Sc106 Establishment of Throsk Community Council and Alteration Of

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 17 ON THE AGENDA

STIRLING COUNCIL CORPORATE

13 DECEMBER 2007 NOT EXEMPT

ESTABLISHMENT OF THROSK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND ALTERATION OF THE SCHEME FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS

1 SUMMARY

1.1 On 17 August 2007 the Council received a petition in terms of the Scheme for the establishment of Community Councils requesting the Council to establish a Community Council for the community of Throsk.

1.2 Polmaise Community Council, which currently represents Throsk, has not yet provided a formal response – this will be pursued for the Council meeting. In the meantime, informal communication has indicated that Polmaise is opposed to the proposal. However, the petition was signed by 40 residents when only 20 signatures are required, and in a subsequent household consultation local residents indicated 23:10 that they favoured the creation of a Community Council for Throsk rather than the being represented by Polmaise.

1.3 The proposed Community Council would comprise a population of 190 making it Stirling’s second smallest Community Council. Council may wish to consider if this is a sustainable number to support a Community Council in the long-term.

1.4 In September 2006, Council agreed a Code of Conduct for Community Councils which included sanctions which could be taken against Community Councillors if they were considered to be in breach of the code. No mechanism for determining whether a breach had occurred or what sanction was to be applied has been included in the Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils. Council is now asked to agree such a mechanism as set out at section 3.7 below.

2 RECOMMENDATION(S)

Council is requested to:

2.1 consider whether to amend the Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils to establish a new Community Council to be called the ‘Throsk Community Council’, comprising the area delineated in the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\SCOUNCIL\REPORTS\SC20071213ITEM17THROSKCC.DOC 2.2 agree that the new Community Council should comprise 8 Members (the minimum permitted under the Scheme), and that elections to the new Community Council will be held in February 2008 at the same time as the general elections to fill current vacancies across all Community Councils;

2.3 agree to amend Section 13 of the Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils to include a new paragraph which confirms how Sanctions under the Code of Conduct are to be applied, as set out below:

“ Disqualification may also occur where an individual is in breach of the terms of the Code of Conduct for Community Councils. In such circumstances the following steps should be followed:

Step 1 – the Community Council takes to establish whether one or more of its Community Councillors is considered to be in breach of the Code;

Step 2 – the Community Council writes to the Council’s Monitoring Officer reporting the breach they consider to have occurred, giving details of the breach and the vote taken by the Community Council;

Step 3 – the Monitoring Officer will then consider the information provided, undertake any further investigation he deems necessary and if he considers it appropriate apply any one of three Sanctions available to him, advising both the Community Councillor(s) reported as being in breach of the Code and the Community Council of his decision.”

3 CONSIDERATIONS

Proposals for Establishing Throsk Community Council 3.1 On 17 August 2007 the Council received a petition in terms of the Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils requesting the establishment of a Community Council for the community of Throsk. Although only 20 signatures from electors resident within the proposed boundary are required to initiate Council’s consideration of such a request, 40 local residents had signed the petition. The residents were then asked to submit a map showing the boundary of the proposed Throsk Community Council (Appendix 1), which is also a requirement of the Scheme. This was not submitted until early September.

3.2 Polmaise Community Council (Polmaise CC), which currently represents the community of Throsk, was then approached to gain its view on this proposal, to which it indicated its opposition. As a result of this opposition and the fact that Throsk is a fairly small community, it was considered cost effective to do a mail shot of each household to gain as broad a representation of views as possible. The consultation offered three options and the following 33 responses were received, 10 of which came from signatories to the petition:

Options Offered Respondents in Favour Continue to be represented by Polmaise CC 0 Be represented by a new Throsk CC 23 Be represented by a new Throsk Ward 10 within Polmaise CC

File Name: N:\DEMSUPP\NewDecisions\Scouncil\Reports\SC20071213Item17ThroskCC.doc As the population of the proposed Throsk Community Council is only 190, it was considered that establishing a Ward for Throsk within Polmaise Community Council may offer a more sustainable form of representation for the community. However, only 10 of the 33 respondents have indicated that they preferred this to Throsk having its own Community Council. Of Throsk’s population of 190 (144 aged 16 or over) a total of 53 (from the petition and consultation) have indicated they would like the community to have its own Community Council.

