Community Governance Review – Formation of a Parish Council for and Burn Bridge

Consultation Results

Legal and Governance Borough Council Council Offices Crescent Gardens Harrogate HG1 2SG August 2015

1

Dates of consultation: 12 May – 28 July 2015

A copy of the survey is available at Appendix A

Equalities statistics are included at Appendix C

Number of surveys posted out:

Households (on electoral register) 941 Businesses / Community groups 66 Total 1007 (additional copies of the survey were available on request or were available to download from the website)

Total population aged 18+ (eligible to respond): 2012 (source: 2011 census)

Responses received:

358 surveys 2 written responses

Response rates:

As a proportion of paper copies sent to households/businesses/community groups: 35.6% As a proportion of population eligible to complete the survey: 17.8%

Notes on response rates These response rates are only indicative for the following reasons:  Whilst primarily surveying residents and other local stakeholders, anyone from outside the locality was welcome to complete the survey. The only criteria was respondents should be aged over 18.  One form was sent per household, but residents were invited to request additional copies should all adults in a household wish to complete their own form  There was nothing to stop people responding multiple times, additional forms could be requested, downloaded from the website or photocopied  Some responses are clearly on behalf of a household (eg “my wife and I think…”)

2

1. How are you responding to this consultation?

No reply 82 22.9% As a resident of the area 268 74.9% As a representative of a voluntary or 0.8% community group 3 As a business 5 1.4% As a Harrogate Borough Councillor - As a North County Councillor - As a public service provider - other (please specify) 4 1.10% Chairman, Harrogate & District Royal Naval Association Pannal Village Hall Pannal Methodist Church Pannal Primary Governors

Of the 82 “no replies” only two did not give a postcode. Analysis of all the postcodes given showed that only one response was received from outside the proposed area – a former Pannal resident who now lives in Birstwith.

2. Do you agree with this proposal?

Number Percentage Percentage of of responses population Yes 246 68.7% 12.2% No 94 26.3% 4.7% No opinion 14 3.9% 0.7% Blank 4 1.1% 0.05% 358 100%

Cross-analysis: How are you responding? by Do you agree with the proposal?

No Yes No opinion Blank Total As a resident of the area 187 70 8 3 268 As a representative of a voluntary or community group 3 - - - 3 As a business 3 1 1 - 5 As a Harrogate Borough Councillor - - - - - As a County Councillor - - - - - As a public service provider - - - - - other (please specify) 4 - - - 4 Blank 53 23 5 1 82 Total 246 94 14 4 358

3

3. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposal?

Comments in full are included at Appendix B

Comments in support 23 Comments not in support 74 General comments 28 Total comments made 125

Comments not in support Number of comments increase in Council Tax / cost of Parish Council 39 More bureaucracy / another tier of government 33 not needed 23 already well served by HBC and district Councillors 10 waste of resources / money 8 Driven by Pannal Village Society who don’t reflect whole community 3 concern that HBC will withdraw funding and expect new PC to pay 3 too much local power 2 enough Councillors already with NYCC and HBC 2 PC won’t have enough power to deal with issues 1 concerns over allowances paid to Parish Councillors 1 review taken too long 1 not clear why needed 1

Comments in support Number of comments local decisions process and governance improved 3 will help with secondary school admissions 2 Pannal and Burn Bridge have different issues to Harrogate 1 Will help preserve green belt 1 need two PCs - Pannal & Burn Bridge 1 more influence than village society 1 Parish Councils more appropriate for rural areas 1 improve viability of village hall 1 Opportunity for views to be heard in Planning consultation 1 Positive development for Pannal Village Society 1 allow residents more say 1 look after the village 1

4

4. Do you agree that, if created, the name of the council should be Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council?

