Community Governance Review Committee AGENDA
Wednesday, 12th July 2017 at 5.00 PM Council Chamber, Braintree District Council, Causeway House, Bocking End, Braintree, CM7 9HB
THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (Please note this meeting will be audio recorded) www.braintree.gov.uk
Members of the Community Governance Review Committee are requested to attend this meeting to transact the business set out in the Agenda.
Membership:-
Councillor J Abbott Councillor Mrs J Pell Councillor P Barlow Councillor Mrs W Schmitt (Chairman) Councillor Mrs J Beavis Councillor R van Dulken Councillor Mrs D Garrod Councillor Mrs S Wilson Councillor Mrs J Money
Members unable to attend the meeting are requested to forward their apologies for absence to the Governance and Members Team on 01376 552525 or email [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting.
A WRIGHT Acting Chief Executive
Page 1 of 38 INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS - DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, Other Pecuniary Interest or Non- Pecuniary Interest Any member with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, other Pecuniary Interest or Non- Pecuniary Interest must declare the nature of their interest in accordance with the Code of Conduct. Members must not participate in any discussion of the matter in which they have declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or other Pecuniary Interest or participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting. In addition, the Member must withdraw from the chamber where the meeting considering the business is being held unless the Member has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer. Question Time The Agenda allows for a period of up to 30 minutes when members of the public can speak. Members of the public wishing to speak are requested to register by contacting the Governance and Members Team on 01376 552525 or email [email protected] no later than 2 working days prior to the meeting. The Council reserves the right to decline any requests to register to speak if they are received after this time. Members of the public can remain to observe the public session of the meeting.
Please note that there is public Wi-Fi in the Council Chamber, users are required to register in order to access this. There is limited availability of printed agendas. Health and Safety Any persons attending meetings in the Council offices are requested to take a few moments to familiarise themselves with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by officers. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building.
Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent during the meeting in order to prevent disturbances.
Webcast and Audio Recording Please note that this meeting will be webcast and audio recorded. You can view webcasts for up to 6 months using this link: http://braintree.public-i.tv/core/portal/home
Documents Agendas, reports and minutes for all the Council's public meetings can be accessed via www.braintree.gov.uk We welcome comments from members of the public to make our services as efficient and effective as possible. If you have any suggestions regarding the meeting you have attended, you can send these via [email protected]
Page 2 of 38 Page 1. Apologies for Absence
2. Declarations of Interest
To declare the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, other Pecuniary Interest or Non-Pecuniary Interest relating to items on the agenda having regard to the Code of Conduct for Members and having taken appropriate advice where necessary before the meeting.
3. Public Question Time (See paragraph above)
4. Community Governance Review Background 4- 17
5. Site Considerations 18 - 30
6. Terms of Reference 31 - 38
7. Urgent Business – Public Session To consider any matter which, in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
8. Exclusion of the Public and Press To agree the exclusion of the public and press for the consideration of any items for the reasons set out in Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Local Government Act 1972
At the time of compiling this agenda there were none.
PRIVATE SESSION
9. Urgent Business - Private Session To consider any matter which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered in private by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
Page 3 of 38 Community Governance Review Committee 12th July 2017
Community Governance Review Background Agenda No: 4
Portfolio Overall Corporate Strategy and Direction Corporate Services and Asset Management
Corporate Outcome: A high performing organisation that delivers excellent and value for money services Delivering better outcomes for residents and businesses and reducing costs to taxpayers
Report presented by: Ian Hunt, Head of Governance Report prepared by: Steve Daynes, Democracy Manager
Background Papers: Public Report Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007 Key Decision: No Statutory guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2010).
Executive Summary:
DCLG guidance suggests that Principal Authorities conduct Community Governance Review (CGR) every 10 to 15 years. Whilst no formal District wide reviews have been commissioned in the past 30 years a number of smaller issue based reviews have been commissioned. These reviews enhanced the established governance of the District at a Parish level and therefore no formal process of review has been considered necessary.
The District is going through a period of significant growth as evidenced by the new District Local Plan and with its publication and adoption it is now an appropriate time to consider the ongoing Community Governance for the Braintree District.
This report updates Members on actions initiated by the Developing Democracy Group (DDG) and provides, at section 3.0, details of actions taken and their impact on the overall Project initiation.
Should changes to Parish Governance or Boundaries be considered appropriate these will be implemented at the next scheduled elections in May 2019.
Recommended Decision: 1. For Members to note the scope of Community Governance Review and to understand the actions which could arise from this.
Page 4 of 38 Purpose of Decision:
To support the continued development of the project for the forthcoming community governance review.
Any Corporate implications in relation to the following should be explained in detail.
Financial: There is no specific budgetary provision however given that consultation will, in the main be limited to direct mailing to smaller communities no additional budgetary allocation will be sought at this stage. Legal: Review to be conducting in line with Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007 and statutory guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Safeguarding: None
Equalities/Diversity: Legislation requires each Polling District has a dedicated polling place. Any review therefore must ensure that adequate Polling arrangements can be provided. Customer Impact: To be considered as part of the review.
Environment and None Climate Change: Consultation/Community The consultation will ensure that all stakeholders have Engagement: appropriate access.
Risks: Risks will be managed in accordance with the project plan.
Officer Contact: Steve Daynes Designation: Democracy Manager Ext. No: 2751 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 5 of 38 Background
1. Context
1.1 The structure of Community Governance (mostly parish and town councils) across the District was established in 1974, and last comprehensively reviewed in 1983 and has broadly continued to reflect the needs of the various communities.
1.2 This resilience in the overall structure of Governance has therefore provided a stable base and as a consequence despite the considerable growth within the District over the past 30 years there has been little appetite for wholesale changes to the established base model.
1.3 Member should be aware of a small number of “ad-hoc” reviews which have been undertaken and these are:
Great Notley – A new Parish Council of 8 councillors was formed in 1998 and serves the formative developments of White Courts, Great Notley and Panners Farm. Holy Trinity North - In 2010 there was a need to formally review this area of Halstead to more accurately reflect the built environment. Following consultation the Polling District was divided and suitable Polling Locations secured for both newly created districts. Halstead and Witham Town Councils – Both Town Council areas were re defined as a result of consequential changes recommended by the Boundary Commission in their review of District ward boundaries in 2014.
1.4 Given the coming adoption of the Local Pan and the range of existing developments across the District and having regard to the statutory Guidance from the Department Of Communities and Local Government it is considered that time is now right to undertake a full review of Community Governance across the District.
1.5 A review at this time provides the Council with the opportunity to incorporate both newly established communities with proposed developments sites outlined in the Local Plan. In turn, this will lead to a cohesive structure which will reflect both the built environment and the anticipated representational demands of the respective communities.
