Draft Proposal for Unitary Local Government in Devon

Draft proposal

Draft proposal for unitary local government in Devon July 2008 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Boundary Committee: Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 03114G

Contents

What is the Boundary Committee for England?

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 The Committee’s approach 5 Engagement with stakeholders 5 General considerations: the context of modern local government 6 Specific considerations: how we have approached the review 8 Broad cross-section of support 12 Leadership 12 Deliver the empowerment of citizens and communities 14 Value-for-money services 15 Affordability 17

3 Concepts submitted to the Committee 19

4 Draft proposal 23

5 Two unitary authority pattern 31 Boundaries of a two unitary pattern 33

6 What happens next? 35

Appendices

Appendix A – Other considerations 37

Appendix B – Mapping 39

What is the Boundary Committee for England?

The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. The Committee’s main role is to conduct electoral reviews of local authorities in England with the aim of ensuring the number of electors represented by each councillor is approximately the same. Other duties include reviewing local authority boundaries and advising the Government on local authority bids for unitary status.

Members of the Committee are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Jane Earl Robin Gray Professor Ron Johnston Joan Jones CBE Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Professor Colin Mellors

Director:

Archie Gall

Summary

On 6 February 2008 we were requested to advise the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on an alternative unitary structure of local government in Devon. This request for advice followed a bid for unitary status from Exeter City Council.

On 7 July 2008 we published our draft proposal, on which comments are invited.

Our draft proposal for Devon is:

• a Devon unitary authority comprising the existing county of Devon, with no changes to Plymouth and Torbay

Our proposal for Devon is set out in detail in chapter 4 of the report. Maps illustrating our draft proposal are set out in Appendix B of the report.

Our approach to this review, and the general and specific considerations we have had regard to in conducting our work, are set out in chapter 2 of the report. What happens next?

There will now be a period of 12 weeks, during which we welcome views on our draft proposal. All representations should be sent to reach us by 26 September 2008.

We have not finalised our proposal for a unitary pattern of local government in Devon. In the light of representations received, we will review our draft proposal and consider whether it should be altered. It is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft proposal.

We have also included in the report another unitary pattern that we considered had merit, which people may wish to bear in mind when considering the draft proposal:

• an Exeter and Exmouth unitary authority, and a unitary authority covering the remainder of the county, with no changes to Plymouth and Torbay

We welcome views and evidence from all those who have previously written to us and those we have not yet heard from.

The Committee places great importance on ensuring openness and transparency in the way we deal with all representations. Accordingly, representations received will be made available for public inspection at our offices in Trevelyan House. Submissions will also be available for viewing on the Committee’s website, at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk.

If you make comments during this period of the review, and do not want all or any part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary, but all information in responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law.

1 After 26 September 2008 we will consider all the representations we have received and start to formulate our final advice, which we have been asked to submit to the Secretary of State by 31 December 2008.

You can express your views by using our online form at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk, or by writing directly to:

Review Manager (Devon Review) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

Tel: 020 7271 0512 Fax: 020 7271 0505 Email: [email protected]

Once we have provided our advice there will then be a further period of four weeks during which representations may be made directly to the Secretary of State. She may then accept, reject or modify any proposal that we make. She may also ask us for more information. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide if and when any new unitary authorities are to be created.

1 Introduction

1.1 In October 2006, following the publication of the Local Government White Paper,1 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued an invitation to two-tier principal local authorities (district and county councils) in England to submit proposals for a change to unitary or single-tier status.2 Local authorities bidding for unitary status were asked to provide business cases that addressed the five criteria set out in the invitation document.

1.2 Proposals were received for the creation of 26 new unitary authorities in total, and included a bid from Exeter City Council (Exeter) for unitary status on its existing boundaries. In December 2007 the Secretary of State announced that, in her judgement, there was not a reasonable likelihood of Exeter’s proposal, if implemented, achieving the outcomes specified in the five criteria; she particularly noted that there was a number of risks to the financial case.

1.3 We have been asked by the Secretary of State under section 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (the 2007 Act) to provide advice3 on whether there could be an alternative proposal for a single tier of local government for Exeter, and the whole or part of the surrounding Devon county area, that would have the capacity, if it were implemented, to meet the five criteria set out by the Secretary of State in her October 2006 invitation.

1.4 In providing that advice, we are able to propose changes to the boundaries of the city of Plymouth and the borough of Torbay, both of which are existing unitary authorities in Devon. However, the guidance accompanying the Secretary of State’s request for advice makes clear that we may only recommend changes to the boundaries of those two authorities if, on the basis of evidence received, our judgement is that such changes are essential to facilitate a unitary pattern of local government in the two-tier area of Devon that would have the capacity to meet the five criteria. Further, any changes to the boundaries of Plymouth or Torbay must maintain the concept of those areas as unitary local authorities.

1.5 There are a number of other, more general, considerations to which we are required to have regard in our work. These are set out in Appendix A.

1.6 The review is in four stages (Table 1). Stage One began on 3 March 2008, when we wrote to all the local authorities in Devon, including Plymouth and Torbay, inviting them to submit to us broad concepts for unitary structures for the county. The term ‘concepts’ is discussed in more detail in the following chapter of this report. The closing date for the receipt of concepts was 11 April 2008.

1 Strong and Prosperous Communities (Cm 6939-1, October 2006). 2 Invitation to Councils (Communities and Local Government, October 2006). 3 Request to the Boundary Committee to advise (Communities and Local Government, 6 February 2008) – www.boundarycommittee.org.uk. 3

Table 1: The stages of the review

Stage Dates Description

One 3 March – 11 April Commencement of review and submission of concepts for unitary patterns of local government

Two 14 April – 4 July The Committee considers concepts, seeks further information and prepares draft proposal

Three 7 July – 26 The Committee publishes draft proposal report September and invites representations

Four 29 September – 31 The Committee considers representations, December reaches conclusions and submits advice to the Secretary of State

1.7 Once we have submitted our advice at the end of the review there will be a further four-week period, during which time representations on the advice we have provided can be made direct to the Secretary of State. In the light of any such representations, the Secretary of State may accept, reject or modify our final proposals, or ask us for further information about them and then take a decision. No Order – the legal document that would implement the final proposals – may be made by the Secretary of State within a period of six weeks from 31 December 2008.

1.8 The review timetable is extremely challenging, both for the Committee and for those who have participated in the review so far. We owe a particular debt of gratitude to all the principal local authorities in Devon for the constructive and positive approach they have taken to our work, and for the assistance they have provided to us during the initial stages of the review. For most, if not all, local authorities this review was unexpected and we recognise the challenges that it has imposed on them.

1.9 We are also grateful to other stakeholders in Devon, parish and town councils, and the public, private and voluntary sectors, for their assistance and views on the most appropriate patterns of unitary local government for their county. We hope that they will continue to provide views and advice as the review progresses.

2 The Committee’s approach Engagement with stakeholders

2.1 Both the 2007 Act and our guidance from the Secretary of State make clear that the responsibility for developing a draft proposal for publication, and the subsequent final proposal, rests with us. Unlike other reviews we have conducted, there is no provision in legislation for us to start the review with a public consultation exercise inviting the submission of proposals for change.

2.2 Nevertheless, the guidance recognises that we could not (nor would we wish to) develop a draft proposal in isolation from those on whom they might have the most significant impact – the principal local authorities and residents in Devon. Throughout the process to date, we have sought to engage and work in partnership with those authorities in identifying potential patterns of unitary local government for the county. During Stage One of the review we held discussions with the leaders and chief executives of all principal authorities collectively. We also met the leaders of individual authorities, usually on an all-party group leader basis, often more than once.

2.3 We also took the opportunity while working in the county to hold informal discussions with as wide a group of other stakeholders as was possible in the time available to us, such as Members of Parliament, parish and town councils, primary care trusts, the fire and police services. These discussions were particularly helpful to us. We heard first hand from those working in the county in partnership with the principal authorities about their perceptions of current and future challenges for the delivery of public services, regeneration, community engagement and empowerment, and what patterns of unitary local government might best address those challenges.