Number Percentage of responses Yes 275 76.8% No 19 5.3% No opinion 48 13.4% Blank 16 4.5% 358 100%

5. If you disagree with the proposed name please state why / suggest an alternative

Burn Bridge and Pannal – 4 comments Pannal – 1 comment Pannal, Burn Bridge and Walton Park – 1 comment Pannal Burn Bridge Community Council – 1 comment

Comments  I don't disagree, but feel it would be more inclusive if a historic area name could be found, that does not explicitly name Pannal or Burn Bridge or Walton Park.  A significant area is Spacey Houses. Historically Pannal and Spacey Houses were 2 distinct and separate villages with the railway station built between them. It was in the 1930's onwards that built up areas merged.

6. Do you have any further comments on the proposed name of Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council?

 Unfortunately it is too long for comfort and easy use but any abbreviation would lose the precision of the name  The people in Walton Park may be upset.  Burn Bridge and Pannal Parish Council works equally well.  Should Spacey Houses be included in the name?  Describes the community very well.  If proposed Pannal and Burn Bridge then Spacey Houses area (which includes Walton Park estate) should remain separate.  Why not "Burn Bridge and Pannal PC" alphabetically

5

7. Do you agree with the proposed boundaries?

Number Percentage of responses Yes 268 74.9% No 18 5.0% No opinion 54 15.1% Blank 18 5.0% 358 100%

8. Do you have any comments on the area to be covered by the council?

Agree  It can be said that the new boundaries better reflect the areas of Pannal and Burn Bridge.  This is a natural boundary for the Parish.  Distinction between Harrogate and Pannal/Burn Bridge is desperately needed as if we don't have autonomy we won't exist in a few years as Harrogate will have merged into us without our say!! (Burn Bridge is constantly used as go between now for Harrogate and traffic)  Boundaries make sense.  Spot on!  Looks entirely appropriate.

Would like to see additional areas included  Suggest new Police College site and Rossett Green Lane could be included.  We think that the boundary should be to the roundabout and should continue up bypass to new point (includes Burn Bridge side to roundabout (see illustration)  It should include the whole of the road from the Black Swan to the main /Harrogate Road  The proposed boundaries should include the whole of Pannal Ward.

Would like to see certain areas excluded  Exclude me at top of Yew Tree Lane/Rossett Green Lane - don't know if I am in or out.  Don't see why it includes Rossett Manor and the nearby houses - surely should be in Pannal Ash?  The land extending to Crimple Viaduct looks odd and could be omitted to be more compact  The houses on the southern side of Rossett Green Lane & Leadhall Lane and at the top of Church Lane are part of the Rossett Green / Pannal ash area rather than Pannal village  It should include the whole of the Pannal ward or just Pannal and Burn Bridge only. The physical boundary should then run along the railway line and along A61 Road to Almsford bank for just village.  I wouldn't include Walton Park

6

Comments  Boundaries do not reflect gaps between communities boundary too close to Harrogate to the north.  From the map Walton Park appears to be the largest area but is not mentioned in the name.  The larger part of the Pannal Ward has been excluded.  Keep the green belt/separation from Harrogate.  The area should mean common interests can be found although either side of the A61 might result in conflicting views  It might help to deter over-development of unwanted kinds  Happy to be excluded from possible parish council.  To include Church Lane? Could not read map provided.  How do boundaries coincide with adjacent or near adjacent Parishes? Seems odd to exclude Walton Head Water Tower which is now a residence and Walton Head Farm  Just increase the size of the existing Pannal District Ward.  The 3 areas of Burn Bridge Pannal and Walton Park are separate at present. It will be of benefit if all can be represented together. The degree of geographical separation currently may be an obstacle at least initially.

7

9. Do you agree with the years in which elections will be held?

Number Percentage of responses Yes 250 69.8% No 18 5.0% No opinion 62 17.3% Blank 28 7.8% 358 100%

10. Do you have any comments on the years in which elections will be held?

Agree  Good plan to have reduced initial period to enable personnel changes to be made to cater for perhaps early mistakes

Disagree  Every 5 years.  Wait until 2019 to start with full term  Three years maximum  Bi-annual

Comments  As stated before, the first election should have been this year.  Is there a mechanism to allow things to start running in 'practice mode' to get things established  A provisional parish precept should be included for in the 2016/17 Council Tax calculation in order that the new Parish Council has funds to undertake its services from May 2016

