COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW 2013 Email Responses received during Stage One

Coniston - 21 April 2013

Dear Sirs

Councillors from Coniston Parish Council discussed the Community Governance review recently and agreed they would not like any changes to their parish council and they are happy with it the way it is.

Kind regards

Janette Carroll Clerk to Coniston Parish Council

Kendal - 7 May 2013

I was really interested that you are going to undertake a review of Parish Council arrangements over the next 12 months. I am not sure how widely you will be looking at this, but I have two comments to make in respect of my ward, Underley.

The LDF/Local Plan at the moment contains some fairly major proposals in respect of land around Lanefoot, bordering High Garth and High Sparrowmire, allocating it for housing. Currently this land is in Burneside Parish even though the only road route to Burneside centre is about two miles up Windermere Road and down Hollins Lane. This also means that Burneside PC will collect Parish Council Tax from any new estate. However, because it is contiguous with the edge of Kendal I think most residents will see themselves as part of Kendal and look to Kendal generally and specifically to Hallgarth where there is a shop, takeaway and play area (though currently somewhat derelict). In fact I doubt they will have any recourse to Burneside itself!

Therefore, I am keen that the land where these houses might be built is brought into Kendal parish (though see my next point). Of course, you are probably considering this in respect of all the other areas of land around Kendal.

My second point is more radical. Hallgarth is one of the most deprived areas of South Lakeland, and I feel that a separate Parish Council has many powers that could help alleviate this - by providing community resources such as improving the play area and creating new localised ones, services based in the Community Centre such as a firmly funded youth club, as well as other provision such as help with flood protection and generally promoting the needs and views of the area. Many of the things that residents raise with me could be dealt with and afforded by a parish council - footpath lighting, more rubbish bins, large items cleared from pavements, dog exclusion orders, community gardens and woods, an extension to the Community Centre, football coaching leading to a football team, adventure club for young people – the list is long.

In comparison, Kendal Town Council puts very little into the estate, and what little it does is as a result of particular grant applications that I have put in - a grant of £630 this year for the Community Centre, and £200 last year for youth activities. The resources owned by the Town Council on the estate amount to four bench seats and an allotment site, though not many Hallgarth residents have plots there. This contrasts with the £20,000 in Council Tax paid by the Hallgarth estate to the Town Council. This money if kept in the area could help enormously to provide the many things needed on the estate.

I know that other things that Kendal Town Council does are appreciated by residents, mainly the Christmas lights and the flowers, but I'd imagine a Hallgarth Parish Council would make a grant towards such costs if the Town Council submitted an application.

However, there is also a real additional benefit in developing community spirit and resilience. The residents association folded two years ago and since then two of us have just run the Community Centre. I feel that a properly constituted body such as a parish council, governed by law, with a professional parish clerk to enact decisions, with councillors accountable to their electorate by a ballot box rather than a small AGM who have stood to achieve things for the estate, and with a status achieved through for example transparent decision making and proper accounts, would contribute positively to community life on the estate. I had been considering making use of a provision in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act to petition SLDC to consider making Hallgarth estate a separate Parish Council. As I understand with the population of the estate I'd have needed 250 signatures for it to be considered. I have not as yet started a formal petition process, but I have talked to many residents and most people that I explain the idea to think it is a good one. I am happy to do further consultation work.

The other issue to me is what area makes best sense for a separate parish council - an alternative would be a North Kendal council. However, Hallgarth estate has a strong sense of identity, and equally I would worry about more vocal councillors from other parts of north Kendal dominating. The income of north Kendal would be far higher, enabling more to be done, but it may not be done on Hallgarth. Against that, if new houses are built, Hallgarth would become 'landlocked', though to some extent this wouldn't matter if these new areas remain part of Burneside PC. This issue of what area makes sense may be something that people need to be consulted about as well.

I know this is a somewhat bold and radical proposal, but when I see the good work that Parish Councils in villages around South Lakeland are able to do, it seems to me a powerful way of enabling the poorest, “inner-city” type areas to improve their environment and social infrastructure, and to do this actually with their own money.

I'm happy to discuss further.

Many thanks

Rob Boden Councillor for Kendal Underley Ward

Lower Holker - 6 May 2013

Dear Sirs

Lower Holker Parish Council has considered the Terms of Reference for the Community Governance Review and concluded that no changes need to be made in relation to Lower Holker Parish Council.