2.4 In starting our work we invited the County Council and district councils in the county to develop broad ‘concepts’ that we could consider, outlining their preferred patterns of unitary authorities and explaining how those patterns might address the first four of the five criteria. We were prepared to receive submissions from any interested individual or group but recognised that it would be local authorities that were most likely to be involved at this initial stage. In addition to concepts from authorities, we also received a number of submissions from political party groups and a variety of statutory bodies.

2.5 In summary, the five criteria say that any alternative unitary proposal we submit to the Secretary of State should, in aggregate:

• attract a broad cross-section of support • provide for strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership • deliver the empowerment of citizens and communities, so that all communities have power and resources to influence the decisions that affect them in their localities • provide value-for-money services – services should be provided effectively, efficiently and in an integrated and coherent way, ultimately driving up customer satisfaction

• be affordable – the change to a unitary structure should deliver value for money and be self-financing, with transitional costs being capable of being paid back within a five-year period

2.6 These criteria are discussed in the chapter below in which we set out the specific considerations to which we have had regard.

2.7 In undertaking our work, we were mindful of the fact that reviews of this nature can be extremely disruptive to local government and resource-intensive in terms of both expenditure and staff time. We therefore emphasised that we were not seeking fully developed business cases in support of particular unitary patterns. Instead, we made clear that such concepts should be ‘thought pieces’, setting out the vision of the political leaders in the county on how they believe the challenges faced by their communities and citizens might best be addressed by their preferred unitary pattern.

2.8 Given the likely number of different concepts we expected to receive, we took the view that to test the affordability of each and every one would be wasteful of resources, particularly if, in our judgement, they failed to meet the other criteria. We were also mindful of our guidance from the Secretary of State, which makes clear that in the formulation of any draft proposal we should not be limited to assessing and choosing between concepts submitted by local government. We nevertheless advised the principal authorities that, in developing their concepts, they should be reasonably satisfied that they would meet the affordability test if we were to adopt any of them as our draft proposal.

2.9 By the end of Stage One we had received a wide range of different concepts and representations. All of these are available on our website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk. We subsequently sought further information on a range of issues that we felt were unclear or needed further explanation. Again, all these requests for further information and the responses received can be viewed on our website. General considerations: the context of modern local government

2.10 The context of the current review of local government in Devon is very different from that of previous structural reviews carried out by the Local Government Commission during the 1990s or by the Boundary Committee during 2003-04. It has been triggered by a bid from Exeter City Council for unitary status on existing boundaries in relation to which the Secretary of State has asked for our advice.

2.11 The role of local government and the way in which it operates has changed considerably in recent years. While the range of direct services for which local authorities are responsible has remained broadly the same for many years, there has been wide recognition that councils need to change the way in which they work in order to achieve real improvements for their communities. Key changes to the role of local government include the ‘well-being’ power in the Local Government Act 2000 (the 2000 Act), the increasing importance of community leadership and engagement as set out in the 2006 Local Government White Paper, and the development of Local Area Agreements (LAAs) from 2004 into the new LAA framework set down in the 2007 Act.

2.12 More recently, county councils and unitary local authorities have been encouraged to develop cross-boundary Multi-Area Agreements (MAAs) to improve economic prosperity for wider sub-regional areas. Similarly, the Government’s Public Service Agreements emphasise the need for local government to work with others in the delivery of services and address shared priorities. All of these highlight important changes in the landscape of local government.

2.13 Such changes are also evident in how modern local authorities are led and managed. The ‘committee system’ which predominated in local government, for example, was largely swept aside by the 2000 Act and new political decision-making arrangements introduced. The 2007 Act makes further changes to the political management structures available to local government by introducing the mayor and cabinet executive and the leader and cabinet executive models of governance. These are intended to strengthen the accountability of local authority leadership, increase the transparency of decision-making and make the role of councillors as leaders of their communities more explicit.

2.14 Local authorities have also been required to address the ‘efficiency agenda’ and to work more effectively to deliver better public services in order to fund improvements to front-line services. Efficiency gains also featured in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (CSR07) and were reflected in the subsequent three-year local authority finance settlement for 2008–11.

2.15 In areas where two-tier local government operates, county councils account for approximately 80% of local authority revenue spending (excluding spending on local authority housing). Table 2 details the allocation of local authority functions and services.

Table 2: Allocation of local authority functions and services

Upper-tier authorities Services District Unitary County councils authorities councils Education • • Housing • • Planning applications • • Strategic planning • • Transport planning • • Passenger transport • • Highways • • Fire •4 • Social services • • Libraries • • Leisure and recreation • • Waste collection • • Waste disposal • • Environmental health • • Revenue collection • • Source: Local Government Structure, Local Government Association (2008)

4 Joint fire authorities operate in counties with unitary authorities in them. 7

2.16 However, in addition to these specific services, local authorities are expected to respond to a number of other challenges, including:

• rising demands for adult social care due to long-term demographic changes • environmental pressures • an increasing place-shaping role • rising expectations for modern and personalised services • the impact of legislative change arising from Government policy initiatives (e.g. Children Act 2004 and the Every Child Matters strategy document)

2.17 Performance and quality of service provision are increasingly important in local government, as reflected in a range of performance assessments. From April 2009 the Audit Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPA) of local authorities will be replaced by Comprehensive Area Assessments (CAA). CAA will provide an assessment of the prospects for local areas (as opposed to the local authority) and the quality of life for people living there. This focus on ‘outcomes’ for local people requires CAA to look across councils, health bodies, police forces, fire and rescue authorities and others responsible for local public services, all of which are expected to work in partnership to tackle the challenges facing their communities.

2.18 All these factors have contributed to the development of significant organisational and service change, and in undertaking our work we have been mindful of the need to propose new authorities that will, in our judgement, have the capacity and capability to offer both community leadership and to respond to the range of demands on them now and for the reasonably foreseeable future.

2.19 We have no fixed view about the optimum size of a unitary authority, in either a geographical or a population sense, in terms of the potential to be a high performer in the delivery of services. Size is not a factor that appears in the Secretary of State’s guidance to us. While there is some evidence that population size has an effect on performance,5 we have been more concerned to ensure that any new authority has the capacity to meet varying demands and priorities that will inevitably change over time, and to have sufficient influence and leverage when working alongside other local authorities or other bodies, especially in a regional context. Specific considerations: how we have approached the review

2.20 Legislation prescribes, and limits, the considerations we can take into account in this review. We are tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of State on whether there is an ‘alternative proposal for a single tier of local government’ for the city of Exeter and the whole or part of the surrounding Devon county area which would, in aggregate, have the capacity (if implemented) to meet the outcomes set out in the five criteria contained in the Secretary of State’s request for advice. We may also propose alterations to the boundaries of the city of Plymouth and/or the borough of Torbay, but only if they are essential to the proposal for unitary local government for the whole of two-tier Devon that has the capacity to meet the five criteria.

2.21 We have no power as part of this review to recommend alterations to the existing two-tier local government structure in the county. We could not propose, for

5 Population Size and Local Authority Performance (Communities and Local Government, October 2006). 8 example, changes to the boundaries of the city of Exeter and make consequential alterations to the boundaries of adjoining two-tier districts. Similarly, we cannot recommend the retention of a two-tier structure in preference to a unitary pattern. The status quo would only result if we were unable to identify any unitary pattern that meets the criteria in the Secretary of State’s guidance, or if the Secretary of State decides not to implement our proposals.

2.22 The 2007 Act makes clear that, at this stage in the review, we should set out a single draft proposal and invite views about that proposal. We have no power to seek views on a range of potential options. However, in undertaking the review in Devon we have identified a further pattern that, in our judgement, might also meet the Secretary of State’s criteria against which our draft proposal can be assessed. Interested parties may wish to have this further pattern in mind when commenting on our draft proposal.