8

11. Do you agree with the number of Parish Councillors proposed?

Number Percentage of responses Yes 229 64.0% No 61 17.0% No opinion 48 13.4% Blank 20 5.6% 358 100%

12. Do you have any comments on the number of Parish Councillors proposed?

Agree – 12 comments

Disagree Too many - 2 comments  Three should be more than adequate  Is 5 too many

Not enough – 41 comments  I propose 7 Councillors to allow for holidays/sickness and prevent 'cliques',  If the terms of reference suggests 6-12 councillors for up to 2,500 electors, why not conform with 7?  Your notes on Parish Councillors appear contradictory. 6 Councillors for 501 people why 5 for 1862?  But for 2 Parish Councils (5 for Pannal PC and 5 for Burn Bridge PC)  I suggest 7 Cllrs to ensure there are at least 5 at each meeting  We think there should be 6 to accommodate future development  Why would the proposal be below the recommended number - I believe it should be within the recommended number unless there are clear reasons for it not to be.  I think this number is too small.. I would suggest 7 to represent the 2 communities better.  I would prefer to have more councillors as they are representing two communities.  Seems a bit low. I suggest 7 which is 246 people per councillor.  From your guidance notes 6 would seem a more appropriate number. I assume the Chairman has a vote  I believe there should be at least 10 members to allow for a good mix of residents to take part.  The PC should comprise of at least 10 councillors to allow for absenteeism at meetings and to allow for a good mix of residents to take part.  As there are 3 distinct areas - Pannal, Burn Bridge and Walton Park maybe 2 for each area would be a good idea ie 6  As long as the 5 councillors can manage the workload. Consider 7 councillors .....  5 is too few. The Yorkshire Local Council's Association suggest 7 or 9 for the number electors in the Parish (see YLCA Advice note 14)  The terms of reference suggest between 6 and 12 councillors. Surely a minimum of 6 would be preferred to achieve a greater cross-section of views and also so quorum is achieved for meetings over holiday periods etc. 9

 Guidance is clear for 501-2,500 electors the Parish Council should be between 6 and 12. We are at the top end of the range so why go for 5?  Should be 7 to allow for conflicts of interest. Of more importance is the quorum. How many will this be?

Suggested number of Parish Councillors: 3 1 comment 6 8 comments 7 17 comments 9 1 comment 10 2 comments 6 - 12 3 comments 6 - 8 1 comment 7 - 10 1 comment 7 - 9 1 comment 8 - 10 1 comment

Comments  If proposed "Clerk" has a vote, four councillors and one clerk would be sufficient. Dependent on residents willingness to stand, it could be difficult to find five persons.  I am concerned with the level of "expenses" they can claim and of any "basic allowance".  The range of the elected persons is as important, ie age, experience, interests.  Whatever total of Cllrs should be sufficient to represent views and needs of whole community  I would prefer to have more councillors as they are representing two communities.  Why not within the guideline parameters.  An outside councillor could or should be appointed.  It is so hypothetical at this stage. What specifically will they achieve? I am not convinced about the focus here.  No dependent on who is proposed, they need to be suitable candidates standing for the right reasons. We need proper choice  Best to have an odd number for voting to reach a conclusion.  The minimum required on grounds of cost to the residents.  This seems a good number to start - what is the mechanism if in the event it is discovered to be too few / many? Probably the quality is more important than the number of councillors .....  5 Members and 1 Parish Clerk and 1 Borough Councillor for such a small community is ridiculous.  The more councillors the higher the cost which will be added to the already high council tax  Would 5 be sufficient to provide wide representation of the whole parish?  Should be even number of Councillors so that the Chairman would not need to use the casting vote so often.  Should be adjusted in line with increasing population due to housing development.

10

13. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on the proposals?