1.6 What can be looked at?
1.7 Under a Community Governance Review the Council has the power to consider the most effective arrangements for community governance, this can include:
the creation of a parish changing the name of a parish the establishment of a separate parish council for an existing parish
Page 6 of 38 the alteration of boundaries of existing parishes the abolition of a parish the dissolution of a parish council changes to the electoral arrangements of a parish council whether a parish should be grouped under a common parish council or de-grouped
1.8 When considering proposals the Council has to have regard to ensuring that the needs for the relevant community are considered, particularly in relation to ensuring a strong, inclusive community and voluntary sector: a sense of civic values, responsibility and pride a sense of place – a place with a ‘positive’ feeling for people and local distinctiveness reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area are effective and convenient the impact of community governance arrangements on community cohesion the size, population and boundaries of a local community or parish people from different backgrounds having similar life opportunities people knowing their rights and responsibilities
1.9 The Council in formulating proposals must give the community (which will include the existing town and parish councils as well as the public directly) the opportunity to influence the proposals and to be considered in the decision making.
2. Legal considerations
2.1 Members are advised that a full legal summary of the scope and process for a Community Governance Review is provided at Appendix 1.
3. Decision making and Outline Review Timetable
3.1. There will undoubtedly be many views when considering Community Governance and whilst the ultimate decision rests with the Council it was initially suggested that the Developing Democracy Group would be best suited to oversee the review process.
3.2. At their meeting on 15 November 2016 DDG recommended to Council that a more formal consultation group be established which would oversee the Review process and make recommendations to Council for final consideration.
3.3. The Community Governance Review Committee was established by Council at the Annual General Meeting on the 24th April 2017 and has the opportunity to consider the Terms of Reference by which the CGR will be conducted.
Page 7 of 38 3.4. In developing these, DDG were keen to engage with all Parishes, and in January they invited them to participate in an informal survey. The survey gave them an opportunity to inform the review process by highlighting issues for inclusion in the Initial Consultation.
3.5. The survey did not however invite comment on the Larger Development sites as DDG considered it appropriate that, as a number of sites were either located adjacent to, or, compromised existing boundaries the Council should establish an initial position for consultation.
3.6. As part of the CGR project the group will be invited to consider and formalise a consultation position in relation to a) proposals from Parishes and b) Larger Development sites
3.7. The Formal Consultation position will be presented to Council for consideration on 27 July 2017 as part of the terms of reference.
When What By Who Detail June 2017 Confirm terms of CGR Reference Committee 27 July 2017 Adoption of Initial Council Terms of Reference July 2017 Publish initial data Project team Electorates Projected Electorates History of Engagement Current Joining arrangements 1 August 2017 Initial Public Project team Parishes To Consultation Stakeholders 30 September 2017 Electors October 2017 Collate and Project team consider initial responses November 2017 Consider initial CGR responses Committee 11 December 2017 Publish Draft Council Recommendations 1 January 2018 Public Project team To Consultation on 28 February 2018 Draft Recommendations 4 June 2018 Publish Final Council Highlight to recommendations interested parties 23 July 2018 Council Resolution Council to adopt August 2018 Prepare and Solicitor to the Publish prescribed Council Order
Page 8 of 38
4. Existing Boundaries
4.1. When considering boundaries it is important to be cognisant of the constraints which guide any review. The review is confined to Parish boundaries and as such any re-defining must ensure that proposals balance the built environment with the need to provide consistent voting arrangements for the electorate. We are unable to change the ultimate district boundary or any District Wards or County Divisions.
4.2. At present all Parish and District ward boundaries are coterminous with both existing and proposed Parliamentary boundaries and therefore any movement of Parish boundaries could either compromise election delivery or lead to confusion where electors could be be designated to different Polling stations for different types of elections.
4.3. Given that the District ward structure is defined by existing Parish boundaries The Returning Officer recommends that these remain unchanged unless there are significant (in excess of 100 properties) developments which cross boundaries.
4.4. Where new boundaries are to be established, DCLG guidance suggests that a CGR provides the opportunity to “put in place strong boundaries, tied to firm ground detail, and remove anomalous parish boundaries”. Traditionally therefore boundaries have been defined either by for example the boundaries of Public Parks and designated Open spaces or using the centre line of roads.
5. Initial Options summary
5.1. The range of options available to the Council is, on the face of it extensive on the one hand Council could decide to make no changes and preserve the status quo through to the complete “blank canvass” approach.
5.2. Given that the framework of Governance is embedded across the District, it is anticipated that wholesale changes would not be supported and little benefit would be gained from attempting to redefine all boundaries.
5.3. From the proposed Local Plan it is clear that there are some key sites which either adjoin or cross existing Parish/District ward boundaries and it is suggested that these form the focus for any boundary movement.
6. Communications
6.1. Clearly consultation is an essential part of the Review process, however an initial assessment of the areas under review would indicate that a targeted consultation would be more appropriate.
Page 9 of 38
6.2. Residents across the whole district will of course be given opportunity to feed into the process via links through the Council’s website, Social Media links as well as the more traditional Press release and published media. Those residents who will have a change of Parish or Town Council or be included in a Parish for the first time will receive direct household consultation documents.
6.3. Key stakeholders – In addition to the electorate, there are a number of stakeholders referred to in the DCLG guidance who it is suggested should be consulted and these include: District ward Councillors Essex County Council and Divisional Councillors for the Braintree area Political parties Parish Councils Community forums and associations Local Businesses and Voluntary organisations Schools and Health bodies
6.4. Full consultation – It is important that, throughout the review process, actions and views of the wider community are recorded and considered, to this end it is proposed that an interactive web site be utilised to collate and record ALL representations.
Page 10 of 38 Appendix 1
1.0 Community Governance Reviews
1.1 The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, transferred full responsibility from the Boundary Commission to Principal Authorities for the establishment and periodic review of Parish Council governance arrangements, these are known as “Community Governance Reviews”.
1.2 The legislative framework which informs Community Governance Reviews is as follows:
Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Act 2007
Guidance on community governance reviews, issued jointly by DCLG & EC (April 2008)
Local Government Act 1972
Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England) Regulations 2008
Local Government Finance (New Parishes) Regulations 2008
1.3 The Boundary Commission retains some control over “protected electoral arrangements” which cannot be considered during a Community Governance Review unless authorised by them. In summary the Act establishes a five- year moratorium period on the more recent reviews concluded by the Boundary commission.
1.4 While principal councils have been given considerable flexibility when conduct of Reviews, there remains a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State of the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Electoral Commission
1.5 A Community Governance Review can be a review of the whole or part of the principal council’s area for the purpose of making recommendations with regard to: creating, merging or abolishing parishes, the naming of parishes, the electoral arrangements for parishes grouping arrangements for parishes.
2. Powers to conduct reviews, Terms of Reference and general duties
2.1 The government’s Guidance states that principal councils should continually keep their area under review, and that it is good practice for a principal council to consider conducting a review every 10-15 years.
2.2. Principal Councils are required to draw up Terms of Reference for a review. These must specify the area under review. It is for the principal council to decide these terms of reference However, as soon as practicable after deciding terms of reference or modifying them the principal council must
Page 11 of 38 publish them. A community governance review “begins” when it publishes the terms of reference of the review.
