure has fallen from £1171m in 2010/11 to £868.7m in 2014/15 and the net revenue spend from £501.9m to £156.3m over the same time.

Annual capital budget has fallen from £231m in 2010/11 to £117.6m in 2014/15

6. Note also that as a result of the governance changes of the current administration, there are far fewer commitments for members in committee work (see paras 28, and 31-33 below), in scrutinising the council’s work (see para 39 and 40), and in representing the council on external bodies (see para 46).

7. We also remain of the view that elections in Newcastle should change to “all-up” elections every four years (as in Northumberland and Durham) instead of the current arrangements, which are hard to explain to residents, of elections by thirds – actually, three years out of four and with a

101

“fallow” year in the cycle. Whilst this is not formally part of the Boundary Commission review, their officers invited the City Council to give consideration to its position, alongside this review of the number of councillors and the ward boundaries. All-up elections generally attract high voter turnouts, because of the opportunity of each vote potentially to make more of a difference (whether an endorsement of an incumbent administration or to change it). We urge the Council to use this opportunity to review the case for all-up elections every four years in Newcastle, which we believe would also save up to £500,000 over the electoral cycle.

COMMENTS ON THE REPORT TO CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

8. There are many statements in the report to Constitutional Committee about how recent changes have “strengthened democratic oversight”, “enhanced the democratic process”, etc. These are empty phrases unless evidence is presented to support these opinions, and what effect these changes have had on members and their work. In fact the City Council is arguably much more centralised and less transparent than before, and backbench members have been marginalised.

9. Integration of Services. It is difficult to understand how combining functions across councils or other public authorities actually increases the workload for councillors if that is the case that is being made here. This would need to be explained. By illustration, far fewer councillors are involved in functions that were already merged on a Tyne and Wear basis before the current devolution debate, than if each council had run its own policies/budgets/operations/scrutiny – e.g. public transport, museums and galleries.

10. The report seems only to deal only with what is presented as additional workload. There is no reference to the very many major changes that have reduced the workload of the council and members (some for good, some for ill)

The demise of Local Area Agreements, targets etc

The end of the very demanding Audit Commission inspection regime

The abolition of the Regional Development Agency and the significant time taken in liaising/pitching/bidding/partnering for funds available through the RDA. Ditto liaison with the former Government Office for the North East and North East Assembly

The ending of SRB, Neighbourhood Renewal and similar funds, many of which resulted in local project boards that Cabinet members and ward councillors sat on to oversee progress.

The abolition by the Council of its Local Strategic Partnership (unlike most neighbouring councils)

11. The Impact of austerity: It is certainly a challenge, but surely it is just as demanding (if not more so) on the workload of members in times when budgets are increasing, new government funds available, new projects launched and new governance arrangements being put in place? As mentioned above, there was significant member involvement in former area regeneration boards.

12. The changing nature of the city ; If the number of new houses predicted in the Local Development Framework come to pass (numbers have already been revised downwards) then there will be some impact on the work of councillors (especially on Planning Committee). The Submission of Evidence suggests it will impact “upon the role of councillors in how they engage with communities in those areas included in the Framework, as well as the workload to develop the plan”. This assertion needs evidencing – in what ways will local members be affected in the work they do? 102

13. We would argue that there was as much, if not more, involvement of, and work for, local members during the large-scale demolitions that have taken place in past years, and especially (and widely across the council) in the refurbishment (estate by estate, separately for structural and internal modernisations) of the 28,000 properties owned by the Council and managed by Your Homes Newcastle.

14. The report makes much of a predicted increase of 11.4% in the electorate by 2021, but the increase in population is expected to be 2.3%. The latter is the relevant figure for members because they perform a representative role for everyone, irrespective of whether they are on the electorate register.

15. If the Council is arguing that being a “Cooperative Council” takes up more time of members it needs to describe exactly how this is the case and give some assessment of how much time. Are members sitting on the boards of new cooperative ventures, for example, or any other ongoing involvement? When council services are being cut, ceased altogether or moved outside the Council then, certainly once the process is complete, council(lor) time on these services and influence over them must surely be reduced not increased.

16. We have already had to point out major errors in the time-recording exercise by members. One that still calls for scrutiny is a claimed average per member of almost 9 hours every week spent on parish council/tenants and residents association liaison/work – especially bearing in mind that most wards don’t have parish councils (and some don’t have any TARAs). The Tenants Federation informed us some time ago that most TARAs say that they do not have any regular contact with councillors. In addition, the survey indicates that housing and anti-social behaviour do not feature in the top four issues for ward caseload – these are precisely the two issues that anyone who knows about tenants associations will tell you are the top issues for tenants, so again it doesn’t really tally.