Support  I fully support giving Pannal and Burn Bridge an independent voice on local issues at time of change  I think it is a good idea to have a body which will look after the interests of the local residents when larger, more remote organisations do not always take the local view into consideration  I wish it well and hope that the level of expenditure from its precept is low.  Just that it’s a good idea!  This is long overdue and I welcome it.  The Village Hall will accommodate the Parish Council meetings and provide a workstation for the Parish Clerk. We would also like to share in the cost and duties of an incoming Parish Clerk to assist Village Hall management.  Excellent idea!  It is long overdue

Against  My wife and I are totally against the proposal.  I do not wish it to happen.  Should this proposal be accepted , I have no intentions of subscribing to it.  HBC serves our interests adequately. An extra layer of expensive council is not required.

Cost  Do not want to pay any more Council tax on a pension.  Waste of money - not willing to pay for it.  I am concerned with the level of "expenses" they can claim and of any "basic allowance". I would expect service as councillor to be voluntary "pro bono publico"  At a time when efforts are being made to reduce the Council tax, it is inappropriate to make any addition to the current demands, especially as the parish precept is uncontrolled!  I am retired on a fixed income and do not wish to pay extra taxes for a PC especially when they can set their own rate of tax and pay themselves attendance fees and jollies.  I will NOT pay any of the payments for a Parish Council imposed against my will - that part of the Council Tax will be withheld.

Not needed  We already have 2 layers of local government in Harrogate Borough Council and NYCC, we do not need 3  A Parish Council will not benefit the majority of the residents, and will not be a true representation of the areas and it is not necessary.  HBC serves our interests adequately. An extra layer of expensive council is not required.  Quite unnecessary.  We don't feel the need for a parish council at all. HBC is more than capable of running Pannal/Burn Bridge. The proposed Parish Council (with respect) would consist of the current Village Society retired residents who wish to seek recompense for their services at our expense. Totally against!  There is NO need for a parish council. 11

 It would be another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy  As has been stated Parish Councils have very few powers/duties. These duties are already being carried out by Harrogate Borough Council. My experience of Parish Councils is they are talking shops only, or twinning with another Parish and having annual 'jollies'. Most issues could now be identified on social media sites like 'Streetlife' rather than individual Parish Councillors.

Comments  Candidates should be DBS (CRB) checked prior to election.  I would like to be able to speak to someone by telephone not be told "on line" which I am can't do  Has the proposed development of the Dunlopillo site been taken into account  Also the power to take legal proceedings is inappropriate.  What we need is better representation. But will this achieve this? It will cost more so can it be reversed if it doesn't work??? Hmm. This questionnaire does not send a convincing message that it will.  If to go ahead this needs to be for the right reasons and for the benefit of all those in the boundary, not just those central to it (ie Pannal Village) with councillors representative for all, not just those who live in Pannal and Burn Bridge.  It is also important that all Members of the Community are surveyed, not just one form per household.  I would be willing to stand as a parish councillor or clerk to the parish council.  It would be more of interest if a Parish Council could control existing housing estates re hedges, fences, extensions  Interested to know where suppliers of the proposal live as we have never been consulted until now. This epitomises the attitude of Pannal / Burn Bridge residents ie Walton park isn't Pannal.  I note that only one survey was included in your mailing. What if other Members of my household disagree with my opinions? Should they not have an opportunity to comment?  You must provide more information about the financial powers and budgets.  Where is the vote on this for democracy??  Will controls be in place to ensure the involvement of the broad community, ie this does not become (or be perceived as) a replica of the Pannal Village Society? - does include Burn Bridge residents.  As there is no need for an extra tier of council no elections should be held. Do we not get to vote on this proposal before any elections take place. That's democracy!!!

12

Appendix A

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW - PANNAL & BURN BRIDGE

Survey

The information supplied by you will assist the Council in the Community Governance Review and will not be linked to any individual unless you supply your contact details. All personal information supplied by you on this form will be processed by Harrogate Borough Council in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. We will not sell or disclose your information to other organisations or individuals outside the council.

1. How are you responding to this consultation?

 As resident of the area – please state postcode

 As a representative of a voluntary or community group – please state postcode

 As a business – please state postcode

 As a Harrogate Borough Councillor

 As a North Yorkshire County Councillor

 As a public service provider – please state postcode

 Other – please specify

13

Formation of a Parish Council for Pannal and Burn Bridge

The petition requests that a parish council be created for Pannal and Burn Bridge.