2.23 In addition, even with the assistance of the Secretary of State’s guidance and the five criteria it sets out, there is no simple test which can be applied to determine whether a particular pattern of unitary local government is the right one for a given area. Instead, we need to consider a fairly complex array of considerations and to exercise our judgement in the light of the evidence and information available to us.

2.24 The diversity of the areas under review, in terms of geography and population, together with the social and economic issues they face, raise particular challenges for us (Table 3).

Table 3: Existing authorities – population, area and population density

Local authority Population Area (hectares) Population per (2001) hectare Devon County 704,493 656,412 1.07 Council

East Devon DC 125,520 81,440 1.54

Exeter CC 111,076 4,703 23.62

Mid Devon DC 69,774 91,293 0.76

North Devon DC 87,508 108,590 0.81

South Hams DC 81,849 88,651 0.92

Teignbridge DC 120,958 67,387 1.79

Torridge DC 58,965 98,384 0.60

West Devon BC 48,843 115,964 0.42

Plymouth CC 240,720 7,978 30.17

Torbay BC 129,706 6,288 20.63

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census) Note: DC = district council, BC = borough council, CC = city council

2.25 Map 1 shows the existing local authority boundaries in Devon, the main population centres, important geographical features and communication and transport links within the county.

Map 1: Existing arrangements in Devon

B n

ILFRACOMBEILFRACOMBEILFRACOMBE

E X M O O R N A T I O N A L P A R K

BARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLE n BARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLE 44

n BIDEFORDBIDEFORDBIDEFORD

n GREATGREAT TORRINGTONTORRINGTONTORRINGTON 77 77 TIVERTONTIVERTONTIVERTON n 33

HOLSWORTHYHOLSWORTHY 555 n MMM CREDITONCREDITON HONITONHONITON n AXMINSTERAXMINSTERAXMINSTER n 11 n OKEHAMPTONOKEHAMPTON 11 OKEHAMPTONOKEHAMPTON n n22 EXETEREXETEREXETER

n 88 SIDMOUTHSIDMOUTHSIDMOUTH

D A R T M O O R 66 n BUDLEIGHBUDLEIGHBUDLEIGH n SALTERTONSALTERTONSALTERTON N A T I O N A L P A R K SALTERTONSALTERTONSALTERTON DAWLISHDAWLISH EXMOUTHEXMOUTHEXMOUTH DAWLISHDAWLISH n EXMOUTHEXMOUTHEXMOUTH n TAVISTOCKTAVISTOCKTAVISTOCK NEWTONNEWTON ABBOTABBOT n TEIGNMOUTHTEIGNMOUTHTEIGNMOUTH n

TORQUAYTORQUAYTORQUAY n

n n PAIGNTONPAIGNTONPAIGNTON 99 1010 99 TOTNESTOTNESTOTNES 1010 PLYMOUTHPLYMOUTHPLYMOUTH n n IVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGE n IVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGE BRIXHAMBRIXHAMBRIXHAM 55 DARTMOUTHDARTMOUTH 55 n

KINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGE KINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGEn

Key Population Areas Existing County Boundary Motorways Existing District Boundary Other Main Roads Plymouth and Torbay UA Boundaries Railways National Park Boundary

1 East Devon 5 South Hams 9 Plymouth 2 Exeter 6 Teignbridge 10 Torbay 3 Mid Devon 7 Torridge 4 North Devon 8 West Devon 11 Broad cross-section of support

2.26 Our guidance from the Secretary of State makes clear that the volume of representations for or against a particular draft proposal should not, of itself, be considered to provide a definitive view of that proposal’s merits. Instead, the criteria against which we are asked make our judgements, states that ‘the change to a unitary structure, if it were to be made, should at least have a measure of support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens’.

2.27 In reaching conclusions on our draft proposal we have, as discussed above, sought to engage with and seek the views of a wide range of key local government partners and stakeholders, including parish and town councils, MPs, police and fire services, primary care trusts, local strategic partnerships and the Regional Development Agency. Together with the views of individual local authorities in the area under review, our discussions with these partners and stakeholders have informed and influenced our thinking. We now move forward to seeking views more specifically on our draft proposal.

2.28 All representations we receive on our draft proposal by 26 September 2008 will be taken into account. However, being mindful of the Secretary of State’s guidance, representations that are well argued and provide persuasive evidence in support of the arguments are likely to carry more weight with us.

2.29 We recognise that many people find the prospect of a move to unitary local government unwelcome or are indifferent to change. They may be content with the current two-tier structure of county and district councils in their area and see no need to alter arrangements with which they are familiar. It is no part of our task to ‘champion’ unitary structures over two-tier, or vice versa. Rather, as indicated above, we are asked by the Secretary of State whether there is a viable single tier of local government for the county. In our view at this stage, having weighed all the evidence received and the information we have collected, this would appear to be the case. Leadership

2.30 Strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership in the sense that it reflects the needs and aspirations of communities can, and should, operate at more than one level. It is linked to community identity and the confidence that citizens have that their democratic representatives understand the needs of their communities and have the influence to promote and defend their interests at local, regional, national and European levels.

2.31 This is compatible with the Secretary of State’s guidance that a new unitary structure should provide strategic leadership that is characterised by:

• strong, stable mandates, consistent with enabling local authorities to take a long-term, strategic view of the needs of their area, and how best to promote that area’s prosperity, achieve economic development, and allow the taking of tough decisions where necessary • an outward-orientation, consistent with a growing need to represent the community in discussions and debates with organisations and parts of government at local, regional and national levels e.g. through LAAs

• clear and direct accountability, consistent with making powerful local leaders more responsive and responsible, and tacking disengagement and powerlessness by shortening the distance between governors and governed • leaders with personal visibility, consistent with the need to bring coherence to an increasingly complex landscape of local actors and partnerships

2.32 Under the 2000 Act local authorities were able to select one of four options for their model of political leadership: a council leader with a cabinet; a directly elected mayor with a cabinet; a directly elected mayor with a council manager; or 'alternative arrangements' of a streamlined committee system (open only to small local authorities). The 2007 Act provides for the discontinuance of one of the forms of executive, the mayor and council manager executive, and it introduced a new-style leader and cabinet executive. Any council in England which operates executive arrangements is required to operate a leader and cabinet executive or a mayor and cabinet executive. In both cases the maximum size of the cabinet executive is ten.

2.33 Whichever executive model is selected, one of the critical factors for an effective decision-making structure relates to the extent to which the leadership proposes to delegate responsibilities to the executive members and the clarity of lines of responsibility. While the choice of executive model does not by itself necessarily deliver strong strategic leadership, we consider it is a critical factor in determining whether the characteristics identified by the Secretary of State can be met.

2.34 In order to pursue the Government’s commitment to improve public services, the 2006 Local Government White Paper envisaged the development of a new performance framework for local authority services. Key to improving service delivery is a strong focus on performance management coupled with effective leadership on delivery. We believe, therefore, that proposals for managing performance in any new structure should take into account the need for local authorities to work in partnership, to challenge performance and to support improvement.

2.35 Strategic leadership is needed to help bring together the various local agencies and to provide a longer-term vision of how the partners can address local problems and challenges within the regional and national context. The vision can be articulated through a sustainable community strategy and developed within the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and LAA framework. Leaders of local authorities should be well placed to ensure effective partnership working through the provision of strategic leadership to their LSP. There should also be recognition that other elected members have a role to play in both executive and scrutiny roles for the work of the LSP.

2.36 The 2007 Act makes provision for overview and scrutiny committees and provides powers for those committees to question members of the authority (including the leadership) and to require information from partner authorities. We believe, therefore, that proposals for overview and scrutiny committees within a new authority should provide for a positive role in terms of holding the leadership to account for performance and improvement in the delivery of local services.