17. Section on Members’ Remuneration – is there a reason for including this section? It is factual but is it trying to say that because some councillors pay their members more in allowances so that it justifies Newcastle having more councillors. Or that they are somehow better value for council taxpayers money?

18. At the briefing by the Boundaries Commission team it was made clear that they will look at how we match up to the median of the CIPFA comparators. Section 4.26 of their Technical Advice document states : “In cases where the authority’s proposal would mean its council size differs to a significant extent from similar authorities, we will require particularly strong evidence ……… In a small number of cases, retention of the existing council size will require a strong case to be made before the Commission makes a recommendation on council size”.

19. The Council has chosen to define “council size” in terms of absolute numbers rather than a ratio of members to electorate or population. Expressed as the latter, Newcastle already differs “to a significant extent” from these similar authorities. We note that Coventry has 44,000 more electors than Newcastle but 24 FEWER councillors so they have 4179 electors per councillor and we have 2364. Kirklees and Wakefield also have over 4000. In fact, extending the comparison beyond just the CIPFA nearest neighbours, Newcastle has the lowest ratio of all 36 metropolitan authorities except for South Tyneside and Gateshead.

DETAILED INFORMATION

GOVERNANCE AND DECISION-MAKING

103

THE ROLE OF MEMBERS

20. In the report to Constitutional Committee, the list quoted from the Newcastle Charter is not a Role Description for Councillors, only a very high level summary/snapshot, much of it couched in generalised language. For example, there is no reference to the scrutiny function, budget/council tax setting, corporate plan, Local Plans, planning/licensing/other non-executive functions. There used to be a formal role description which the Council acknowledged that had been created by NEREO (the regional employers’ organisation).

CITY COUNCIL

21. City Council meetings have just been reduced to 8 times per annum from 10. This means that there is a three month gap between June and September, and that November is the only meeting in the rest of the calendar year. It is debateable whether this curtailing of accountability and democratic debate is wise, especially when so much is happening around budget cuts, devolution and council transformation.

CABINET

22. In 2010/11 there was an Executive (Cabinet) of nine members, meeting monthly. Cabinet operated with three sub-committees, all open to the press and public and with nominated Opposition observers:

Housing, Planning and Transport (HP&T) Committee

Neighbourhood Committee

Procurement Committee

23. The HP&T and Neighbourhood sub-committees were both abolished in 2011, and Procurement Committee in 2014. Full Cabinet takes whatever decisions are needed in these areas of business. Cabinet meetings are no more frequent, nor do they last longer, than in 2010/11.

24. There is less debate and arguably less transparency on issues that were previously considered ahead of full Cabinet by HP&T/Neighbourhood Committees or (as also in the case of Procurement also) delegated to them.

25. Cabinet also operates via a number of informal committees/working groups. Meetings are not open to the opposition or public as observers and there are no papers or minutes made publicly available.

26. One significant change was the introduction of delegated decisions to Cabinet Members in 2011 instead of taking the decisions publicly at Cabinet. In our opinion the outcomes have been:

Lack of transparency

Lack of accountability/challenge

Many reports are of much poorer quality than if they had to be presented publicly to Cabinet.

Most of the decisions that are “called in” for review by Scrutiny (albeit that there are not many, only three last year) arise from delegated decisions. 104

27. Policy Cabinet is a separate concept introduced in 2011 and attended by some Cabinet Members, depending on the nature of the topic but these have reduced significantly in frequency of late.

OTHER GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES

28. Comparing 2010/11 with 2015/16:

Constitutional Committee remains with a membership of 13

Planning Committee (previously known as Development Control Committee) had a membership of 16 in 2010/11 and for 2015/16 has a membership of two fewer, at 14.

Licensing Committee had a membership of 15 in 2010/11 and for 2015/16 has a membership of one fewer, at 14.

Adding together Regulatory Committee and the various appeal panels in 2010/11 there was a combined panel of 33 members to draw from. There is now just a single Regulatory and Appeals Committee with a membership of 14 members. All appeals are heard by sub-committees drawn from the same 14 members (any three). So far fewer members are now involved in any way in this essential process.