2. Do you agree with this proposal?

 Yes

 No

 No opinion

3. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposal?

Name of the Council

The area of the proposed parish council covers the villages of Pannal and Burn Bridge and the petition suggested that the new local council be known as Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council.

4. Do you agree that, if created, the name of the council should be Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council?

 Yes

 No

 No opinion

5. If you disagree with the proposed name please state why/suggest an alternative

6. Do you have any further comments on the proposed name of Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council?

14

Council Area

The petition suggested that the parish council should cover the area shown on the map enclosed.

Government guidance says that council boundaries should be easy to identify and reflect gaps between communities.

The proposed area follows the boundary of the existing Pannal district ward, with the exclusion of the housing estates on the south of Harrogate

7. Do you agree with the proposed boundaries?

 Yes

 No

 No opinion

8. Do you have any comments on the area to be covered by the council?

Electoral Arrangements

If a parish council is formed the date of the first election would be 4 May 2016, for a reduced term of 3 years, with the next elections taking place in 2019 for a four year term. This is for administrative convenience and would enable elections to take place at the same time as for the Pannal Ward of Harrogate Borough Council, Knaresborough Town Council and City Council, thus reducing costs.

15

9. Do you agree with the years in which elections will be held?

 Yes

 No

 No opinion

10. Do you have any comments on the years in which elections will be held?

Parish Councillors

Government guidance suggests that a parish council must have at least 5 councillors and guidelines detailed in the Terms of Reference of the review suggest that councils representing 501 – 2,500 electors typically have between 6 and 12 councillors.

In 2014 there were 1862 electors on the electoral register for Pannal and Burn Bridge.

The Council is suggesting there be 5 Councillors.

11. Do you agree on the number of Parish Councillors proposed?

 Yes

 No

 No opinion

12. Do you have any comments regarding the number of Parish Councillors proposed?

13. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on the proposals?

16

About you - anonymous

We are committed to ensuring that the services provided by Harrogate Borough Council meet the needs and requirements of all sections of the community.

You do not need to answer any of the following questions if you do not wish to but if you do so you will be helping us to meet this commitment and tailor our services to the needs of all members of the community.

Are you?

 Male

 Female

 Prefer not to say

To which age group do you belong?

 18-19 years  40-49 years  70-79 years

 20-29 years  50-59 years  80+ years

 30-39 years  60-69 years  Prefer not to say

What is your religion?

 Christian  Buddhist  Hindu

 Jewish  Muslim  Sikh

 Other  No religion / belief  Prefer not to say

Do you consider yourself to have a disability according to the terms given in the Equality Act 2010? Under The Equality Act 2010, a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, which would include things like using a telephone, reading a book or using public transport.

 Yes

 No

 Prefer not to say

17

What is your ethnic group? Please choose one section and tick the box that best describes your race and background

White Mixed / multiple ethnic background  English / Welsh / Scottish /  White and Black Caribbean Northern Irish / British

 Southern Irish  White and Black African

 Gypsy or Irish Traveller  White and Asian

 Other white ethnic group (please  Other Mixed / multiple ethnic group specify) (please specify)

Asian / Asian British Black / African / Caribbean / Black British  Indian  African

 Pakistani  Caribbean

 Bangladeshi

 Chinese

 Other Asian / Asian British (please  Other Black / African / Caribbean / specify) Black British (please specify)

Other ethnic group  Arab  Any other ethnic group (please specify)

 Prefer not to say

Thank you Please return your completed survey in the pre-paid envelope supplied.

18

APPENDIX B

3. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposal?