2.3 The are however some overriding principles to the review process and principal council must have regard to the need to secure that community governance within the area under review:
reflects the identities and interests of the communities
is effective and convenient.
community cohesion
the size, population and boundaries of a local communities or parishes.
2.4 The principal council must consult the local government electors for the area under review and any other person or body (including a local authority) who appears to have an interest in the review. In particular, the government is concerned that recommendations in a review take account of any representations received, expressions of local opinion and representations made by local people and other interested parties.
2.5 The principal council must take into account and consider any representations received in connection with the review. As soon as practicable after making any recommendations, the principal council must publish the recommendations and take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of these recommendations. Likewise, the government guidance is that any consequential matters that are referred to must have been fully consulted on.
3. Timetables for reviews
3.1 The council must conclude the review within a period of 12 months of the publication of the Terms of Reference and concludes when the Council publishes the recommendations made in the review.
3.2 The following is an indicative timetable:
Action Timetable Introductory stage – Two months submissions are invited Draft Proposals are prepared Two months Draft Proposals are published Consultations Three months Final Proposals are prepared One month Final Proposals are published Council publishes the Two months later Recommendations Council makes a thereafter Reorganisation Order
Page 12 of 38 3.3 The review is completed when the principal council makes a Reorganistion Order in accordance with Section 86.
4. Parish Areas – new and existing parishes
4.1 A community governance review must make recommendations as to what new parish or parishes (if any) should be constituted in the area under review. A “new parish” is defined in the legislation:
establishing an unparished area as a parish;
aggregating one or more unparished areas with one or more parished areas;
aggregating parts of parishes;
amalgamating two or more parishes;
separating part of a parish.
4.2 If a new parish is constituted, the review must also make recommendations as to the name of the new parish, as to whether or not the new parish should have a parish council, the electoral arrangements of that council and whether or not the new parish should have one of the alternative styles.
4.3 The review must also make recommendations in relation to each of the existing parishes under review: recommendations that the parish should not be abolished and its area not altered, recommendations that an area should be altered, or recommendations that the parish should be abolished. The review must also make recommendations as to whether or not the name of the existing parish should be changed. Likewise, recommendations should follow about the electoral arrangements for the parish, in particular, there should be recommendations as to whether the parish should have or should continue to have a council and what electoral arrangements should apply to that council. However, the review may not make recommendations with regard to alternative styles for any existing parish.
4.4 The government foresees that many reviews will simply involve making changes to boundaries between existing parishes, maybe in response to recent developments. The government acknowledges that this may be the case particularly in rural areas. However, in addition, “reviews offer the chance for principal councils to consider the future of what may have become redundant parishes, often the result of an insufficient number of local electors within the area who are willing to serve on a parish council.
4.5 The parishes and their wards are used as the building blocks for the principal council wards, and so far as is reasonably practicable no unwarded parish should be split by a principal council ward boundary and no parish ward should be split by such a boundary. These provisions do no apply to parish electoral arrangements. However, the Guidance states “that, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, they are relevant considerations for principal councils to take into account when undertaking community governance reviews”.
Page 13 of 38
4.6 The government has stated that it expects to see a trend in the creation of parishes, and that it would be undesirable to see existing parishes abolished with an area becoming unparished with no community governance arrangements in place.
5. Parish names and alternative styles
5.1 Where a new parish is being constituted, the Community Governance Review must make recommendations as to the name of the new parish, and it must make recommendations as to whether or not the new parish should have one of the alternative styles.
5.2 Where the review is concerned with existing parishes, the review must make recommendations as to whether or not the name of the parish should be changed. However, the review must not concern itself with any recommendations regarding an alternative style for the parish.
6.0. Electoral Arrangements
6.1 There is government guidance on whether there should be a parish council and on the role of parish meetings in those parishes that don’t have councils. The government has stated that recommendations for the dissolution of parish councils “are undesirable”, unless they are in cases of parishes with very low populations or in cases where boundary changes are reordering the parish structure or grouping parishes.
6.2 Where the review makes recommendations that a parish should have a council or that an existing parish council should be retained, the review must also make recommendations with regard to the electoral arrangements or changes to electoral arrangements.
6.3 Electoral arrangements are defined as: the year in which ordinary elections of Councillors are to be held the number of Councillors to be elected to the council, the division (or not) of the parish, into wards for the purpose of electing Councillors; the number and boundaries of any such wards the number of Councillors to be elected for any such ward; the name of any such ward.
7.0. Councillor numbers
7.1 The legal minimum number of parish Councillors for each council is five. There is no maximum number; there is no other legislative guidance. The government’s view is that “each area should be considered on its own merits, taking into account population, geography and the pattern of communities. Apart from the legal minimum, the only other legal requirement is that each parish in a grouping arrangement must have at least one member on the common council.
7.2 The Aston Business School also conducted research that was published in 1992 which showed the then levels of representation. It is likely that these levels of representation have not greatly changed in the intervening years.
Page 14 of 38
Electors Councillors
< 500 5-8
501-2,500 6-12
2,501-10,000 9-16
10,001-20,000 13-27
> 20,000 13-31
7.3 There is no requirement in legislation that the number of Councillors should be proportional to electorate size, but, in the interests of fair representation, it seems reasonable that the number of Councillors should be broadly proportional across a principal area.
7.4 There is a final legal requirement where the principal council decides to recommend that a parish should have a council which is not divided into wards. The principal council must have regard to the following factors when considering the number of Councillors to be elected for the parish:
the number of local government electors for the parish;
any change in that number which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review starts.
8.0. Warding
8.1 In considering whether to recommend that a parish should, or should not, be or continue to be divided into wards for the purpose of electing Councillors, the principal council should consider the following:
whether the number, or distribution, of the local government electors for the parish would make a single election of Councillors impracticable or inconvenient;
whether it is desirable that any area or areas of the parish should be separately represented on the council.
8.2 If the principal council decides to recommend that a parish should be divided into wards, the principal council must have regard to the following when considering the size and boundaries of the wards and the number of Councillors to be elected for each ward:
the number of local government electors for the parish;
any change in the number, or distribution, of the local government electors which is likely to occur in the period of five years beginning with the day when the review starts;
Page 15 of 38 the desirability of fixing boundaries which are, and will remain, easily identifiable;
any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundaries.
8.3 The government also advises that another relevant consideration in the warding of parishes is the layout of the principal council electoral areas.
9.0 Recommendations, Orders and Maps
9.1 As soon as practicable after making any recommendations in a review, the principal council must publish these recommendations and take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of those recommendations.
9.2 Where changes to the existing arrangements are to be made, the principal council completes its review by making a “reorganisation order”. The order may revoke provisions of previous orders made under the 2007 Act, or under Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992, or under Sections 16-17 of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. The order must include a map showing in general outline the area affected by the order. Guidance has been given on the timing of an order.
9.3 As soon as practicable after making the order, the principal council must inform all of the following that the order has been made:
the Secretary of State;
the Electoral Commission;
the Office of National Statistics
the Director General of the Ordnance Survey;
any other principal council whose area the order relates to.