Standards Committee remains with a membership of 6

NORTH EAST COMBINED AUTHORITY

29. Much is made by the majority party of the time needed to develop and implement the governance arrangements for the new North East Combined Authority. However the key point in relation to Council size is that a very small number of members are in any way involved with this. Ignoring substitutes, taking the Combined Authority Board, its various committees and sub- committees and the Local Enterprise partnership (LEP) together, only the Leader and Deputy Leader and two majority party backbenchers have any role in the governance structure. The Leader of the Opposition is one of two representatives on the Combined Authority Scrutiny Committee.

30. The same is true of Core Cities. There is never any report to Council or Scrutiny about the work of this group.

OTHER JOINT AUTHORITY COMMITTEES

31. The eleven other joint committees are also heavily populated by Cabinet members. In aggregate there are places for only 7 of the majority party’s 43 backbench members and only 4 of the 25 opposition members.

32. By contrast, in the municipal year 2010/11 there were 14 comparable joint committees, and the following were involved as members:

Cabinet members – 2 places

Majority party beckbenchers – 21 places

Opposition members – 5 places

105

OTHER COMMITTEES

33. The following advisory committees that were in place in 2010/11 were removed in 2011/12

Equalities Committee

Workforce Learning and Development

Science City

Conservation

Great Park

These committees all had significant backbench membership (both parties), alongside Cabinet Members.

34. For a number of years the City Council supported and resourced the Local Strategic Partnership which brought together the council with other public bodies (police, health etc), business representatives and the voluntary and community sector to develop shared priorities and approaches across agencies. The LSP was scrapped in 2011. Most neighbouring authorities continue to have such a body. We understand that the council, through its management, meet with other public agencies in some informal arrangement but this is partial and without any transparency.

35. Other agencies also scrapped since 2010 include:

The Tyne and Wear Economic Development Company

Newcastle/Gateshead’s city centre development company 1NG

OTHER COMMENTS

36. A number of functions have been removed from the council and any influence that members might have over them. These include:

Tourism services are now the responsibility of NewcastleGateshead Initiative. The city no longer has a tourist information centre, which for a regional capital and one of the most popular short- break destinations in the country is seen as a retrogade step by many people.

Most sports facilities have either been closed or have been transferred (or are in process of being transferred) to private leisure trusts.

Most of the city’s cultural funding has been ended. An external fund has been established through the Community Foundation for Tyne and Wear and Northumberland but council members receive no information about this and have no say on what is funded. The independent chair of Standards Committee made reference to this lack of information recently.

GOVERNANCE – COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

37. The Leader and Cabinet replaced the Committee system in 2001 – and from then on there has been no policy-making role for councillors other than Cabinet members. At least some majority party backbenchers are supportive of a return to the committee system in Newcastle but have twice been whipped into voting against Opposition motions to that effect. 106

38. From the data provided above it will be seen that there is now a materially reduced role for backbench councillors: over 20 members are not appointed to ANY main committee - Cabinet, nor any Overview and Scrutiny Committee nor Non-Executive (Constitutional, Standards, Planning, Licensing, Regulatory);

This is not due to budget cuts.

The skills, knowledge and experience of members are not being properly tapped used.

SCRUTINY AND OUTSIDE BODIES

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

Background

39. There are far fewer members involved in Scrutiny now than five years ago.

References in the report to Scrutiny being revitalised, and overlaps having been removed surely refer to the post-2011 structure. The pre-2011 structure was different and perfectly clear.

The Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny Committees were given to Opposition in 2004, and this continues. This gives some formal role for the Opposition in Council affairs, although (as required by legislation) scrutiny membership is proportionate to overall Council membership.

This section compares the number of Scrutiny committees and the councillors on those committees for the years 2010/11 and 2015/16

40. In 2010/11 there were eight Overview and Scrutiny Committees of the Council, one of which was the Overview and Scrutiny Board that managed the overall process. Of the 78 members of the City Council, 9 were Executive (Cabinet) members; of the other 69 members, 66 of them had places on one (or in a handful of cases more than one) scrutiny committee.

In 2015/16 there are two Overview and Scrutiny Committees on which 27 of the 68 non-Cabinet members sit.

Sources: reports to the annual meetings of Council May 2010 and May 2015

41. The fact that there is currently a facility to establish task and finish groups is not relevant, as this has existed (and been used) in past years when there were more main committees. In practice, the response from members to serve on task and finish groups is rather disappointing, and the membership tends mostly to come from the main committee(s).