2.37 It is recognised that there can be no guarantee that a particular unitary solution or executive model will deliver strong, effective and accountable leadership or that the outcome will be a leader with high personal visibility. Proposals for the implementation of a particular executive model should provide evidence of a stable and accountable structure that seeks to facilitate effective decision-making,

13 performance management and partnership working, thereby providing an environment in which quality services can be delivered to local people. Deliver the empowerment of citizens and communities

2.38 The Local Government White Paper 2006 envisaged that people should receive services tailored to their individual situation. Achievement of this over-arching aim requires detailed understanding of the needs and expectations of individuals and communities articulated through direct engagement between the local authority and its citizens. The structures, systems, and processes for engagement should be two- way in order to allow individuals to participate in and influence decisions about service delivery and for the local authority to communicate, inform and consult with those individuals.

2.39 We believe that proposals for engagement and consultation with citizens, particularly those living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, need to identify clear and appropriate arrangements for effective communication, in order to best ensure that their needs are met

2.40 Effective empowerment of citizens and communities should demonstrate evidence of:

• clarity of roles and responsibilities for the authority’s leadership, councillors and staff • governance structures that involve and engage with all residents • community forums with real power to influence choice in local services • area (or neighbourhood) arrangements that reflect community identities and that have appropriate capacity and levels of support in order to have an effective voice and to deliver devolved functions • detailed role descriptions and adequate resources to enable councillors to represent their local communities effectively

2.41 The Government’s aspirations for neighbourhood empowerment were set out in guidance to local authorities on enhancing capacity for public participation.6 The guidance recognised that devolving the delivery of services to the neighbourhood level is an important way of securing sustainable improvements in public services and re-engaging citizens with government. There are a number of ways in which more localised forms of governance – whether through the neighbourhood management of services, area committees of parish councils, asset management schemes or parish councils – can help to foster effective citizenship. We have had regard to the Government’s aspirations concerning citizenship and community empowerment in considering the concepts developed for us by local authorities and others when shaping our draft proposal.

2.42 We have also had regard to the ways in which the new authorities propose to relate to town and parish councils (where they exist) and to the roles that this tier of local government might play in relation to any local governance arrangements. Parish and town councils can provide clear and accountable arrangements for decision- making at the community level. Their role can be further enhanced through active support from principal authorities, for example through the Quality Parish Initiative.

6 Effective Citizenship and Community Empowerment, 2006. 14

2.43 The concepts we received recognised that not all areas under consideration are fully parished, or that all parish and town councils have either the capacity or the willingness to take on further responsibilities. Instead, some have put forward some form of area-based community empowerment arrangements. These typically provide for complete geographic coverage of the area under review; consideration of delegated decision-making and devolved budgets; recognition of existing structures such as parish networks based on market towns; the roles and interaction with unitary councillors and the unitary council, partner and stakeholder involvement; and the relationship with constituent parish and town councils.

2.44 We have been interested in how the proposed area-based structures have addressed any significant or major urban conurbations. In our view, schemes for neighbourhood empowerment need to provide the necessary focus – rural and/or urban – and have clarity in terms of the lines of accountability from the lowest level of community engagement through to the unitary council and its leadership and also in terms of the extent of devolved functions, powers and responsibilities. There is also an imperative to ensure that, as far as possible, no individual citizen or community is disadvantaged by any proposals and that there is equality of opportunity to participate in local affairs. Value-for-money services

2.45 The Secretary of State’s guidance emphasises the importance of new unitary authorities delivering effective and efficient services in an integrated and coherent way, maximising collaboration and technology. It also refers to ‘services which people use because they value them, not because they have no alternative’.

2.46 The value placed by local residents on quality of service delivery is demonstrated by research we commissioned as part of our 2003–4 review of local government structure in the three northern regions (Table 4).

Table 4: The top four issues to be taken into account, according to local residents in the three northern regions

County North Cheshire Cumbria Lancashire Northumberland Durham Yorkshire

Responding Quality of Quality of Responding Quality of Quality of to local services services to local services (28%) services people’s (25%) (22%) people’s (24%) wishes wishes (23%) (25%)

Quality of Responding Responding Quality of Responding to Responding services to local to local services local people’s to local (22%) people’s people’s (23%) wishes (20%) people’s wishes wishes wishes (21%) (21%) (23%)

Being Being Being Being Cost of service Cost of accountable accountable accountable accountable (16%) service to local to local to local to local (15%) people people people people (16%) (16%) (17%) (16%)

Cost of Cost of Cost of Cost of Being Being service service service service accountable to accountable (14%) (14%) (14%) (14%) local people to local (14%) people (15%)

Source: MORI, October 2003

2.47 Earlier in this chapter we commented on the increasingly important role partnerships play in supporting the delivery of a wide range of priorities and services. Many of the concepts we received emphasised the benefits of delivering services through partnerships or joint arrangements with other local authorities in some form or another. Many district councils already have such arrangements in place for the delivery of their current functions.

2.48 However, it seems to us that the terms ‘partnerships’ and ‘joint arrangements’ are often used interchangeably to refer to a wide range of very different working arrangements. They range from statutory agreements7 to more innovative ways of working which the Government actively encourages to improve the quality of services, or to tackle problems that cut across organisational boundaries. These arrangements can include partnerships associated with the delivery of major services or projects, for example between adult care services and health service providers. Another form of partnership is the LSP – a non-statutory partnership that brings together the major service providers and stakeholders in a locality to develop shared views and coordinate service provision and policy development. In addition, there are contractual partnerships that cross the whole spectrum of local government functions, such as in the procurement of services.

7 Arising from section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. 16

2.49 This spectrum of methods of service delivery may involve ‘joint arrangements’ and other forms of partnership in differing degrees. For example, a local authority may arrange for the delivery of the whole of a service for which it is responsible through another local authority, or two or more local authorities may arrange to deliver such services jointly. Alternatively, an authority may choose to deliver a service in partnership with one or more non-local authority agencies (whether in the public, commercial or voluntary sectors). Similarly, a local authority may deliver a service under joint arrangements with another local authority, which in turn procures that service from or with the non-local authority sector.

2.50 These are all proper mechanisms for a local authority to secure the effective provision of a service for which it is responsible, and we are supportive of appropriate partnership working. At the same time, however, we are conscious that extensive use of joint arrangements – that is, the involvement of a plurality of local authorities – in the provision of a service increases the risk that lines of local accountability may be blurred. One of the stated advantages of unitary local government over two-tier structures is that a single local authority has clear responsibility for providing a range of services. Also, if a major service, such as children’s and young peoples’ services, can only be delivered through joint arrangements, we are inevitably led to question the viability of that particular pattern of unitary local government.

2.51 Accordingly, we have tended towards a preference that any new unitary authority should be capable of providing or procuring, without recourse to formal joint arrangements, most or all of the full range of local government services. Joint or partnership working between local authorities may provide an economic, effective and efficient means of providing services, but in our view such arrangements should not be essential to the delivery of quality services. Instead, we have sought to arrive at unitary authorities of sufficient capacity to ensure that they have the maximum flexibility in deciding how local services will be provided, whether directly by the council concerned or through some other arrangement.

2.52 It is a matter of judgement for the potential new authorities whether, and to what extent, arrangements between authorities or groups of authorities might be part of service delivery mechanisms, and to what extent they would serve to cloud accountability, bearing in mind the recognition of a ‘mixed economy’ in service provision. However, this is but one consideration and, as will be clear from this report as a whole, our draft proposal is based on many other factors besides. Affordability

2.53 The Secretary of State’s guidance to us makes clear that, whatever pattern of unitary local government we advise should be established in any area, it must be affordable. In particular, the transitional costs of any change must be capable of being paid back within five years and, of particular concern to residents, all costs associated with structural change must be met locally without increasing council tax for the specific purpose of meeting transition costs.

2.54 The criteria set out in the guidance, including that of affordability, are the same as those used to judge the viability of the bids for unitary status submitted to the Secretary of State following publication of the 2006 Local Government White Paper. The Secretary of State’s requirement at that time was that any proposals for unitary status should be made on the basis of existing local authority administrative boundaries, or amalgams of them. Accordingly, ‘bidding’ authorities would have

17 found the issue of ensuring the costs of change were met without any increase in council tax relatively straightforward to address.