Government guidance is that the Audit Commission should also be informed.
Page 16 of 38
COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEWS – FLOWCHART
Other Requests – Parish Council, Local Member, etc
Principal council decides whether to Review
Principal council draws up and publishes terms of No – no further Yes action reference and a timetable for the review
Initial submissions are invited Twelve months completeto review
in Consultations
Prepare and publish the Draft
action under s.84 under action Proposals Decide on course of of on course Decide Other petitions come come Other petitions
Consultations
Consequential matters arise Prepare and publish the Final and are Proposals considered and consulted upon
Principal Council publishes the Recommendations
Consequential matters referred to Boundary Reorganisation Order is made Commission
Page 17 of 38 Community Governance Review Committee 12th July 2017
Community Governance Review – Site Considerations Agenda No: 5
Portfolio Corporate Services and Asset Management
Corporate Outcome: A high performing organisation that delivers excellent and value for money services Delivering better outcomes for residents and businesses and reducing costs to taxpayers
Report presented by: Steve Daynes, Democracy Manager Report prepared by: Steve Daynes, Democracy Manager
Background Papers: Public Report Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007 and Department of Communities and Local Key Decision: No Government guidance 2010
Executive Summary:
Members are asked to focus on specific larger development sites and establish a Council consultation position for inclusion in the full District Community Governance review.
Parishes have not been asked to formally comment on the Larger Developments site East of London Road, however Great Notley have submitted their initial thoughts which it is proposed be held for consideration following publication of the formal consultation.
Recommended Decision: 1 That Members adopt for consultation proposals outlined at 1.4 of this report
2 That Members recommend No Change to boundary as a result of the development at: a) Land East of London Road Braintree /Black Notley
3 That Members determine the Council’s consultation position with regard to representation of: a) Forest Road, North Witham/Rivenhall b) Oak Road, Halstead c) Pods Brook Road/London Road, A120 d) South West Witham/Hatfield Peverel
Purpose of Decision:
To establish the Council’s consultation CGR position in relation to :
Page 18 of 38 i. Proposals from identified Town and Parish councils ii. Specific development sites across the district
Page 19 of 38 Any Corporate implications in relation to the following should be explained in detail.
Financial: There is no specific budgetary provision however given that consultation will, in the main be limited to direct mailing to smaller communities no additional budgetary allocation will be sought at this stage.
Legal: Review to be conducted in line with the Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007 and statutory guidance provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Safeguarding: None
Equalities/Diversity: Legislation requires that each Polling district has a dedicated polling place. Any review will therefore ensure that adequate Polling arrangements can be provided.
Customer Impact: To be considered as part of this review
Environment and Climate Change: None
Consultation/Community The consultation will ensure that all stakeholders have Engagement: appropriate access
Risks: Risks will be managed in accordance with the project plan.
Officer Contact: Steve Daynes Designation: Democracy Manager Ext. No: 2751 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 20 of 38 1.0 Background
1.1 At the request of Members all Town and Parish Councils were invited to highlight issues they wished to be considered as part of the review.
1.2 This Initial Survey was circulated to Parishes in February 2017 and provided them with a two month window to consider and respond. At the conclusion 31 Councils had responded with 7 requesting consideration to either changes to boundaries or amendments to overall representational arrangements. 1.3 Great Saling Great Saling Parish Council requests: /Barfield Saling 1.To extend the Parish Boundary of Great Saling to include the unparished area of Bardfield Saling 2. Increase Council size from 5 to 6 councillors 3. Rename “The Salings Parish Council” Coggeshall Coggeshall Parish Council requests 1. to merge existing North and East wards and rename (7 Councillors) 2. to merge South and West Wards and rename (6 Councillors) 3. To increase representation to the new South/West ward by 1 additional Councillor Kelvedon Kelvedon Parish Council requests that due to the proposed development within the Parish an increase in representation by 1 Councillor be supported Panfield Panfield Parish Council requests an extension of the Parish Boundary to include an undeveloped rural area known as Panfield Wood – Map F Rivenhall Rivenhall Parish Council requests that the boundary to Eastway Industrial Estate be considered. Witham Witham Town Council requests to Rename: a)Witham (West ward) to Witham (Spa) b)Witham (North ward) to Witham (Rickstones) c)Witham (South ward) to Witham (Maltings) Great Notley Great Notley Parish Council requests an extension of their Northern boundary to include the currently unparished area of Braintree bounded by Queenborough Lane, the B1256 (by- pass)/ A120 and London Road.
1.4 Members are advised that, in addition to their proposals included at 1.4 Great Notley Parish Council made representation for extension to their eastern boundary to include the Large Development site East of London Road.
1.5 In the interest of consistency and transparency it is suggested that whilst valued, these representations pre-empt the consultation process as Representations have not, at this stage been invited for this site.
1.6 It is suggested therefore that the views of Great Notley Parish Council be considered as part of the formal phase of consultation once the Council’s position has been published.
Page 21 of 38 1.7 The survey recognised that there were a number of larger development sites which adjoin existing boundaries and these would be considered by the Council. No views from Parishes would therefore be sought at this stage, but the Council would consider and publish a position statement for consultation as part of the review
1.8 Sites identified include:
a) Forest Road, North Witham/Rivenhall (370 properties) b) Oak Road, Halstead (292 properties) c) Pods Brook Road/London Road, A120 (215 properties) d) South West Witham/Hatfield Peverel (813 properties) e) Land East of London Road Braintree /Black Notley (1750 properties)
2 DCLG Guidance
2.1 The establishment and or changing of Parish boundaries can be an emotive and in some cases contentious issue. It is for this reason that the DCLG produced Guidance in 2010 to assist Principal authorities.
2.2 It is natural that, in many cases, new developments represent natural extensions of the existing built environment thereby effectively promoting a perception of increased community identity.
2.3 Whilst this may be an effective determinant for smaller developments which, in general will align themselves with their larger more established neighbouring Parish. Larger developments however are more likely to, once established, develop a local infrastructure and identity which may be able to sustain and support alternative governance arrangements.
2.4 Paragraph 85 of the Guidance offers the following “A review of parish boundaries is an opportunity to put in place strong boundaries, tied to firm ground detail, and remove anomalous parish boundaries”.