42. One of the key functions of Scrutiny is to review the performance of cabinet members and directorates. Reports by Cabinet Members to Scrutiny (and then on to City Council) used to be every six months but this was changed in 2011 to an annual report. Many members think that this is inadequate because information becomes out-of-date. Despite requests by Scrutiny, most cabinet reports are simply a list of actions and achievements (albeit of interest), not demonstrably linked to the aims in the annual plan and usually avoiding controversial and difficult issues.

43. Cabinet members do not keep to a recommended pattern for the submission of their reports; one consequence is that sometimes Scrutiny has to take more than one Cabinet Member report at a meeting; this is not satisfactory. With the reduction in the number of City Council meetings from 107

this year, City Council will also end up taking more than one Cabinet Member report at a meeting. In fact the September 2015 City Council meeting had to take three cabinet member reports at one meeting:

Leader of Council

Deputy Leader

Cabinet Secretary (also for his previous remit)

44. The consequence of all this is neither non-Cabinet members on Scrutiny nor members at City Council meeting have available sufficient time to adequately scrutinise/question/challenge Cabinet Members.

45. The other main aspect of performance monitoring is the quarterly performance report which comes to Scrutiny after Cabinet approves it. The appropriateness of the content of this report has been a bone of contention for a very long time. Members of both parties on Scrutiny have been frustrated by information that they sometimes consider to be out-of-date, with inappropriate comparators and insufficient trend information to be useful. All of this could have been avoided if Scrutiny had been involved in the identification of key performance data and its presentation in the first place, instead of an informal cabinet working party taking the decisions without reference to Scrutiny.

REPRESENTATIVES ON EXTERNAL BODIES

46. In 2010/11 Council appointed representatives to 115 different external organisations and committees, a figure which had changed little over the previous decade. On these 115 organisations there were 207 places for elected members. These were filled by 62 different members (36 of the 42 members of the controlling group; 26 of the 36 Opposition members) It was decided in 2011 to cut back on external appointments. For 2015/16 only 112 representatives were appointed to 61 organisations. The pattern of appointments is as follows:

95 of the 112 places were to majority party members and 17 to the main Opposition party.

Of the 95 majority party places 39 were occupied by Cabinet members and 56 by non-Cabinet members.

The 56 places occupied by non-Cabinet members were filled by 23 different members; in other words 21 of the 44 non-Cabinet majority party councillors have no position on an external body.

The 17 places occupied by Opposition party members were filled by 11 different members; so 11 of the 25 non-Labour members of the City Council have no position on an external body.

24 members have NO appointments of any sort to external bodies.

Example – City Council, following a thorough budget scrutiny process, approved forward the capital budget at its March 2015 meeting. This included £18m over three years for refurbishment to the Civic Centre. Less than four months later and out-of-the-blue it was announced that this would now be £45m. Scrutiny was not consulted before this decision, despite having formal responsibility for monitoring treasury management.

REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE OF COUNCILLORS

108

47. Members make up the voting members of their Ward Committee. The Liberal Democrat administration from 2004 removed the former Area Committees, as a two-tier localised structure was not justified (three elements where there were also parish councils). Ward Committee budgets were significantly increased and staff support via Ward Coordinators and Neighbourhood Response Managers increased.

48. Naturally much of this has had to be cut back as part of council budget reductions, but it is to the credit of the City Council that it has maintained significant Ward budgets for the Ward Committees when they were already way above what most other local authorities made available. The City Council Statement of Evidence contains the detail.

49. The Ward Committee infrastructure has changed in the last two years. Most Ward Committees used to meet every two months, but some met monthly. Now they meet quarterly so the engagement with residents is much-reduced via this route. More decisions on funding from Ward Committee grant aid have to be decided outside the meetings, often by email which reduces the opportunities for discussion even between members let alone with public input.

50. Members used to be involved in some consultations with city-wide applicability – usually via Ward Committees, but all consultation is now centrally managed through “Let’s Talk”, with next to no member involvement.

51. The previous administration had introduced a highly consultative approach to local prioritisation called “neighbourhood charters” which many wards had taken up or were in process of doing so. However the incoming administration immediately abandoned this approach. Frankly, it is so much easier on members’ time for them to decide on local priorities and allocate their ward funds accordingly rather than engage in an ongoing consultative approach and being held accountable for publicly-set priorities.

52. Elected members used to have the determining say on significant budgets for local road and pavement improvements (advised by officers as to condition) – up to £200,000 per ward in one year. This often involved members in extensive consultation with local residents groups. All of this has ended – see Cllr Stone’s motion to the September 2015 meeting of City Council for more detail of what has become a source of much frustration to members.