 I fully support the proposal which will give a voice to Pannal and Burn Bridge to improve the self governance of the area.  The reason we did not have a Parish Council was because we came within the Harrogate boundary. We have local Councillors and do not need a Parish Council. (What has changed?).  Positive development for the successful and effective Pannal Village Society. Concerned that some residents may disapprove of necessary levy to cover costs.  Another level of incompetent bureaucracy  No more influence than Village Society but much more red tape and cost.  Subject to annual levy held under £50 pa until 2020 at the earliest. 2. 6 monthly forecast of monthly meetings to be published well in advance and in publicly frequented locations.  Fully support the proposed 100%  Concern about a possible increase in rates. Concern about too much local power. Concern that possible waste of resources.  Yes, it might give too much power to a vocal minority.  Bearing in mind a Parish Council can always be overruled by a Borough Council.  I see no need for a Parish Council.  When would the elections be?  I do not want to see my Council Tax increased. No requirement for this additional bureaucracy.  Not necessary, waste of money.  That the proposed Council will not exert enough influence to deal with such issues as the area's existing roads being congested by traffic en route to Leeds and Bradford via Pannal and Burn Bridge  I would like to know by how much our Council tax bill will increase by in Year 1 of any new Parish Council.  Our only concern is that the Governance Review could have been completed and a Parish Council in force at the recent elections. It has taken far too long from the initial petition.  It is not clear why this charge is being proposed.  Another layer of bureaucracy is unnecessary. The more so as it will be run by self- important busy bodies. Harrogate Borough Council serves this area quite adequately.  I strongly support the formation of a Parish Council so that we, as residents, have a greater say in the future of our area.  There are already too many costly layers of bureaucracy.  Excellent idea as we get totally swallowed up into Harrogate budget and yet pay the highest Council tax?  Unnecessary and costly additional level of hierarchy  The proposal correctly recognises that issues for Pannal and Burn Bridge can be different to those for Harrogate Town.  See no reason for another level of bureaucracy and decision making. We are already represented on HBC.  I have concerns about the amount of payment to Chairman and Councillors. I believe this should be a voluntary post and any payment should be nominal. Residents should be consulted on this.

19

 Consider Pannal/Burn Bridge to be a part of Harrogate and we don't want to see yet another tier of Local Government created.  No it will only mean more expense for residents.  Just another layer of management that will cost residents money  The increase in local taxes is a concern.  We do not require a further level of bureaucracy established which would slow down progress on many fronts  Another layer of expensive bureaucracy  See no reason to increase Council Tax to fund this activity  Total waste of money and time.  Our local councillors already deal with our concerns well. Extra benefits from a Parish Council are unlikely to be worth the additional costs.  We don't agree with having a Parish Council. The rest of the survey is therefore meaningless.  Great idea.  A Parish Council will help to preserve green belt.  The community as a whole would benefit from the local decisions made by local people who have personal knowledge of community needs.  I feel the area is too large for one Parish Council - I suggest it should be divided. One for Pannal and one for Burn Bridge.  It is not necessary to have any more administration.  No further layer of administration is needed.  Cost to residents  This is an unnecessary proposal.  A totally unnecessary additional and expensive layer of bureaucracy. We already have elected members to represent us and we are not remote from Harrogate.  Although Pannal Village Society has done a good job in protecting the interests of the village a Parish Council will have more clout and influence.  Great idea  I can see no requirement for such a body. (Apart from to give arrogant interfering busy bodies with nothing better to do a place to do)! and certainly object most strongly to my being required to find it.  It would introduce waste, additional cost for no discernible benefit  I do not believe that a Parish Council is necessary or will perform any beneficial function.  Too much bureaucracy already  I consider that the creation of a parish council for Pannal and Burn Bridge would be an additional and unnecessary level of bureaucracy which would result in each householder having to pay an increased amount of Council Tax. This area is already adequately served by Harrogate Borough Council.  Not needed. Would just be another ineffectual talking shop.  Not necessary and duplication of Councillors.  I disagree with this proposal to create a parish council  I feel this proposal has been put forward by the same group of people who are opposed to any change in the said communities with no regard to the population at large for example opposed to all plans for further housing especially affordable housing, also recent opposition to Co-op store, which a great asset to the village.  Don't need one as the last one was ended; have enough with Council. What are the local councillors for if parish council. No need for other councillors.  We are subject to too many layers of expensive governance already