Lower Holker Parish Council met with the adjoining parish, Lower Allithwaite Parish Council, to consider whether a movement of boundaries would be appropriate due to the joint impact of decisions on planning matters on sites located on Moor Lane, Flookburgh, for which access is gained by travelling through both parishes. The Parish Boundary bisects sites accessed by Moor Lane, which is the location of a number of businesses, Cark Airfield and Lakeland Leisure Park.

Both Parish Councils concluded that re-aligning the boundary would not solve this issue. Both Parish Councils consider that for Planning matters involving sites on Moor Lane, Flookburgh the best solution would be to make them Joint Consultees. We therefore recommend that joint consultation be implemented in order to fairly represent the interests of residents in both parishes.

Yours faithfully

Lyn Prescott

Lyn Prescott Parish Clerk Lower Holker Parish Council 13 Church Walk, Flookburgh, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria LA11 7JX (015395) 58224

Natland - 27 April 2013

Dear Sir,

I am attaching a paper which was considered at a recent meeting of Natland Parish Council regarding the Community Governance Review.

The comments and suggestions this contains were accepted by the Parish Council and I was asked to submit these. The main recommendation the Council made was to remind SLDC of the need to synchronise the District and Parish Elections, in order to avoid expenses should there be a contested Parish Council Election.

Please could you confirm receipt of these comments?

Many thanks

Kevin M Price. Parish Clerk.

The following text is that received from Natland Parish Council and referred to in the above email:-

Natland Parish Council meeting 25 March 2013 – Agenda Item 9

SLDC Community Governance Review 2013 – Note from Chair

Introduction

The Council needs to agree a response to the current consultation which ends on 7 May. Kevin has emailed you (14 March) the timetable and formal notice which are also attached to (hard copy) agenda papers with the questionnaire (same as the online version).

If you wish to delve deeper the 11-page Terms of Reference and various parish electoral data are on the SLDC website (go to ‘consultation’ under ‘most popular’ on Home page).

NALC guidance suggests a minimum of 7 councillors for any council. Research in 1992 found 6 - 12 councillors in councils representing 501 - 2500 electors (Natland has c700).

I suggest the questions relating to name, warding (with current development), number of councillors and grouping are pretty straightforward and we can quickly agree ‘no change’ (but you are free to disagree).

The questions requiring more deliberation are Q4 and Q11.

Q 11 – existing electoral arrangements

This is an opportunity to confirm NPC’s acceptance that the parish and district elections for Natland should coincide in May 2014, even though that means two-year terms of office for existing parish councillors. The cost of holding separate contested parish elections would be excessive.

I’m sure SLDC intend this change anyway, but there’s no harm in reminding them.

Q 4 – parish boundary

The Review is supposed to take into account any change in the number or distribution of electors that is likely in the next five years. The Terms of Reference state that electorate forecasts have been prepared (“using all available information ... current planning permissions and the Local Plan”) and will be made available. They still haven’t appeared (16 March) although Claire Marsh (SLDC Electoral Services Manager) said on 7 March that they would be published by 15 March.

The conclusion of the Examination stage of the Land Allocation document of the new Local Plan has been delayed and the earliest date for its Adoption by SLDC is now August 2013. Over the next 20-odd years we can expect a moderate expansion of the village itself, a more significant growth at the southern end of Oxenholme, east of the railway, and a considerable encroachment into farmland south of Natland Mill Beck Lane, particularly if the concept of identifying that area as a ‘broad location’ (for development following a future LDF process) doesn’t get kicked out by the Inspector.

The simplest approach may be to say “Yes” to Q4, but adding: “For the time being. But given the present lack of information about the likely location, scale and timescale of future residential development on the northern and eastern edges of the Parish, the question of boundary change in each of these areas should be looked at in the future as part of ad-hoc reviews”.

That is what I would recommend at present.

For what it’s worth, my view is that allocations east of the railway (R108M and RN223#) would clearly form part of the community of Oxenholme/Kendal and should have a new boundary drawn tightly around them so that Natland CP only loses Overdale, which is an anomaly anyway. Losing land in the Natland Mill Beck Lane/ Helme Lodge area to Kendal is much less straightforward as many existing Natland electors would be affected. Their views should be sought and considered before NPC forms a view on the matter, and the present time is not ripe for starting that process.

I tend to think of ‘community identification’ as the main consideration, but another factor is money. Boundary change between Natland and Kendal will affect their respective council tax bases and individual council taxes.