2.55 Our task is somewhat greater, given that we are looking at unitary structures extending across whole county areas. Indeed, we have intentionally taken the approach that we should not be constrained by existing district council administrative boundaries. Accordingly, in developing the methodology for assessing the affordability of our draft proposal we have taken the view that, as a minimum, council tax should not increase across the county area as a whole as a consequence of transitional costs. Nevertheless, given that council tax levels vary from district to district the effect of our draft proposal means that there will need to be some equalisation of council tax levels across the county.

2.56 We have not sought at this stage to assess the affordability of our draft proposal. Given the number of alternative patterns of unitary local authorities that have been suggested to us since the start of our work, and the resource cost to local authorities in providing us with the necessary financial information, we took a decision early in the review process to assess affordability only when we had reached a conclusion on our draft proposal, and had published it for public comment. Local authorities in Devon will be providing financial information on each of the patterns of unitary authorities laid out in this report. We have requested this information by 5 September 2008. This information will help inform our view in assessing the affordability of any new unitary authority.

3 Concepts submitted to the Committee

3.1 We received a number of concepts for patterns of new unitary authorities during Stage One of the review. Proponents included the County Council, all eight of the district councils, the two unitary authorities of Plymouth city and Torbay borough and a number of political groups. All concepts are available to view on our website. The population figures given were provided by the proponents of each concept and we note that there are inconsistencies between figures provided.

3.2 In accordance with the guidance from the Secretary of State, some proponents considered that, in order to formulate a pattern of unitary local government for the two-tier area of Devon, it was essential to change the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay. In summarising below the concepts received we have indicated where they proposed changes to the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay. When describing the formulation of unitary authorities for Devon, ‘Devon’ in this context should be read as the existing two-tier area.

3.3 Concepts submitted that did not envisage changes to the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay are described in Concepts A – E, below.

Concept A – one unitary authority

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population Devon The county of Devon Approx. 740,800

3.4 The County Council and Torridge District Council proposed a new county-wide unitary authority based on the existing county boundaries. Although not a proponent of this concept, Mid Devon District Council identified it as a possible option.

Concept B – two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population Exeter The city of Exeter Population figures not provided Rural Devon The districts of East Population figures not Devon, Mid Devon, provided North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge and West Devon

3.5 Plymouth City Council Labour Group proposed a unitary Exeter on its existing boundaries, and one unitary authority for the predominantly rural remainder of the county.

Concept C – two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population Greater Exeter The city of Exeter and Approx. 150,000 parts of the districts of East Devon and Teignbridge Rural Devon The districts of Mid Approx. 600,000 Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Torridge and West Devon and parts of the districts of East Devon and Teignbridge

3.6 Exeter City Council and Devon County Council Labour Group proposed a concept that would create one, predominantly urban, unitary authority encompassing Exeter and several adjacent parishes, and one unitary authority for the predominantly rural remainder of the county.

Concept D – two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population East Devon The city of Exeter and Approx. 325,200 the districts of East Devon and Mid Devon West Devon The districts of North Approx. 415,600 Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge and West Devon.

3.7 Although not a proponent of this concept Mid Devon identified a possible option that creates two unitary authorities. This concept that would create one unitary authority encompassing Exeter and the eastern area of the county, and one unitary authority for the predominantly rural remainder of the county in the west.

Concept E – three unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population South Devon & The districts of South Approx. 260,000 Dartmoor Hams, West Devon and Teignbridge Northern Devon The districts of North Approx. 230,000 Devon, Torridge and Mid Devon Eastern Devon The city of Exeter and Approx. 250,000 the district of East Devon

3.8 South Hams District Council and West Devon Borough Council jointly submitted a concept which would create three unitary authorities. The concept would create two predominantly rural authorities and one predominantly urban authority.

3.9 Exeter City Council proposed a similar to concept to this but one that removed itself from the eastern authority.

3.10 Concepts submitted that involved changes to the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay are described in Concepts F and G, below.

Concept F – three unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population Devon The city of Exeter, the Approx. 500,000 districts of East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon and Torridge and parts of the districts of West Devon, South Hams and Teignbridge Plymouth on The city of Plymouth, Approx. 300,000 expanded boundaries parts of the districts of West Devon & South Hams Torbay on expanded The borough of Torbay, Approx. 300,000 boundaries parts of the districts of Teignbridge and South Hams

3.11 Plymouth City Council and Torbay Borough Council proposed the enlargement of their boundaries, creating two larger authorities in southern Devon and a unitary authority covering the remainder of the county.

3.12 Plymouth City Council also submitted an alternative concept that was similar to concept F, but did not envisage changes to the boundary of Torbay.

Concept G – four unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population Northern Devon The districts of North Approx. 200,000 Devon, Torridge and Mid Devon Eastern Devon The city of Exeter and Approx 294,000 the district of East Devon Plymouth/Western The city of Plymouth Approx. 298,000 Devon and parts of the districts of West Devon and South Hams Torbay/Southern The borough of Torbay Approx. 284,000 Devon and parts of the districts of South Hams and Teignbridge

3.13 North Devon District Council and East Devon District Council proposed a concept that would create four unitary authorities. The concept would create a predominantly rural authority in the north, and an authority in the east covering Exeter and the towns currently in East Devon. They also proposed the enlargement to the city of Plymouth and the borough of Torbay, creating two authorities covering southern Devon.

Other concepts

3.14 An individual proposed a concept of six unitary authorities for Devon. This included the urban authorities of Plymouth and Torbay, an urban authority for Exeter and three rural authorities for the remainder of the county.

Other representations

3.15 Teignbridge District Council identified seven possible patterns for the structure of unitary local government in Devon. Some of the concepts identified by the Council were proposed by other authorities in Devon and are described above. Although not a proponent of a particular concept, the Council highlighted certain key themes that any pattern of unitary local government in Devon would need to have the ability and capacity to deliver on.

3.16 During Stages One and Two we also received a number of other submissions. These included submissions from Adrian Sanders MP, Ben Bradshaw MP, Glyn Ford MEP, Devon and Cornwall Police Authority, parish and town councils and residents. A number of these submissions made general comments in support of or opposition to the concepts we have received. Some expressed a preference for a maximum number of unitary authorities, or commented on the review process.

4 Draft proposal

4.1 This chapter of the report contains our draft proposal for Devon, which we consider, based on the evidence received so far, to be most likely to achieve the outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s five criteria.

4.2 We also considered that there was some merit in a two-unitary pattern of local government for Devon. This is set out in the following chapter of this report. The merits of our draft proposal can be assessed against this two-unitary pattern.

4.3 We wish to emphasise that we have not finalised our proposal for Devon and would welcome views during Stage Three from all interested parties, including local residents, before we submit our final advice to the Secretary of State.

4.4 On the basis of the criteria set out in the Secretary of State’s request for advice, and the evidence available to us during the first stages of the review, our draft proposal is for a Devon county unitary authority as set out in Table 5. A map illustrating our draft proposal can be found at Appendix B. This draft proposal will be subject to consideration of its affordability and whether it will receive a broad cross- section of support.

Table 5: Draft proposal for Devon

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001) Devon county The county of Devon, 704,493 including all authorities in the two-tier area

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)

4.5 Our draft proposal for Devon does not include changes to the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay. We have considered the implications for both these authorities of structural change across the two-tier area. We are satisfied that, in aggregate, our draft proposal for Devon has the capacity to meet the outcomes specified in the Secretary of State’s criteria. In reaching conclusions on our draft proposal we do not consider that changes to the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay are essential to facilitate a pattern of unitary local government across the county as a whole. However, this does not mean that we do not consider that some boundary adjustments might be advantageous to the authorities concerned. Those boundary adjustments could be promoted if a review under section 8 of the 2007 Act were undertaken at a later date.