3.3 In considering the sustainability of the proposed Community Council, Council may find the following population figures relating to our existing five smallest Community Councils useful:

Community Council Population Trossachs 168 Arnprior 184 Logie 236 Cambuskenneth 249 Carron Valley 291

Although the Council has sometimes found it difficult to establish some of these Community Councils at the first round of elections, they have always managed to be formed through the mop-up process. At the moment, all 42 of the district’s Community Councils are functioning bodies.

3.4 Given its size, it is proposed that any new Throsk Community Council should have as its establishment the minimum number of Members (8) allowed under the Scheme. Should this prove unsatisfactory then, like any other Community Council the new Community Council can make a request of Stirling Council to increase its size at any time.

3.5 If minded to establish a Community Council for Throsk, Council is requested to remit the Director of Corporate Services to make the appropriate amendments to the Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils. It is proposed that the election of any new Throsk Community Council will be held in February 2008 at the same time as the general elections to fill current vacancies across all Community Councils.

Other Amendment of the Scheme

3.6 In September 2006 Council agreed to adopt a Code of Conduct for Community Councils to which all Community Councillors would be required to act in accordance. To ensure this was enforceable a number of sanctions were included in the Code, these are set out in the following section of the Code:

“ Sanctions

Sanctions which can be applied to Community Councillors who breach the terms of this Code of Conduct are as follows:

File Name: N:\DEMSUPP\NewDecisions\Scouncil\Reports\SC20071213Item17ThroskCC.doc 1. Written notification of the nature of the conduct giving cause for concern and advice as to the additional sanctions which could be imposed if continued or further misconduct occurs;

2. Suspension for a period of between 1 and 3 meetings of the Community Council; or

3. Disqualification for a period not exceeding three years from being or being nominated for election as, or from being elected as, a Community Councillor.

The mechanism for adjudicating on and applying sanctions will be set out in any amended Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils.”

3.7 These amendments have never been made to the Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils. To remedy this, Council is asked to add a new paragraph to Section 13 of the Scheme which deals with Disqualification. The new paragraph is as set out below:

“ Disqualification may also occur where an individual is in breach of the terms of the Code of Conduct for Community Councils. In such circumstances the following steps should be followed:

Step 1 – the Community Council takes to establish whether one or more of its Community Councillors is considered to be in breach of the Code;

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Yes Corporate/Service Plan Yes Existing Policy or Strategy Yes Risk No Resource Implications Financial Yes People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

File Name: N:\DEMSUPP\NewDecisions\Scouncil\Reports\SC20071213Item17ThroskCC.doc Policy Implications

4.1 The support and development of Stirling’s Community Councils is an intrinsic part of the Council’s approach to community engagement as set out in its Community Governance Strategy. Issues of sustainability have to be considered when establishing any Community Council and these have been outlined elsewhere in the report.

Resource Implications

4.2 There will be a small budgetary requirement to provide the Community Council with an administrative grant but this can be met within existing budgets. The effect of this will be to reduce the funding available for supplementary grants.

Consultations

4.3 All householders of Throsk and Polmaise Community Council.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils

5.2 Community Council Code of Conduct

5.3 Consultation responses lodged in the Members Lounge

Author(s) Name Designation Tel No/Extension

Lyn Kennedy Community Governance 01786 442476 Manager

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Bob Jack Director of Corporate Services

Date 21 November 2007 Reference

File Name: N:\DEMSUPP\NewDecisions\Scouncil\Reports\SC20071213Item17ThroskCC.doc