3 Intermediate Development Sites
3.1 When considering boundaries many views and perceptions can be built upon which could effectively confuse the decision making process. To assist members with their considerations the current and alternative governance arrangements for sites a to d (at 1.6 above) have been represented in tabular format
3.2 Forest Road Witham/Rivenhall – Map A
Development Site Representation Adjoining Option (No Change) Residential Area (to redefine Boundary)
Page 22 of 38 Rivenhall Parish Witham (North ward) Witham (XXX Ward) Silver End and District Ward Witham North Silver End and Cressing Cressing Witham Northern County Division Witham Northern Witham Northern
Witham Parliamentary Witham Witham constituency Braintree Proposed Witham and Maldon Braintree Parliamentary
3.3 Oak Road Halstead – Map B
Development Site Representation Adjoining Option (No Change) Residential Area (to redefine Boundary) Greenstead Green Parish Halstead Halstead and Halstead Rural (Holy Trinity South) (Holy Trinity South) Gosfield and District Ward Halstead Trinity Gosfield and Greenstead Green Greenstead Green Halstead County Division Halstead Halstead Braintree Parliamentary Braintree Braintree constituency Braintree Proposed Braintree Braintree Parliamentary
3.4 Pods Brook Road/London Road, A120 – Map C
Development Site Representation Adjoining Option (No Change) Residential Area (to redefine Boundary) Unparished Parish Unparished Unparished Great Notley and District Ward Braintree West Great Notley and Black Notley Black Notley Three Fields with County Division Braintree Town Three Fields with Great Notley Great Notley Braintree Parliamentary Braintree Braintree constituency Braintree Proposed Braintree Braintree Parliamentary
3.5 South Witham, Hatfield Peverel – Map D
Development Development Representation Adjoining Option (No Change) (No Change) Residential (to redefine Area Boundary) Site A Site B Site A Site B
Witham Hatfield Parish Witham Witham Witham Central ward Peverel Central Central Central ward ward ward
Page 23 of 38 Witham Hatfield District Ward Witham Witham Hatfield Central Peverel and Central Central Peverel and Terling Terling Witham Witham County Division Witham Witham Witham Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Witham Witham Parliamentary Witham Witham Witham constituency Witham and Witham and Proposed Witham and Witham Witham and Maldon Maldon Parliamentary Maldon and Maldon Maldon
4.0 Large Development site – Land East of London Road, Braintree – Map E
4.1 The following site, Land East of London Road Braintree /Black Notley (1750 properties) is a substantial development where the range of options are both varied and complex.
4.2 To assist members the map Map E is appended to identify current representational arrangements.
4.3 Options include: a) No change b) Redefine boundaries c) Creation of New Parish d) Postpone any formal decision until the new community is established, making no change at the present time.
Page 24 of 38 RECTORY
LANE MAP A
Lodge 35.7m
The Old Rectory
Path (um)
33.7m Path (um) Path Pond Pond
1 FORESTWard Bdy ROAD 53 LB
3 POPLAR CLOSE
2
1 48 32.2m
9
43
38
14 PARISH: RIVENHALL 38 CLOSE 37 33 31.1m LIME Path (um) DISTRICT: SILVER END/CRESSING 36
20 32 31 COUNTY: WITHAM NORTHERN 2 Pond 32 PARLIAMENTARY: WITHAM
30 26 PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: Und BRAINTREE (2022) Hall 14 30.3m FF
ROWAN15 WAY RH 25
7 13 Def Holly Walk17 33 29.4m 2122 37 212324Posts26 1 12 25 35 El Sub Sta 39 31 43 Holly Walk 36 Def 47 7 9 45 53 53 3739 1 12 17 3840 68 41 YEW 25 43 28.4m CLOSE 47 2 14 RH WAY43 27 46 LABURNUM 56 TCB 4Alder Walk24 41 PARISH:84 37 WITHAM (NORTH3 WARD) 82 30 32 44 DISTRICT:33 WITHAM NORTH5 CLOSEYEW 72 40 COUNTY: WITHAM52 AlderNORTHERN Walk 21 34 1 16 9 PARLIAMENTARY:23 42 WITHAM 17 18 MP 39.25 El Sub 1 to 11 Sta PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: 6 13 to 23 12 SL El StaSub JUNIPER CRESCENT30 26 WITHAM & MALDONELDERBERRY (2022) GARDENS CHESTNUT WALK 20 2 to37 18 to 53 Drain El Sub to2533 Sta 3139to 53 El Sub Sta 59to to61 38 ESS 41 67 El Sub Sta 51to Drain 25 to 35 El Sub Sta 1 Rosewood 58 79to Business 23 69 Park 26 91 Pond 48 103 to81 5 to 10 6 FOREST ROAD 36 11593to 17 34 105to 2 ACACIA GARDENS Und 1 10 117 to 127 32 50 Ward Bdy MULBERRY10 28 Tank 6 15 5 2026 Def GARDENS 7 129 to 139 El 30.4m Sub 75 to 85 21 25 27 to 37 Tks Sta Waterside 23 Und 1 Business 10 11 19 63 to 73 51 to 61 Park Tanks SubEl Sta Path 39(um) to 49 29.3m MOTTS LANE El Sub Sta Works 5 50 Def Pond Post EASTWAYS
43 45 Motts Lane Footbridge 49 40 Warehouse MOTTS LANE © Crown38 Copyright and databaseMP rights 39 2017. No Further copies can be made. O/S Licence No. LA 100018490. Braintree District Council. Page 25 of 38 Eastways Und 30 Path (um) 3 Blamsters Cottage 8 The 5 Coach 66.6m 1 House 74MAP B Pond 72 Pond 9 62 Blamsters Lodge 9a 71 10 69 67 WILLOW63 WAY 13 2 Und A 131
4 16 14 3 70.7m 4 5 WAY 20 21 1 18 8 27 3 BOURCHIER 1 16 11 PRIOR CLOSE CR 72.5m CRESCENT 11 7 12 Shelter TCB BLAMSTERS8 Guide Post 9 Attwoods Farm MOUNT HILLBLAMSTERS 1 Pond 72.4m PARISH:CRESCENT HALSTEAD (TRINITY SOUTH)THE TYTHINGS Guide Post 21 5 2 DefOak Cottages 18 DISTRICT: HALSTEAD TRINITY4 1.52m Tk H COUNTY: HALSTEAD 1 8 8b PARLIAMENTARY:8c BRAINTREE13 Green Lodge PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY:LB 27 13 10 29 1 7 BRAINTREE (2022)12 23 2 ABELS ROAD 19 WHITE HORSE AVENUE Attwoods 14 8 21 12 CONWAY CLOSE
24 28 26 3 76.9m 1 28a 33 ROAD 35 4 2 30 LINK 32 35a
37a37 2 34 47 OAK ROAD Ward Bdy THREE GATES CL BOURNE1 CLOSE3 1.52m16 RH CLOSE1 THREE GATES5 76.4m GP 7 Lodge 15 White Horse Resr (cov) Track White Horse Cottage
Water Tower
Conies Farm
PARISH: GREENSTEAD GREEN & HALSTEAD RURAL (WEST WARD) Conies DISTRICT: GOSFIELD & GREENSTEAD GREEN RH Cottage COUNTY: HALSTEAD Upper Beakley Farm RH Broomey Bushey PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE Cottage CottageThe Cottage PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE (2022) Primrose Cottage