53. Members also used to meet regularly (in many cases monthly) with police and local housing and community safety staff in SNAPS meetings. This stands for Safe Newcastle Action and Problem Solving and was a response to public concern about anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood policing becoming a priority for the police. These meetings have also been much reduced in frequency, in some cases to quarterly.

54. Note that the significant and regrettable (but understandable) reduction of Council staff has resulted in a poorer standard of support, service and response to members. One consequence is that members spend more time chasing answers and assistance from officers than in previous times. It is a source of much frustration for members and reduces the satisfaction that being an elected representative brings. Formerly mainstream budget-funded jobs increasingly have to be funded through the (declining) Ward Committee budget.

55. It ought to be the case that residents with complaints/requests could be signposted to Envirocall (one-call system) but for many members the reason why they get a call/email in the first place is because of their own frustrations with Envirocall.

56. Even when jobs are agreed/funded, the time taken for implementation is often very extended and causes much exasperation.

109

57. Neighbourhood Managers, who used to help members to get decisions and action, now operate on a wide-zone, multi-ward basis and are changed very regularly so members barely get to know who to contact.

58. Opposition members generally research, write and physically distribute their own newsletters (quarterly, sometimes more often). It seem to us that majority party councillors generally piggy- back their (very limited) local copy onto the local MP's funded constituency newsletter, and they are generally distributed via paid-for delivery. Note our use of the word “generally” as there are exceptions. We have examples of both types of newsletters for scrutiny.

59. Workload – yes, it is probably higher for members who represent areas of higher deprivation (especially benefits/housing enquires) but has not increased materially over recent years. In June 2015 we were provided with information from an officer about “direct referrals from Ward Councillors to the Welfare Rights Service” The total from all members in the year 2014/15 was fifteen.

60. There are now more younger councillors who have jobs and have less time available. It is good to have a better age distribution among members, but the turnover rate seems higher than before – one wonders about the reasons? The work isn’t interesting, demanding or challenging enough? This could be one factor.

61. There is no longer a designated member training officer. Few members seem to have Personal Development Plans. The report states that almost 30% of members said they had not received appropriate training to fulfil their role as a councillor. There seems to be much less on offer than before in skills training/development (mainly occasional “information” courses on what officers or cabinet members think other members should be informed about, little around personal skills)

INVOLVEMENT WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS

62. Youth Council activity, now that it is managed by the Council, is more sporadic and one-off than when run by The Childrens Society; member involvement is quite limited.

63. Unlike neighbouring urban areas such as Sunderland and Middlesbrough there is no BME network in place; the Tyne and Wear Racial Equality collapsed a decade ago and was not replaced; the Newcastle City for Peace network organisation lost its council funding and staff support in 2011 and was disbanded.

23 September 2015

110

Independent councillors

Dear Chris

As Pat has stated at a recent Westerhope Community Partnership meeting in addition to previous discussions about the boundary review residents are very interested about process and the thinking behind the number of elected members and then subsequently ward patterns which will come about in the next stage which involves the public. Residents agree that 78 members as it stands at the moment should be retained. The thinking behind this is that the City will over the next few years see large scale development on green belt land, alongside growth in areas such as Walker and Scotswood and hopefully work on brownfield sites which has already started.

We would be interested in the numbers which are put forward by the Labour Group and LibDems. Thank you for your email.

Councillor Marc Donnelly

Dear Chris

At a recent Westerhope Community Partnership meeting there was considerable discussion about the boundary review and the residents at the meeting were asked what they would suggest as the number of councillors for Newcastle following the boundary review.

The residents suggested that Newcastle keeps the same number of councillors as it has at the moment - 78. With the expected increase in housing, particularly in the west of the city and in the Great Park, Westerhope residents feel that 78 councillors will still be the best number for the city.

As an independent councillor, with no political ties, I accept the advice given by my residents and therefore suggest that Newcastle keeps the number of councillors at 78 after the review.

Councillor Pat Hillicks

111

Nick Brown MP

112

Catherine McKinnell

Dear Pat,

Thank you for following this up.

I do not have any comments on the future size of the Council, however, I look forward to participating in the review’s later stage in relation to ward patterns.

Regards

Catherine

Catherine McKinnell MP Member of Parliament for Newcastle upon Tyne North

113

Newcastle Green Party

We would like to thank Andrew Lewis and Constitutional Committee for including the Green Party in your informal consultation on your council size proposal for the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBCE) review. This response is limited to the single question of council size, we will cover general aspects of the boundary review, along with potential ward boundaries themselves, in our submission to the main consultation phase during December 2015/January 2016.