4.6 We consider that a county unitary authority would have the capacity to provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership to all of two-tier Devon, taking forward the role of the existing County Council in its current network of themed partnerships through the Devon Strategic Partnership. We have noted the County Council has outlined that a new authority could enhance the role of the Partnership and bring partnership development and delivery into the mainstream of the new organisation. There may, however, be a need to extend this network to include further partners from the Exeter area in order to reflect more fully the city’s key role in the county.

4.7 A county-wide unitary authority would have a population of approximately 704,500, and be geographically one of the largest such authorities in England, covering an area of 656,000 hectares. We consider that it would have the capacity to provide the basis for effective representation of the authority, particularly in regard to influencing and setting the agenda at regional, national and European levels.

4.8 We consider that the proposed county-wide unitary authority would have the capacity be able to plan and act strategically in tackling the social and economic challenges facing Devon, through having the necessary critical mass and resources.

4.9 A number of authorities in Devon proposed a variety of leadership models reflecting the governance arrangements suggested in their concepts. The County Council proposed a leader elected by the Council (the leader and cabinet executive model) with a proviso that a directly elected leader (mayor and cabinet executive model) could be introduced if support emerged for it (this model of political leadership is described earlier). We consider that political management structures including the size of the cabinet, the manner of leader appointment, the length of term served by the leader and portfolios held within the cabinet should be determined by those forming the unitary authority. However, in our view, the leader and cabinet executive model proposed by the County Council would be sufficiently strong and provide a stable mandate for the local governance of Devon.

4.10 We consider it an advantage that our draft proposal does not seek to divide the county area and create what might be regarded as artificial boundaries. Rather, we see the role of a single unitary council as bringing together the various communities, both rural and urban, and building a cohesive response to the challenges facing the county as a whole.

4.11 The County Council proposed that a new authority could establish an assembly which would bring together key representatives from Devon, including MPs and chairs of the Community Boards (discussed subsequently), in order to bring a stronger community and local voice into the new council. We welcome this proposal as a vehicle for seeking to ensure that the new unitary council maintains a strategic focus on the issues and challenges facing the whole county area.

4.12 One of the most important challenges facing the proposed unitary county authority would be to demonstrate that it was not too large to engage with and empower citizens and communities. We have already noted that a Devon unitary council would be one of the largest unitary authorities in population terms and cover a large geographical area. We recognise that it would represent a range of rural and urban areas which differ markedly in socio-economic make-up. Additionally, Devon has many sparsely populated and remote areas which suffer from difficult communication links, plus two National Parks (one of which is partly in Somerset) and several Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).

4.13 We consider that the proposals set out by the County Council in its concept have the capacity to address these concerns. It envisaged a neighbourhood empowerment scheme that would create 28 Community Boards based around the 28 market towns of Devon, together with a City Board for Exeter with broader responsibilities. The Council envisaged Community Boards would include the following members: town mayor, town and parish councillors, unitary councillors and representatives from key public service partners. The neighbourhood empowerment

24 arrangements envisaged seek to build upon the identity and ties people currently have with their market town.

4.14 The County Council proposed that Community Boards would be chaired by unitary councillors, who would focus on leading and championing their community areas. Community Board chairs would contribute to the decision-making and strategic leadership of the unitary authority to ensure that local considerations are rooted in the development of policies and priorities that affect the whole county.

4.15 We also note that the Community Boards would require dedicated officer support in order to oversee their functions, provide support to the unitary councillors in their leadership and aid in the facilitation of community and partner organisations’ engagement.

4.16 The 28 market towns identified to us are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: 28 market towns in Devon

Ashburton & Cullompton Ivybridge Seaton Buckfastleigh Dartmouth Kingsbridge Sidmouth Axminster Dawlish Lynton & Lynmouth South Molton Barnstaple Exmouth Moretonhampstead Tavistock Bideford & Great Torrington Newton Abbot Teignmouth Northam Holsworthy Okehampton Ottery Tiverton Braunton Honiton St Mary Totnes Crediton Ilfracombe Source: www.devon.gov.uk

4.17 We accept that Community Boards are not envisaged as service delivery bodies and that the County Council’s proposal would include a substantially stronger role for parish and town councils, but that it has not yet defined their role. We consider the role of parish and town councils requires further definition and we welcome views on this during the representation period. However, we recognise that a stronger role for parish and town councils would be dependent on the resources, capability and enthusiasm expressed by that tier of local government to take on further responsibilities. We wish to be satisfied that an effective two-way relationship between parish and town councils and the Community Boards could be facilitated under these arrangements and that their respective roles and responsibilities are clear. This challenge may be particularly acute where parish and town councils have achieved Quality Parish status and are keen to take on further responsibilities. We welcome the views of parish and town councils on these matters.

4.18 We consider that the community governance arrangements set out by the County Council go some way to addressing how local people can influence the delivery of local services. We note that the County Council’s proposals state that the new unitary authority Community Boards would have a role in the scrutiny of the new unitary council and the service delivery of other public sector organisations. The role of the Community Boards would also facilitate engagement at a local level within the Local Area Agreement (LAA) process. We are concerned, however, that the extent of devolved funding may be limited to supporting community initiatives. Extending further the proposals for budget delegation could provide greater flexibility of

25 approach to tackling the differing needs of and challenges facing the people of Devon.

4.19 The County Council proposed that a new unitary authority could establish a separate Community Board for the city of Exeter area and that this City Board should have extended powers. In its concept, the County Council considered that these arrangements should reflect Exeter’s importance and the special contribution it provides to the county. We note that some of the arrangements proposed included:

• city centre management • oversight and management of the city’s leisure and cultural offerings including the Exeter Festival • management of public realm (i.e. the management and maintenance of public assets including streetscene) issues in an integrated way across the city • transport and congestion • integrated parking strategy • development and delivery of a sustainability strategy for the city • oversight of educational and skills improvement arrangements within the city • targeting investment to address issues of deprivation within the city • managing grants and other investments, such as the Hele’s Trust

These responsibilities would be supported by devolved budgets.

4.20 We agree that the arrangements for Exeter should fully and properly recognise the particular role of the city both locally and sub-regionally, and we welcome views on this issue.

4.21 We note that Exeter City Council is currently undertaking a pilot scheme for neighbourhood arrangements within Exeter – ‘My Neighbourhood’. The County Council proposed that a community governance review be undertaken, which would build on the pilot scheme in order to establish a pattern of locality governance for Exeter. We welcome further details on the neighbourhood arrangements for the city of Exeter and their workings.

4.22 At present, the County Council delivers upper-tier local authority services to the people of Devon. The creation of a county-wide unitary authority would amalgamate the services provided by the County Council with those provided by the eight district councils. While Devon has differing economies, and areas of inherent poor communication, we consider that our draft proposal would provide the economies of scale that are considered necessary to deliver value-for-money services effectively.

4.23 However, further consideration is needs to be given to how a new unitary council would integrate county and district services into a coherent whole for the benefit of Devon service users and council tax payers. We welcome views on how an area-based model for the delivery of the full range of unitary authority services would relate to the proposed Community Boards.

4.24 We consider that the provision of services across the county-wide unitary authority would need to be flexible in approach in order to tackle the differing needs of the residents of Devon. For this reason we have been persuaded at this stage of the necessity to retain Exeter within the unitary county to provide improved opportunities for the new unitary authority to cross-subsidise service costs between

26 the urban and rural areas and to reduce the possibility of disadvantage to any group of citizens. We are also persuaded that the inclusion of Exeter offers potential advantages in terms of strong and effective economic leadership. However, we would welcome further informed commentary as to the way in which this potential could be converted into positive action.

4.25 A county-wide unitary authority would not require the disaggregation of upper- tier local authority services currently provided by the County Council – as previously mentioned, county council services account for some 80% of local government expenditure in the county. We recognise that there will be the need for an aggregation of district council services. This may have a transitional impact on service delivery but over a longer time-frame there would be opportunities for economies of scale and for developing consistent, high-quality, county-wide service standards.