Pond
© Crown Copyright and database rights 2017. No Further copies can be made. O/S Licence No. LA 100018490. Braintree District Council. Page 26 of 38 JERSEY
13 7 WAY 24 30 13 26 26 50 24 26 19 Path 30 MAP C 20 VAUXHALL36 DRIVE 28 16 16 11 23 38 El Sub Sta 40 16 13 GROVE 44 42 50 25 1 52 SYCAMORE GROVE 14 SubEl WALNUT 29 Sta 23 23 57 Path (um) 45 33 to 43 13 ACORN AVENUE 17 55 60 33 44 CHESTNUT GROVE Path 25 37 45 36 34 9 2
1 72 1 ACORN AVENUE49 38 2 7 80 Boa Casa CamoysTwo
24 26 7 61 35 22 5 Play Area 20 10 FB Issues 31 9 1 11 26 5
14 13 60 25 15 23 HAZEL GROVE1 17 2 Post 14 66 56.9m
Post74 ED & Ward Bdy River Brain
MARSHALLSThe Corner House DRIVE 53.2m 107
Cemetery Hillside Pond Path (um) Track Chapel Millhouse 48.5m 76
POD'S BROOK ROAD Drain
Track
Marshalls Park Drain 45.6m LONDON ROAD
ParkCar 46.1m CR GaugeWater Garage ED & Ward Bdy 78
111 Track Bridge Farm CG 113
A 120 ROMAN ROAD Piggery 92 Piggery 47.1m Track 96 El Sub Sta The Hawthorns El Sub Sta
106 Sinks 50.0m MEADOW PARK
112 El Sub Sta 84 to 96 A 120 ROMAN ROAD A 131 B 1256 Hotel
PARISH: UNPARISHED A120 ED & Ward Bdy 33 23 DISTRICT:35 GREAT NOTLEY & BLACK NOTLEY The John Ray Pavilion Track 27 2110 29 COUNTY: THREE FIELDS WITH GREAT NOTLEY Filling 41 27 Station 12 43 29 PARLIAMENTARY:23 BRAINTREE 31 37 B 1256 15 11 GVC A 120 6 PROPOSED19 PARLIAMENTARY:41 36 17 39 11 15 Path 2 BRAINTREE20 (2022) 10 22 THRESHER1 RISE7 14 27 22 A 120 A 120 5 9 20 Gas Gov 62.5m 6 25 QUEENBOROUGH3 LANE1 16 6 30 4 CROFTERS3 WALK Queenborough Grove 2 2 2 119 6 PH 115 10 7 9 WAINWRIGHTAVENUE WASHALL DRIVE 114 Sentosa Issues 3 Pond Hill House Farm Maydale 11 1 7 8 Pond 64.5m Pond
1 2 26 21 23 4 Sorrento 1 23 Beechcroft 121 CHERRY8 GARDENS The Oaks 64.4mQUILBERRY DRIVE 121a 2 7 6 FB 2 10 25 20 COOPERS CRESCENTShandan House 19 18 1 15 126 15 14 1014 63.4m MAYLANDS 2 11 © Crown16 Copyright18 and16 databaseJAY17 rights 2017. No Further copies can be made. CLOSE1 1O/S Licence No. LA 100018490. Braintree District Council. Page 27 of 38 129 19 8 132 21 7
ROMAN ROAD
OAKLANDS CLOSE 10 CloseSutor 13 12 16 Ps 8 6 MAPPHILIP19 ROAD D19 2 8 2223 31 20 1 14PERCYGoda25 Close WAY29EDMUND31 ROAD MP 37.5 11 28 15 10 DEFORD ROAD7 19 5 1 120 9 BROCK CLOSE 19 20 1 22 5 5 25 26 1 10 11Burdun8 Close 1 17 12 7 30 7 CHRISTINA21 ROAD 12 11 19 7 16 SIWARD ROAD18 6 16 1 15 Ps 12 2 1 8 3 6 23 SL 1 21 5 14 22 17 7 11 1 10 Ps Pond 21 26 1413 SL 1 ClosePage 18 TOSTIG LANE31 12 21 25 ALFREG17 ROAD 17 2122 91 8 2625 ALLECTUS WAY 12 911 Posts84 1 Ps 9 12 Wulvesford37 3029 83 11 11 39 3433 CR 8 9 Ward Bdy El Sub Sta 464440 76 42 Ps 8 5352 4 48 2931 MP 37.25 1 55 50 68 Wulvesford61 Ps 25 PARISH: WITHAM 63 56 21 64 CONSTANTINE20 16 DISTRICT: WITHAM CENTRAL 22
66 15 14 26 11 COUNTY: WITHAM SOUTHERN19 3132 El 2 ROAD6 PARLIAMENTARY: WITHAM25 Sub Sta 5 23 11 PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY:WITHAM LODGE WITHAM AND MALDONWITHAM9 (2022)13 LODGE 12 15 Def 11 8 4 17 OCTAVIA DRIVE 2 1 18 1.22m RH 1.22m RH Ward Bdy 1.22m RH MP37 Def WITHAM LODGE 23
1.22m RH
Lodge Farm 4 to 38 Pond 34.4mB 1389
Pond21 1.22m RH Def Pond LodgeCottages Farm
1.22m RH 34.4m Pond 49.5m El Sub Sta MP 36.75 HATFIELD ROAD 51.1m The Old Pottery(PH) Kiln
B 1389 Gershwin Park WoodTrack End Farm Day Nursery JosephsBarn School 44.5m Reservoir GP
Garage HATFIELD ROAD
PARISH: HATFIELD PEVEREL Def A 12Def GP DISTRICT: HATFIELD PEVEREL & TERLING WB Def COUNTY: WITHAM SOUTHERN Mayfield NurseryTank PARLIAMENTARY: WITHAM Tanks PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: Mayfield44.5m Cottage WITHAM & MALDON (2022) Lay-by Und Ward Bdy Track 44.2m Latneys Pond A 12 Track
A 12 Pond Wd Pp Gantry
© Crown Copyright and database rights 2017. No Further copies can be made. O/S Licence No. LA 100018490. Braintree District Council. Page 28 of 38 MAP E PARISH: UNPARISHED B DISTRICT: GREAT NOTLEY & BLACK NOTLEY COUNTY: THREE FIELDS WITH GREAT NOTLEY PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE (2022)
B
Text C
PARISH: UNPARISHED DISTRICT: GREAT NOTLEY & BLACK NOTLEY COUNTY: WITHAM NORTHERN PARLIAMENTARY: WITHAM PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE (2022) C A
D
PARISH: BLACK NOTLEY DISTRICT: GREAT NOTLEY & BLACK NOTLEY COUNTY: WITHAM NORTHERN PARLIAMENTARY: WITHAM PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE (2022) D
PARISH: GREAT NOTLEY DISTRICT: GREAT NOTLEY & BLACK NOTLEY COUNTY: THREE FIELDS WITH GREAT NOTLEY PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY: BRAINTREE (2022) A
© Crown Copyright and database rights 2017. No Further copies can be made. O/S Licence No. LA 100018490. Braintree District Council. Page 29 of 38 The Old Smithy Reservoir FB Pond 1.52m RH FB Track FBPondAPPENDIX A Track Pond
1.52mPath (um) RH
Track Track
ED & Ward Bdy 1.52m RH Foot Bridge
Park Farm
FF WardPath Bdy (um) Ponds Path (um) Issue Track
WARD: THREE FIELDS PARISH: PANFIELD
1.52m RH Pond ED & Ward Bdy Pond Ponds
Path (um) Path (um) Drain Braintree Recycling Centre for Household Waste Pond BP BPBPBP BPBPBowling Green El Sub Sta BP 1.52m RH Def Club House 57 Ward Bdy El Sub Sta 49 Mast (Telecommunication) Path (um) 1.52m47 RH BLACKWELL DRIVE 46
Panfield Wood 41 El Sub Sta El Sub Sta PathBraintree (um) Pond Shelter39 EnterpriseCentre1 to 1646 Ward Bdy PANFIELD 35 17 to 37 1.52m RH 33 FINCH DRIVE WOOD SPRINGWOOD DRIVE 17 1.52m RH 25 10 15 21 BLACKWELL11 DRIVE 12 Pond WARD: BOCKING42 SOUTH1416 WARD 13 COOPER DRIVE 27 Pond Panfield Wood 7d 18 26 UNPARISHED COOPER PARK L Twrs 1.52m RH 40 7a 1 20 1a1b Games Area 3 El Sub Sta 4 L Twrs Gas8 Gov 1 Def 2 5 Pond 3 36 34
2 to 6 Games Area SPRINGWOOD DRIVE 4a TAMDOWN WAY 2832 30 Tabor Science College L Twrs Tabor(Secondary(SecondaryTabor Science Academy School)School) College
1.52m RH 4 CRITTALL DRIVE L Twrs 22 Pond 2 Tank Leisure 2 Centre ED & Ward Bdy 20 L Twrs 16 WARD: RAYNE 1 SubEl Sta Crittall1 Court Running Track 91 5 7 24 PARISH: RAYNE L Twrs 14 23 812 9 7 6 1 to 6 1 2 2El SubWARNER Sta DRIVE El Sub Sta 7 to 12 42 18 El 38 Sub Sta 36 24 32 33 12 44 50 30 SPRINGWOOD DRIVE 19 54 to 64 3941 El52LAMBERTSSta Sub ORCHARD Path (um) ESS 44 43 22 78 El 86