20

 Extra cost of Council tax.-  This should have been done years ago!  Some concerns regarding Harrogate Borough Council. Could it push its financial responsibilities onto the Parish Council eg traffic calming in Pannal Village.  Good idea to have a parish council, provided that HBC and NYCC do not reduce their service to the area and expect the parish to raise funds to cover the lack of the other Council's work  Utterly against the proposal. It will waste public money for no advantage to us the public.  Sensible approach.  There is an aspect of "busybodyness" to the proposal and group behind it yet some issues of development are quite legitimate as there is a perception that the area is viewed as a "fringe" by Harrogate Council.  Additional bureaucracy here when this could/should be already addressed. If it isn't so far, will it ever??  More tax will be needed to pay but can not predict any benefits.  Pannal and Burn Bridge are not rural areas, but are urban areas. There is proposed 300 new homes on the former Dunlopillo site next year. Parish Councillors are for villages, such as Follifoot where only limited development is taking place. It will be another taxation to be paid.  Pannal Village Society are driving this. They do not always represent the views of the community in Pannal and Burn Bridge. The extra cost and bureaucracy is not necessary.  I think it will be very beneficial for the whole village community.  This is just another "job for the boys", another level of bureaucracy. The "anonymous" information you require is over intrusive and has nothing at all to do with a parish council.  It will increase costs to householders!!  Village is nice as it is and not sure extra expenditure for a parish council is necessary. Would we (the residents) get full value for money? Im not sure we would and would need to know what it’s going to cost me not a general figure for a property in "D" band.  We don't need another layer of Government.  Don't feel we have been given sufficient information to be able to consider this properly. Not clear what the proposed Parish Council would be considering doing over and above what is done now. Who has made/put forward this proposal and on what basis, to have a Parish.  An excellent proposal.  Forming a PC would just be a further unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. The existing village society at a cost of £3/year give the area a voice. Our local Councillors give adequate representation on local matters.  What would happen if over the years interest in it becomes nil? Does it revert to NYCC?  A further precept on Council tax bills is against the community interest in the current climate, especially when there are no controls on its inflation year on year.  Quite unnecessary bureaucracy, a waste of money.  My only concern is the difficulty of attracting the councillors - volunteers with the appropriate motives and skills are always hard to find!  Yes. We fundamentally disagree with the proposal to levy precepts to the Council tax bill.  The cost.  We have 2 local Councillors which is adequate. Costs are not controlled. 21

 None - I think it will benefit Pannal/Burn Bridge  Its a good one.  Concerns re funding/precept - maximum of £50  We are opposed to any further effective layer of local government primarily on the grounds of cost - Harrogate Council Tax is already higher than some especially for people on pensions or other fixed income.  A PC for Pannal will give our community the opportunity to influence the local government decision making process.  Whether we can find the right people to run it and 2. How quickly it can become effective to represent the interests of those in the area.  I agree the proposal has benefits however I would not wish to contribute (low income)  Waste of time and money.  I signed the application  An excellent idea  Establishing a parish council seems an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy in a time of cuts being made to local government.  The provision of a Parish Council will underpin the viability and sustainability of the Village Hall and overcome the currently highly fragile management regime.  Additional Council Tax  The village of Pannal is the subject of continued expansion and development and as an existing resident I feel my views are not being heard.  Not happy about potential extra charge on council tax, especially lack of restrictions on amount. Suspect Parish Council would not represent the views/needs of Walton Park residents as we are deemed outside the village.  Don't need one. As why do we have local councillors who are supposed to represent us. Don't agree with having to pay more money out for this as they are just so they can interfere with things.  Not prepared to pay an uncapped/unchecked amount extra to Council Tax for little benefit/changes.  Concerns regarding the precepts as it seems that the Council can charge/increase precepts at will.  I feel that the creation of a Parish Council will result in yet another layer of bureaucracy. It has been lobbied for by the Village Society - a completely unelected body that does not necessarily reflect the views of all the residents of Pannal.  Insufficient financial controls.  I am hoping this has an impact on whether children stand more of a chance of getting into Harrogate Grammar if we become one of the Parishes on the list. Stop the ridiculous trend of people moving in and out of the village to get in!  It would appear that the Parish Council powers are duplicating those of the Harrogate Borough Council. In times of austerity, there is no requirement for a further layer of bureaucracy.  We do NOT need another tier of authority.  Does this add an extra layer of government locally? Needs to work seamlessly with the Borough Council.  Some concerns over yet another layer of bureaucracy. We will need a good strong team on the Parish Council!!  It is not necessary.  It would add another layer of bureaucracy and require resources; we need less of the former and the latter is scarce.  With the size of the village and its locality to Harrogate, I believe a parish council is important to look after the village, and its residents. 22