We note that your council size proposal will be divisible by three, and agree that we should retain the current pattern of uniform 3-member wards and elections by thirds as an option for the review, so support this aspect of the proposal. However, we ask Constitutional Committee to also keep other options on the table. Our communities and neighbourhoods are not all identical in size, so wards of different sizes might be needed to achieve coherent wards that local people can easily identify with. Wards are also used as the building blocks by the Boundary Commissions when reviewing Parliamentary constituencies, so coherent wards are a prerequisite for coherent constituencies, where legislation now allows very little variation in electorate numbers.

We note from the report to Constitutional Committee on 7 July 2015 that at 78 councillors, Newcastle is towards the upper end of its CIPFA nearest neighbours in terms of council size, though well within the expected range. While a reduction in councillors could reasonably be considered in light of continuing austerity, we would caution against any very substantial decrease for the same reason. With Council officers able to do less, particularly within our neighbourhoods and in support of community facilities, local people and groups are expected to take on greater burdens, and this will often require more not less support from ward councillors. For instance:

 Some aspects of social care provision are increasingly dependent on self-organised and coproduction principles (e.g. lunch clubs and social events for older people). This may require more support from councillors to identify venues, funding or networks of support;  Neighbourhood services have been drastically reduced, with more emphasis placed on 'behaviour change' by residents. Behaviour change will be achieved in different ways in different places (depending in part on local demographics), but will usually require additional time from councillors to bring residents together or raise issues on the doorstep.  Many community, library, sport and leisure services are now being run by, or being offered to, community groups. In some areas, such groups will need little support to manage buildings and services, but in others they will need more. Council officers cannot give all the support needed, active councillors 'on the ground' have a major role to play.  The new Health and Wellbeing fund devolves significant public health funds to ward councillors, requiring them to identify and support new groups and initiatives for receipt of funding. Any moves towards participatory budgeting will further increase councillor roles.

Greens will be the first to say that not all our existing councillors are as active as they should or could be in these areas (for which the solution is in the ballot box not a boundary review). But we ask you to plan for an increased local role for elected members over the next generation. You should not allow wards to grow so much that only those who are retired or who have sufficient private means can afford the time required to properly support their local economy and local services.

Putting numbers on these 'softer' roles for the LGBCE is not easy, but I would suggest combining indicators like the following with evidence from the most active local councillors in your survey and the July time recording exercise. Note that as July is a 'slow' month for local activity in many areas, you will need to calculate upwards from specific activities, rather than working from average times

114

recorded by councillors across the city. Indicators of future activity to combine with current evidence might include:

 Size of wellbeing fund and number of projects likely to be supported given average ward grants  Number of separate community groups managing (or due to manage) former Council assets  Number of community groups and volunteer organisations engaged in litter picking.

Finally, we hope to receive further updates and invitations to comment as the review progresses, and would be grateful if these could be sent to us both.

Thank you. Tony Waterston and Andrew Gray

115

Newcastle Conservative Federation

This is the submission of the Conservative Party in Newcastle upon Tyne to the City Council’s consultation on the size of the City Council ahead of its own submission to the Boundary Commission. This document sets out our preferred number of councillors for a future City Council and the reasons why we believe this should be the preferred size.

Although the City Council’s Constitutional Committee has already agreed that the Council’s submission to the Boundary Commission should be based on wards with three members we wish to suggest an alternative to this proposal. We propose that instead of retaining the current model of wards with three members, the City Council should instead be composed of a larger number of wards each represented by a single councillor. We believe that the total number of councillors should be reduced to fifty-two each representing one of fifty-two single member wards. This represents a reduction of a third of the current size of the City Council. We set out our general arguments in favour of a reduction in the number of councillors below, but we believe that the Council should adopt our proposal for single member wards for two key reasons.

Better representation of local communities and neighbourhoods Single member wards will allow the Boundary Commission to draw up ward boundaries that better represent the communities and neighbourhoods with which people identify. There are some wards which, because of the large size required, are an amalgam of several different communities which do not necessarily have much in common except that they are geographically contiguous. Smaller wards would allow better representation of the City’s communities and where local residents had a greater sense of affinity with their local electoral district, it may encourage greater participation in local decision making and the electoral process.