Sub Sta 8 1 34 92 61 6671 to 76 Pond 73.2mELM BUNGALOWS5 5 WB WICKS CLOSE Mast (Telecommunication)TankL Twr 67 Spring Pond Car Park Path (um)Reservoir(covered) HousePump Mast (Telecommunication)9 Silo 1.52m RH ESS (Recn Gd) Works 1 ESSFoundry 5 11 15 SWINBOURNE DRIVE Def SiloWorks 144 ESSSPRINGWOOD DRIVE Issues1.52m RH 4 8 136 Path (um) Springwood ED & Ward Bdy IndustrialEstate 134 to 116 Path (um) Pods BrookFB Sloping masonry 73.7m 105 to 139 Spring Casa Julia
1.52m RH Posts El Sub Sta 72.9m Works Braintree Community Hospital Hopper © Crown Copyright and database rights 2017. No Further copies can be made. Silo BRADBURYEl Sub Sta DRIVE El Sub Sta PondPage 30 of 38 ED & Ward Bdy O/S Licence No. LA 100018490. Braintree1.52m District RH Council. Ponds Pond 98 21 Ward Bdy Works Mast (Telecommunication) Mast (Telecommunication) Community Governance Review Committee 12th July 2017
Community Governance Review – Terms of Reference Agenda No: 6
Portfolio Corporate Services and Asset Management
Corporate Outcome: A high performing organisation that delivers excellent and value for money services Delivering better outcomes for residents and businesses and reducing costs to taxpayers
Report presented by: Steve Daynes, Democracy Manager Report prepared by: Steve Daynes, Democracy Manager
Background Papers: Public Report Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007 and Department of Communities and Local Key Decision: No Government guidance 2010
Executive Summary:
Members are presented with Terms of Reference for consideration which will establish the Council’s consultation position and timetable for full District Community Governance review.
Recommended Decision:
To recommend the proposed terms of reference (subject to modification incorporating earlier decisions of the meeting) to Full Council for adoption.
Purpose of Decision:
To agree the Terms of reference for the Community Governance Review
Page 31 of 38
Any Corporate implications in relation to the following should be explained in detail.
Financial: There is no specific budgetary provision however given that consultation will, in the main be limited to direct mailing to smaller communities no additional budgetary allocation will be sought at this stage.
Legal: Review to be conducted in line with the Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007 and statutory guidance provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Safeguarding: None
Equalities/Diversity: Legislation requires that each Polling district has a dedicated polling place. Any review will therefore ensure that adequate Polling arrangements can be provided.
Customer Impact: To be considered as part of this review
Environment and Climate Change: None
Consultation/Community The consultation will ensure that all stakeholders have Engagement: appropriate access
Risks: Risks will be managed in accordance with the project plan.
Officer Contact: Steve Daynes Designation: Democracy Manager Ext. No: 2751 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 32 of 38 Community Governance Review for the Braintree District Council administrative area
Terms of Reference
Introduction
Braintree District Council is carrying out a Whole District Community Governance Review in accordance with Part 4, Chapter 3 of The Local Government and Public Involvement Act 2007.
The Council is required to have regard for the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This guidance has been considered in drawing up these terms of reference.
Reason for Review
The structure of governance across the District was established in 1974 and comprehensively reviewed in 1983. Since then there have been some isolated reviews to address specific issues and new community developments. There has not been any community driven demand for a review and as such the Council has maintained an overview of District governance.
The Local plan when adopted will however signal a significant period of development across the District and a full review is now considered appropriate to facilitate a system of Governance which can provide a sustainable base for the future.
Scope
A review of Community Governance is a process used to consider whether the existing Town and Parish structure can be sustained or whether these should be amended. Following consultation, there are a number of options open to the Council and these include:
i. No change to the existing arrangements ii. That the number of Parish Councillors be increased or decreased for a specific Parish iii. That the existing Town/Parish Council be abolished iv. That the Town/Parish boundaries be changed v. That warding arrangements be reviewed, abolished or introduced vi. To change the names of Parishes or Parish wards.
Responsibility
The Council are keen to create an environment of openness and transparency and to this end has established a cross party review group. The group will report to Council with all decisions taken being clearly documented, published and communicated so that stakeholders remain informed.
Ultimately, Braintree District Council is responsible for conducting the review. Any final decisions as a result of this review will therefore be taken by the Full Council.
Area of Review
The review area will be defined by the Braintree District administrative boundary as defined by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Principal Area Review July 2014. As its base, the review will used the data outlined at Appendix 1.
Page 33 of 38
Consultation
The Review Group will consult with and take the views of the community. We are required by the Act to consult with Local Government electors for the area under review and any other person, group, organisation or body who have an interest and to take their representation into account.