 If the Parish Council takes on some of the work presently done by Borough Council or NYCC the residents end up paying twice, since their Council Community Charge will not go down but Parish Precept will go up.  I do not want to see another level of Government. We have just elected a councillor for Pannal. I see this as undermining his authority, unless you plan to reduce the number of Harrogate Council representatives.  This would mean an extra layer of community tax.  A waste of time and money.  Additional bureaucracy and Councillors voting on political grounds.  My 2 main concerns are:- That in these areas of power/responsibility of the Parish Council the local/county council should not use its existence as an excuse for less attention on their behalf. Keeping costs of administration well under control.  There is no information from Pannal Village Society as to why they have made this request and what the benefits might be. That would have been useful.  On the basis the Parish Council becomes a rural parish as opposed to being part of Harrogate Civic Parish particularly in relation to admission arrangements for secondary schools and is recognised as such by NYCC (and treated in the same way as for example Follifoot and ) so we have virtually first choice as opposed to Hobson’s choice.  Don't agree with additional levy on Council Tax don't really want an additional layer of bureaucracy very few legal duties.  This is a totally unnecessary increase in bureaucracy; any increase in rates to cover the cost of such a Parish Council as proposed is totally unacceptable - and a further increase will result in hardship for many pensioners already hard pressed to meet present expenditure.  Do not agree with the primary objective of those who are behind this initiative … implication that a Parish Council will have significant influence on the planning process and thus be able to prevent housing development … the Borough Council makes perfectly good decisions about development … houses are desperately needed  This Parish Council, which will likely be populated with the same people who have, through scare tactics about indiscriminate development, and through being less than transparent about the costs, managed to persuade the requisite number of people to sign a petition to trigger this Community Governance Review.  A Parish Council offers an opportunity to offload cost, resulting in an increase in tax to electors in the Parish Council area – a backdoor tax.  The formation of a Parish Council is not in the interests of the electors of the area, imposing as it would an extra layer of bureaucracy and expense with little, if any, control over how the tax money is spent, and no safety net in the form of a cap.

23

APPENDIX C Equalities Statistics

Male 188 52.5% Female 128 35.8% Prefer not to say 7 2.0% No reply 35 9.8% 358 100.0%

To which age group do you belong? 18-19 years - 0.0% 20-29 years 2 0.6% 30-39 years 8 2.2% 40-49 years 37 10.3% 50-59 years 59 16.5% 60-69 years 90 25.1% 70-79 years 78 21.8% 80+ years 40 11.2% Prefer not to say 7 2.0% No reply 37 10.3% 358 100.0%

What is your religion? Christian 238 66.5% Buddhist 1 0.3% Jewish 2 0.6% Other 3 0.8% No religion / belief 49 13.7% Prefer not to say 24 6.7% No reply 41 11.5% 358 100.0%

Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes 15 4.2% No 289 80.7% Prefer not to say 14 3.9% No reply 40 11.2% 358 100.0%

What is your ethnic group? White - English/Welsh/Scottish/NI/British 299 83.5% White - Gypsy or Irish Traveller 1 0.3% Mixed / multiple ethnic background - white and 1 0.3% black Caribbean Other 2 0.6% Prefer not to say 8 2.2% No reply 47 13.1% 358 100.0%

24