A more direct and accountable relationship between councillors and electors Single member wards allow for a greater degree of accountability between the elected member and their electors. Residents would find it easier to identify who their sole local representative was and elected members could then be accountable to the electorate solely for their own record as a councillor, rather than the efforts of the collective team of councillors.

A move to single member wards would require the City Council to alter the current electoral cycle of elections by thirds and move to a system of all-out elections every four years. The current process of almost annual elections distracts the Council’s ruling party from adopting a long-term vision for their administration as one eye is always on a City Council election which is usually no more than twelve months away. A four year electoral cycle would give a successful administration the chance to fully implement their vision for the City and then have it adjudicated on by the electorate every four years. This would also offer further monetary savings for the Council in addition to those set out later in this submission. We acknowledge that a move to all-out elections would require a resolution from the City Council under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 which does not necessarily form part of this review process. We would, nevertheless encourage the City Council to adopt such a resolution in order to facilitate the adoption of this system.

116

Should the City Council continue to propose that the total number of councillors should be based on three member wards, we would still propose that the size of the City Council is changed. We believe in principle that the size of the City Council should be reduced below the current level of seventy-eight. Taking in to account the City Council’s preferred model of three member wards we would propose, as an alternative, that the size of the City Council should be reduced to fifty- four councillors representing eighteen wards each with three members. We re-affirm our belief that our original proposal of fifty-two single member wards represents a better system of electoral arrangements for Newcastle. Nevertheless we arrive at this alternative proposal as we believe it allows the Council to have enough members to carry out all of the formal duties of the Council, it still allows councillors to fulfil their wider responsibilities to their communities as demonstrated by the examples of other core cities and it also represents greater value for money for the Council. Our detailed reasons for adopting this alternative proposal and also our general reasons for proposing a system with a lower number of councillors than present are:

The core workload of councillors is decreasing The workload which councillors are being expected to carry out is not increasing – indeed the opportunities for councillors to participate in the decision-making and scrutiny functions of the council are decreasing. At the beginning of the 2010/11 municipal year the City Council had a total of forty-two committees. By the start of the 2015/16 municipal year this had more than halved to eighteen committees. The biggest fall in the number of committees occurred amongst scrutiny committees which have reduced from nine in number to two. There was a similarly sharp decline in the number of joint committees, authorities and other outside bodies to which members were appointed on behalf of the Council. At the start of 2010/11 there were one hundred and thirty bodies to which members were appointed. This fell to seventy-eight such bodies by 2015/16. This all points to a clear reduction in the core, formal workload of councillors which is exacerbated further by the decrease in the number of full council and ward committee meetings. We believe that the reduced workload could easily be carried out by fewer members. This statement of course ignores the work that councillors carry out directly on behalf of their constituents which some may well argue has increased in recent years as difficult decisions of the prioritising of council services have placed a heavier burden on elected members to address residents’ concerns. However we believe that there is clear evidence that the formal council work which councillors are being asked to undertake is decreasing and could therefore be carried out by fewer members.

Bringing Newcastle in line with other Core City local authorities A council with fifty-two or fifty-four councillors brings Newcastle slightly closer to other Core Cities in terms of the ratio of population to the number of councillors. Newcastle currently has 3,677 residents per councillor – this is the lowest ratio of the Core Cities. It contrasts to Cardiff with 4,689 residents per councillor, Manchester with 5,359 residents per councillor, Sheffield with 6,668 residents per councillor and Birmingham with 9,103 residents per councillor. Although the Commission’s guidance does state that it does not compare authorities directly – we believe that such a difference between Newcastle and other comparable authorities does need to be acknowledged. We also believe that the ability of other local authorities to function effectively with higher councillor to resident ratios supports the case that the Council could effectively operate with fifty-two or fifty-four councillors.

Reducing the cost of politics in Newcastle There should not be a price placed on effective and good governance within Newcastle. However one cannot ignore that the political administration of the city comes with a price tag attached. There is already public concern about the cost of politics generally and public concern also extends to cost of representatives at a local level. The Council has acknowledged this and has frozen allowances in recent years, something which we welcome. The need to show restraint in allowances is even more acute at a time when the overall budget of the Council is being reduced. The administration has chosen to make some savings in the cost of politics in Newcastle, for example by reducing the number of council meetings, reducing the support required to scrutiny 117 committees and making savings in the Office of the Lord Mayor. We believe that greater savings could be made by reducing the number of councillors overall and therefore allowing the Council to protect frontline services. A reduction in the size of the Council to fifty-two or fifty-four councillors would save a minimum of £228,150 in basic allowances alone. Over the course of a councillor’s term this would represent a significant saving. We believe that a reduction to fifty-two or fifty-four councillors would therefore represent better value for money for taxpayers in Newcastle.