One final minor point: if Natland’s boundaries were being altered it might be opportune to lose Lunesdale (next to High House on Sedgwick Road beyond Newlands) to Sedgwick.

Pennington - 19 February 2013

Dear Sir, At the meeting on 18th February 2013, Pennington Parish Council discussed the Community Governance Review and decided that no changes were required for Pennington Parish. Regards, Christine Braithwaite Clerk to Pennington Parish Council

Skelsmergh & Scalthwaiterigg - 1 April 2013

Dear Sir / Madam

Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council response to the Community Governance Review 2013

Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council considered its response to the Community Governance Review 2013 at its March meeting (the resolved minute is included below).

The Council proposes that the two parishes of Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg be combined. The Council proposes to put a resolution to the same to the respective Parish Meetings to be held in May 2013.

The Council proposes that should the parishes of Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg be combined that the two wards of Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg be maintained. Furthermore, the Council proposes that the current level of representation on Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council be maintained – two councillors for Scalthwaiterigg and five for Skelsmergh.

The Council does not have any proposals to make regarding changes to parish boundaries.

The Council does not have any proposals with regards to amalgamation / mergers with neighbouring parishes. However, should any amalgamations be proposed the Council is willing to enter into discussions and to consider any suggestions.

Should you require any further information or the reasoning behind the above proposals, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully Dave Clarke Clerk to Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council mbl 07714 122 199 / tel 01539 730023 62 Castle Grove, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 7AZ

The following email was received on 15 May to confirm the Parish Council’s decision:-

Dear Sir / Madam

Skelsmergh Parish Meeting and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Meeting : responses to the Community Governance Review 2013

Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council responded to the review by email dated 1 April 2013. It was stated that resolutions regarding the Council proposal that the two parishes of Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg be combined would be put to the respective Parish Meetings to be held in May 2013.

The above Parish Meetings were held on 14 May 2013 and the following resolution was passed at both meetings:

 “This Parish Meeting agrees to the amalgamation of the two parishes of Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg whilst maintaining the two separate wards of Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg, should such a proposal be made”.

Yours faithfully Dave Clarke Clerk to Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council mbl 07714 122 199 tel 01539 730023 62 Castle Grove, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 7AZ

Skelwith - 4 April 2013

Firstly please note address below for correspondance and secondly the consultation date ends I think on May 7th. We meet that night so can I send you our comment the next day?

It is likely to be that Skelwith wish to remain a separate parish and do not wish any kind of amalgamation

Thank you

Suzanne

Suzanne Pender Clerk to Skelwith Parish Council [email protected] 07769640882 2 Tarnside, Crosthwaite, Kendal, LA8 8BU

Staveley-with-Ings - 10 April 2013

Dear Sir, The Parish Council considered this matter at its meeting on 3rd April and resolved that the following comments be passed on to you: 1. The three parishes of Hugill, Nether Staveley and over Staveley were grouped together under the Common Parish Council of Staveley with Ings in 2004. The change has worked well and no further changes to the governance arrangements for the area are required. 2. Transfer Boundary Beck and Millriggs from over Staveley Parish To Kentmere Parish and Ullthwaite Fold and Croft Head from Hugill Parish to Kentmere Parish. These changes were suggested by Kentmere Parish Meeting and this council has no objections. 3. Consider bringing the whole of Plantation Bridge into one parish, probably Nether Staveley as most residents look to Staveley rather than Burneside as a centre. The situation has arisen mainly due to the building of several new dwellings that span the parish boundaries. 4. Consider moving the properties of Glenrowan, Borwick Fold, Glen Farm and Outrun Nook Farm from Nether Staveley Parish to Crook Parish. These properties are on Chapel Lane which is mainly in Crook Parish. 5. Consider moving Whasdyke Farm, Blackmoss Lane from Hugill Parish to Nether Staveley Parish. This two property is close to High Fairbank and it would seem to make sense to have them in the same Parish. While these are the suggestions of the Parish Council, the residents have not been contacted and if they objected then the Parish Council would be content to maintain the status quo. Stan Simpson Clerk of Staveley with Ings Parish council

Torver - 18 March 2013

Dear Claire, It was resolved at the last meeting of the Torver Parish Council that no changes to the parish boundaries would be proposed, and no other changes were proposed. The Parish Council would like like to point out that they are enthusiastic and committed to continuing their work within the existing format. Best Wishes, Clare Davison Clerk to Torver Parish Council