4.26 All structural change has a cost. However, we are of the view that those costs would be minimised by the creation of a county-wide unitary in Devon. In comparison, the creation of two, three or more unitary authorities in Devon, with its particular geography and communication links, could put at risk the delivery of value for money in service provision and potentially have higher transition costs. For example, a multi-unitary pattern would require the disaggregation of the services currently provided by the County Council as well as bringing together the local services delivered by the district councils within each new unitary authority. It has been argued that a multi-unitary pattern may go some way towards mitigating the problems arising from some of the difficulties in working across the whole of Devon, such as population sparsity and poor communications. However, we have significant concerns that a multi-unitary pattern in the county of Devon, which would result in small rural unitary authorities without a significant economic centre, could struggle to provide value-for-money services and economies of scale. It is also probable that this model would require a number of joint arrangements for the delivery of upper-tier services. Our concerns about the need for such arrangements are discussed in chapter 2.

4.27 Proponents of a county unitary have told us that the inclusion of Exeter would assist the city’s continuing growth and development. Although we recognise the importance of Exeter in developing the economy of Devon, we welcome during this representation period further evidenced views on whether a county-wide unitary authority would be able to establish the necessary infrastructure to support and spread the effects of Exeter’s growth. Additionally, we would welcome views on whether the inclusion of Exeter in a county-wide authority would foster economic growth in the rural parts of Devon.

4.28 An important consideration we have taken into account in formulating our draft proposal is the recognition of other economic drivers in Devon. We note the current importance of the economic area which encompasses Plymouth and its hinterland. We note that the cities of Plymouth and Exeter have spheres of economic influence that affect the economies of the areas surrounding their current boundaries as well as the economy of the wider county area and beyond.

4.29 We acknowledge that the County Council’s present performance and capacity to deliver effective services can only provide a broad indicator of the future performance of a county-wide unitary authority. However, it already delivers the

27 upper-tier local authority services in Devon described in Table 2 and received a 3- star rating from the Audit Commission in its 2007 CPA. We noted in particular that the Audit Commission reported that the County Council was working with partners and improving the economy and environment.

4.30 A county-wide unitary authority would mean that the area of Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) would fall within the area of one authority as opposed to the current situation, where the area of the DNPA covers parts of several district council areas. Similar considerations apply to the part of the Exmoor National Park that falls within the Devon area. The proposal for a Devon unitary authority will have implications for the national park authorities, for example, in terms of their membership and roles as planning authorities, as well as their outsourcing of certain functions and services.

4.31 Several proponents have made suggestions about the council size of the new unitary authority. Some proponents went further, providing ratios of this to population. In its concept the County Council envisaged 100 unitary councillors for the proposed county-wide unitary authority. Using this figure, East Devon District Council calculated this ratio as 1:7,460, concluding that this would represent a democratic deficit.

4.32 If a new unitary authority (or authorities) were to be established by the Secretary of State following our advice to her, the Electoral Commission is obliged by law to consider the need for an electoral review of the new authority. If it considers that such a review is necessary, as it has done for the new unitary authorities established by Parliament in 2008, it would direct us to conduct an electoral review. We would start by determining council size. In that event we would seek further evidence as to why a given number of councillors would be required for the administration of the council and the representation of the electorate. We therefore urge all respondents to give serious consideration to how any model of governance employed by the new authorities might be reflected in the number of councillors on the whole council.

4.33 We have identified several issues, set out below, on which we welcome views supported by evidence:

• our view on the necessary inclusion of Exeter in a county-wide authority, particularly whether it will support the city’s economic growth and promote the growth of the county

• whether there is a need to extend the membership of the Devon Strategic Partnership to reflect more fully Exeter’s key role in the county

• further information on the community governance model envisaged for the city of Exeter as part of a county unitary authority

• further evidence that a county-wide unitary authority has a broad cross-section of support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens

• considered views from parish and town councils in regard to their envisaged role in the proposed Community Board arrangements

• the roles and responsibilities of the proposed Community Boards, particularly as they are perceived by parish and town councils and other groups likely to be involved as Board representatives

• how the County Council’s proposed community governance structures will be constituted by the new authority in order to ensure clear accountability for matters such as service delivery

4.34 In light of further evidence received, we may decide that our draft proposal should be refined or otherwise varied, and we may change the proposal before we submit our final advice to the Secretary of State.

5 Two unitary authority pattern

5.1 We consider at this time that our draft proposal is likely to have the capacity to achieve the outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s criteria. Nevertheless, we believe there is merit in a different pattern of two unitary authorities as set out in Table 7: an Exeter and Exmouth authority comprising these two urban areas and their surrounding parishes; and a Devon authority comprising the remainder of the county. The boundaries of Plymouth or Torbay would not be changed. A map illustrating this pattern can be found at Appendix B.

5.2 Interested parties may wish to bear this pattern in mind when commenting on our draft proposal.

Table 7: Pattern of two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001) Exeter and Exmouth The city of Exeter and 164,420 parts of the districts of East Devon and Teignbridge

Devon The districts of North 540,073 Devon, Torridge, Mid Devon, West Devon, South Hams and parts of Teignbridge and East Devon Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)

5.3 This pattern might provide an alternative means of addressing the social and economic challenges of Exeter. We received some evidence to suggest that the city of Exeter would benefit from becoming a unitary authority on expanded boundaries. This model provides a pattern of single tier local government which recognises the evidence set out to us. It also assumes that the current economic, social and cultural interdependencies between Exeter and the remainder of Devon can still be reflected and indeed enhanced through a two unitary authority pattern.

5.4 Exeter City Council provided us with analysis from the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS) at Newcastle University, which is available to be viewed on our website. This analysis detailed a number of two-way interactions between Exeter and its surrounding area, including migration patterns, commuting flows and educational catchment areas. We were also provided with a variety of analyses including travel-to-work areas, shopping catchment areas and indices of deprivation from the County Council.

5.5 The CURDS report uses 2001 census and other data to define the wards outside the current boundaries of the city of Exeter which are most closely linked with it. That methodology, and the City Council’s use of its results, led to the Council’s concept of a ‘Greater Exeter’. Although we consider that there may be some merit in a more urban unitary authority focussed around Exeter, we were concerned that the

City Council’s proposed authority might not have the capacity to deliver the economies of scale or the scope to provide a full range of value-for-money services.

5.6 We also note that the evidence provided by both the County Council and CURDS for Exeter City Council highlight that 25–50% of the workforce living in the Exmouth, Lympstone and Woodbury wards commute to Exeter. We have used these data to identify a larger area around Exeter, including Exmouth, than that suggested in the City Council’s concept.

5.7 Additionally, in looking at a wider boundary for an extended Exeter and Exmouth, we consider there might be merit in an expanded area reflecting the interdependent economic activity between current and future developments including the Science Park, Exeter Airport, International Freight Terminal and Skypark, as suggested by Exeter City Council’s concept. We also agree that any enlargement of the boundary should include the growth area identified in the ‘Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006–2026’ of Cranbrook new community, which will result in 6,500 dwellings. We believe that this planned development would support the growth of the city. We have taken the similar outcomes of the CURDS analysis and the County Council’s information on travel-to-work areas to help define the northern and western boundaries for this alternate pattern of unitary local government.

5.8 The remainder of Devon would form a unitary authority with a more pronounced rural character. We consider that aspects of the County Council’s proposals for community governance could be applied to the rural Devon authority. The impact on the two national park authorities would be the same as under our draft proposal, as they would lie in one authority.

5.9 However, this two unitary authority pattern presents a number of challenges, and at this stage we are not persuaded that there is sufficient likelihood that it would better meet outcomes set out in the five criteria than our draft proposal.

5.10 We are not currently persuaded that a two unitary pattern would provide benefits to citizens of the rural Devon authority, outside Exeter and Exmouth. There are arguments that such a structure would enable a rural Devon authority to focus on the challenges faced by, and aspirations of, the rural communities, and an Exeter authority to focus on the urban. However, it is not clear to us that there is a vision for a predominantly rural Devon authority, without Exeter and Exmouth, which would meet the strategic leadership criterion. This two unitary pattern would require both the disaggregation of the high-budget county services and the aggregation of district services in both new unitary authorities.