To support the consultation process, we will actively contact, where appropriate, the following inviting them to offer their views at each stage of the consultation:
District Ward Councillors Essex County Councillors Members of Parliament Local Political Parties Essex County Council Parish Councils Braintree Association of Local Councils Essex Association of Local Councils Emergency organisations
The Review Group also welcomes the views and comments or representations from any other group or individual.
Basis
Given that there has not been any significant demand for widespread changes, the Review group will, as its starting point, take the established Governance arrangements for the District. It will consider and reflect any issues which are raised as a result of the initial Local Plan proposals and develop sustainable governance proposals for inclusion in the Initial Consultation document.
To launch the Community Governance Review the Review Group will publish an initial Consultation paper setting out the vision for Governance across the District and invite views and representations which will receive consideration.
The following table details specific issues which have been brought to the Council’s attention by Parish Councils they wish to be considered as part of this CGR.
In addition there are a number of significant development sites within the Braintree District Local Plan and the Council invites comments in this regard.
Referenc Location Parish Impact Range of specific e Consultation Great Saling Great Saling Parish Council requests: Bardfield Saling – /Barfield Saling 1.To extend the Parish Boundary of Great Saling Direct postal to to include the unparished area of Bardfield Saling households 2. Increase Council size from 5 to 6 3. Rename “The Salings P.C” Coggeshall Coggeshall Parish Council reuquests 1. to merge existing North and East wards and rename (7 Councillors) Formal consultation 2. to merge South and West Wards and rename to Coggeshall Parish (6 Councillors) Council 3. To increase representation to the new South/West ward by 1 additional Councillor Kelvedon Kelvedon Parish Council requests that due to Formal consultation the impending development an increase in to Kelvedon Parish
Page 34 of 38 representation by 1 Councillor be supported Council Panfield Panfield Parish Council requests an extension Consultation with of the Parish Boundary to include an undeveloped both Rayne and rural area known as Panfield Wood Panfield Parish Councils as no electoral representational issues identified Rivenhall Eastway Industrial Estate Witham Witham Town Council requests to Formal Consultation Rename: with Town Council a)Witham (West ward) to Witham (Spa) as no electoral b)Witham (North ward) to Witham (Rickstones) representational c)Witham (South ward) to Witham (Maltings) issues identified Great Notley Great Notley Parish Council requests an UnParished extension of their Northern boundary to include Braintree area the currently unparished area of Braintree (BM)– Direct postal bounded by Queenborough Lane, the B1256 (by- to households pass)/ A120 and London Road.
No other issues have been identified from initial Parish surveys however the review is open to comments on any boundary or governance representation which Parishes, Groups or Individuals may wish to identify. Therefore there are no other proposed changes.
Development site - Forest Awaiting Member guidance Road Witham /Rivenhall Development site – Oak Awaiting Member guidance Road Halstead
Development site – Pods Awaiting Member guidance Brook Road/London Road, A120 Development site – South Awaiting Member guidance Witham, Hatfield Peverel Development site East of Awaiting Member guidance London Road, Braintree
The following elements of the review would require the Consent of the Local Government Boundary Commission of England prior to adoption as they relate to protected arrangements following the implementation of the Braintree (Electoral Changes) Order 2014/3335: The renaming of wards within Witham Development site - Forest Road Witham /Rivenhall Development site – Oak Road Halstead Development site – South Witham, Hatfield Peverel
At the conclusion of the Initial consultation the Council will publish Draft proposals for consultation before publication of the Final proposals for approval by the Council.
Page 35 of 38 Timetable
Action Decision by Approval of Terms of July 2017 Council 24/7/2017 Reference Publish Terms of Reference July 2017 Initial Public consultation 1 August 2017 to 30 September 2017 Draft Proposals 1 December 2017 Council 11/12/2017 Draft Proposal consultation 1 January 2018 to 28 February 2018 Prepare final proposals Council 4/6/2018 Council Approval 23 July 2018 Council 23/7/2018 Prepare and submit Community Governance Order
Page 36 of 38
Appendix 1
Electorate Elector/ at 1 Parish Councillors Councillor January Ratio 2017
Alphamstone 170 3 57
Ashen 276 5 55
Parish Bardfield Saling 149 Meeting Belchamp Otten 146 4 37
Belchamp St Paul 304 7 43
Belchamp Walter 182 7 26
Birdbrook 336 7 48
Black Notley 1,750 9 194
Parish Borley 82 Meeting Bradwell 418 7 60
Bulmer 546 7 78
Bures Hamlet 622 7 89
Castle Hedingham 966 9 107
Coggeshall (East Ward) 833 3 278
Coggeshall (North Ward) 1,066 4 267
Coggeshall (South Ward) 610 2 305
Coggeshall (West Ward) 1,135 4 284
Colne Engaine 816 7 117
Cressing 1,405 9 156
Earls Colne 2,868 11 261
Fairstead 171 3 57
Faulkbourne 80 2 40
Feering (North Ward) 362 1 362
Feering (South Ward) 1,264 8 158
Finchingfield (Cornish Hall 236 3 79 End Ward) Finchingfield (Finchingfield 963 6 161 Ward) Foxearth 229 46 5 Gestingthorpe 333 48 7 Gosfield 1,200 133 9 Great Bardfield 1,029 147 7 Great Henny 117 39 3 Great Maplestead 284 41 7 Great Notley 4,648 581 8 Great Saling 266 53 5 Great Yeldham 1,374 153 9 Greenstead Green & Halstead 230 3 77 Rural (West Ward)
Page 37 of 38 Greenstead Green & Halstead Rural (Greenstead Green 310 4 78
Ward) Halstead - Holy Trinity (North) 2,617 872 3 Halstead - Holy Trinity (South) 2,121 707 3 Halstead - St Andrews (North) 2,442 814 3 Halstead - St Andrews (South) 1,973 658 3 Hatfield Peverel 3,442 265 13 Helions Bumpstead 363 52 7 Kelvedon 2,702 246 11 Lamarsh 147 49 3 Liston 43 43 1 Little Henny 32 32 1 Little Maplestead 206 41 5 Little Yeldham 290 48 6 Middleton 106 35 3 Ovington 45 23 2 Panfield 712 102 7 Pebmarsh 448 90 5 Pentlow 190 38 5 Rayne 1,824 166 11 Ridgewell 433 62 7 Rivenhall 598 85 7 Shalford 650 93 7 Sible Hedingham 3,374 260 13 Silver End 2,760 212 13 Stambourne 330 47 7 Steeple Bumpstead 1,267 141 9 Stisted 520 74 7 Sturmer 407 68 6 Terling 605 76 8 Tilbury Juxta Clare 119 40 3 Toppesfield 431 62 7 Twinstead 141 47 3 Wethersfield (Blackmore End) 376 125 3 Wethersfield (Village) 648 108 6 White Colne 391 56 7 White Notley 423 60 7 Wickham St Paul 253 42 6 Witham (Central Ward) 2,235 1118 2 Witham (Hatfield) 2,146 1073 2 Witham (North Ward) 4,989 1247 4 Witham (South) 4,664 1166 4 Witham (West Ward) 5,048 1262 4
Page 38 of 38