We believe that the two proposals which we have offered the City Council to include in their submission to the Boundary Commission represent a positive and progressive alternatives to the current electoral arrangements in Newcastle which we believe require significant change in order to serve the City properly in years to come. We hope that the City Council will acknowledge that there is strong public appetite for the Council to offer better value for money for tax-payers in Newcastle and we believe that our proposals offer them the opportunity to achieve this whilst maintaining a system of open, accountable and effective governance for the City.

Newcastle Conservative Federation

118

It’s Time to Put Newcastle First

Dear Andrew,

As promised, Key proposals outlined below as simple bullet points for your consideration re Boundary Commission opportunities to improve democracy, localism and community involvement in Newcastle's future, preferably without the inherent domination by self interested mainstream political Parties :-

A) Reduce number of elected members to 2/ward,

B) Increase the number of wards from x26 to x28, perhaps smaller wards overall, giving the reduced nos of Councillors smaller wards to better represent their constituents with more local accountability,

C) Introduce 3yrly terms for elected members, again resulting in more public accountability, with routine 3/6monthly publication of individual achievements/attendances/Expenses/allowances, etc. It would obviously be beneficial if elected members actually lived and/or worked in the locality they represent rather than being unattached/unknowledgeable about their ward or working elsewhere in the UK, like some sort of "absentee landlord" !

D) introduce improved individual accountability with potential recall/referendum of any elected member if say 10% electors petition for dissatisfaction re their local representation, or they're not fulfilling their role.

E) Revert to increased monthly full council and ward meetings every 4-6 weeks for improved public scrutiny, openness, and 2-way communication in the interests of public transparency.

F) Scrap undemocratic "Cabinet" portfolio system and eliminate jobs for the boys "deputy" cabinet members ....revert to previous "Executive" style of decision making, with collective responsibility and members acting on Snr Councillor Officer recommendations and expertise rather than manipulative political processes and self interest, with more business experience than at present.

G) Accelerate inevitability and the natural evolutionary process towards a larger, more powerful single combined authority aka "Greater Newcastle", "Greater Tyneside", "Greater North East" combining all the local satellite councils into one, all pulling one way with a seat at the top table of Government ...... Eliminating duplication, or conflicts of self interest, with real accountability generating jobs, investment ...... joined together forward thinking, real progress towards integrated services, and restoring our rightful place within the UK. Emperor Hadrian, 2,000 yrs ago commented that the North East was a "land of mists and bogs, and savages" !!!! ...... Little appears to have changed over the years but we're worth more than that I think you'll agree ?

H) On a more local level, increase existing ward boundaries of Westerhope to encompass the whole of Chapel House , Westerhope Village in it's entirety (ie both sides of Stamfordham Road), and outlying Abbey Farm/Grange ....this area is a "community" in itself, recognised as such by police, businesses and residents alike.

I) Fully take into account the effects on population and timescales around Newcastle's infamous "One Core Strategy" to avoid reorganisation yet again in the future.

119

- Overall we believe Newcastle can prosper by focussing on accelerating change towards the evolutionary inevitable whilst eliminating duplication with joined up "power" thinking towards the common goals of both Newcastle and the North East ...... and our rightful place at the top table of Government with a strong and influential voice that is heard.

Action not words and real achievement should be our mantra, and if anything hasn't a real benefit, eliminate it, and of course, get it right first time, every time.

The rationalisation of elected member numbers, wards and length of tenure would provide improved effectiveness/accountability and go a long way towards reducing costs.

- please accept my personal apologies for the lateness and brevity of required response.....each aspect, and more, provides an opportunity for costed consideration towards increased effectiveness, improved democracy and restoration of the North Easts' national profile.

If you'd like to discuss these ideas and opportunities more fully, please do not hesitate to contact me. However, whilst these proposals are non partisan nor politically inspired, we do clearly recognise the political pressures and self interest from mainstream politicians and Parties ! As such we can only thank you once again for giving the small unrecognised voice of community interest a small hearing, whatever the ultimate outcome.

At least we tried.

- Many sincere thanks once again and as always "Keep the Faith" with "People before Politics, Every Time"

Very Best Regards, Ernie Shorton,

Leader: Newcastle upon Tyne (independent) Community Party

120