5.11 The neighbourhood empowerment scheme envisaged by Exeter City Council gave some indication of how it would work for the city of Exeter. However, we consider that these arrangements would need to be enhanced if extended to the parishes identified below.

5.12 We also note that the enlargement of the boundary of the Exeter and Exmouth authority to reflect its future growth areas, migration flows and commuting flows may have some impact on the envisaged neighbourhood empowerment arrangements in the rural Devon authority. Exmouth is currently the second-largest town in the two-tier county of Devon and we are unclear of the consequences of removing this town from

32 the rural Devon authority in terms of achieving the outcomes specified by the Secretary of State’s five criteria. We are also concerned that this increases the risk to the viability of the remaining county and its ability to provide an economically strong authority, which could have the same influence at the regional and national levels.

Boundaries of a two unitary authority pattern

5.13 The boundaries which we considered for this pattern of unitary authorities are indicative only.

5.14 The parishes which would be included in an Exeter and Exmouth authority are:

• Brampford Speke • Broad Clyst • Clyst Honition • Clyst St. George • Clyst St. Mary • Exminster • Exmouth • Farringdon • Holcombe Burnell • Huxham • Ide • Lympstone • Poltimore • Rockbeare • Shillingford St. George • Sowton • Stoke Cannon • Upton Pyne • Whimple • Whitestone • Woodbury

6 What happens next?

6.1 There will now be a period of 12 weeks, during which we welcome views on our draft proposal. All representations should be sent to reach us by 26 September 2008.

6.2 We have not finalised our proposal for a pattern of unitary local government in Devon. In the light of representations received, we will review our draft proposal and consider whether it should be altered. It is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft proposal.

6.3 We welcome views and evidence from all those who have previously written to us and those we have not yet heard from.

6.4 The Committee places great importance on ensuring openness and transparency in the way we deal with all representations. Accordingly, representations received will be made available for public inspection at our offices in Trevelyan House. Submissions will also be available for viewing on the Committee’s website, at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk.

6.5 If you make comments during this period of the review, and do not want all or any part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary, but all information in responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law.

6.6 After 26 September 2008 we will consider all the representations we have received and start to formulate our final advice, which we have been asked to submit to the Secretary of State by 31 December 2008.

6.7 You can express your views by using our online form at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk, or by writing directly to:

Review Manager (Devon Review) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

Tel: 020 7271 0512 Fax: 020 7271 0505 Email: [email protected]

6.8 Once we have provided our advice there will then be a further period of four weeks during which representations may be made directly to the Secretary of State. She may then accept, reject or modify any proposal that we make. She may also ask us for more information. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide if and when any new unitary authorities are to be created.

Appendix A: Other Considerations

Equal opportunities

In preparing this report we have had regard to the general duty set out in section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful racial discrimination • promote equality of opportunity • promote good relations between people of different racial groups

National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Broads

We have also had regard to:

• Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as inserted by section 62 of the Environment Act 1995). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the Park’s purposes. If there is a conflict between those purposes, a relevant authority shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park

• Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an AONB, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of the AONB

• Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act (as inserted by section 97 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the Broads, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes of the Broads

Appendix B: Mapping

The following maps illustrate our draft proposal for a county unitary authority and for a two unitary authority pattern of local government.

Map B1 illustrates in outline form our draft proposal for Devon.

Map B2 illustrates in outline form a two unitary authority pattern for Devon. Further detailed mapping

Where the two unitary authority pattern splits an existing district area, we have produced further detailed mapping.

These maps are available to view on our website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk. We have also asked local authorities to make copies of these maps available at local information points and libraries.

Sheet 1 Two unitary pattern: Devon UA and Exeter and Exmouth UA – shows in more detail a two unitary authority pattern of Exeter and Exmouth and a Devon authority, including settlements and geographical features at 1:250,000 scale.

Sheet 2 Two unitary pattern: parish map of Devon UA with Exeter and Exmouth UA – shows a two unitary authority pattern with parish boundaries.

Sheet 3 Two unitary pattern: Exeter and Exmouth UA – details the boundaries of an Exeter and Exmouth unitary authority, including settlements and geographical features.

Map B1: Draft proposal for Devon

B n

ILFRACOMBEILFRACOMBEILFRACOMBE

E X M O O R N A T I O N A L P A R K

n BARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLE

n BIDEFORDBIDEFORDBIDEFORD

n GREATGREAT TORRINGTONTORRINGTONTORRINGTON

TIVERTONTIVERTONTIVERTON n

HOLSWORTHYHOLSWORTHY 555 n MMM CREDITONCREDITON HONITONHONITON CREDITONCREDITON AXMINSTERAXMINSTERAXMINSTER n n AXMINSTERAXMINSTERAXMINSTER n OKEHAMPTONOKEHAMPTON OKEHAMPTONOKEHAMPTON n n EXETEREXETEREXETER 11 n SIDMOUTHSIDMOUTHSIDMOUTH

D A R T M O O R n BUDLEIGHBUDLEIGHBUDLEIGH n SALTERTONSALTERTONSALTERTON N A T I O N A L P A R K SALTERTONSALTERTONSALTERTON DAWLISHDAWLISH EXMOUTHEXMOUTHEXMOUTH DAWLISHDAWLISH n EXMOUTHEXMOUTHEXMOUTH n TAVISTOCKTAVISTOCKTAVISTOCK NEWTONNEWTON ABBOTABBOT n TEIGNMOUTHTEIGNMOUTHTEIGNMOUTH n

TORQUAYTORQUAYTORQUAY n

n n PAIGNTONPAIGNTONPAIGNTON 33 22 TOTNESTOTNESTOTNES PLYMOUTHPLYMOUTHPLYMOUTH n n IVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGE n IVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGE BRIXHAMBRIXHAMBRIXHAM DARTMOUTHDARTMOUTH DARTMOUTHDARTMOUTH n

KINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGE n

Key Population Areas UA Boundary Motorways Plymouth and Torbay UA Boundaries Other Main Roads National Park Boundary Railways

Key to Unitary Authorities (UAs) 1 Devon 2 Plymouth 3 Torbay 40 Map B2: A two unitary pattern for Devon

B n

ILFRACOMBEILFRACOMBEILFRACOMBE

E X M O O R N A T I O N A L P A R K

n BARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLEBARNSTAPLE

n BIDEFORDBIDEFORDBIDEFORD

n GREATGREAT TORRINGTONTORRINGTONTORRINGTON

TIVERTONTIVERTONTIVERTON n

HOLSWORTHYHOLSWORTHY 555 n MMM CREDITONCREDITON HONITONHONITON n AXMINSTERAXMINSTERAXMINSTER n n OKEHAMPTONOKEHAMPTON OKEHAMPTONOKEHAMPTON n n EXETEREXETEREXETER 22 11 n SIDMOUTHSIDMOUTHSIDMOUTH

TORQUAYTORQUAYTORQUAY n

n n PAIGNTONPAIGNTONPAIGNTON 44 33 TOTNESTOTNESTOTNES PLYMOUTHPLYMOUTHPLYMOUTH n n IVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGE n IVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGEIVYBRIDGE BRIXHAMBRIXHAMBRIXHAM DARTMOUTHDARTMOUTH DARTMOUTHDARTMOUTH n

KINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGE KINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGEKINGSBRIDGEn

Key Population Areas UA Boundary Motorways Plymouth and Torbay UA Boundaries Other Main Roads National Park Boundary Railways

© Crown Copyright 2008 Key to Unitary Authorities (UAs) 1 Devon 2 Exeter and Exmouth 3 Plymouth 4 Torbay 41 The Boundary Committee Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Tel 020 7271 0500 Fax 020 7271 0505 [email protected] www.boundarycommittee.org.uk