AUDIT COMMITTEE ELECTIONS REFERENCE GROUP 18 February 2013 Held at Room 002, Elizabeth House, Stratford-upon-Avon Meeting commenced: 9.30 a.m. Meeting ended: 11.00 a.m. MINUTES Present: Councillor Philip Seccombe (Chairman), Councillors I Fradgley, C Saint, H Wright and R Wright 10. Disclosures of Interests Councillor P Seccombe declared a Personal Interest as his wife was a Ward Member for Loxley and Alderminster. Councillor I Fradgley declared a Personal Interest as a Stratford-upon-Avon Town Councillor. Councillor H Wright declared a Personal Interest as Ward Member for Studley. Councillor R Wright declared a Personal Interest as Ward Member for Wellesbourne. 11. Minutes The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2012 were confirmed and signed. 12. Community Governance Review The Group considered a report from the Democratic Services Manager attached to these Minutes and made the following comments. Name change Wellesbourne Parish Council : proposal to change its name to Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council – this request was supported; Change in Council size 1. Beaudesert & Henley-in-Arden JPC suggested by Henley Independents : requested an extra councillor if boundary changes are accepted – this request was not supported (see paragraph 14); 2. Long Compton : requested an increase from six to eight councillors – this request was supported; 3. Loxley : requested an increase from five to six or seven depending on boundary move – this request was supported in part with an increase to six councillors; 4. Napton-on-the-Hill : requested an increase six to eight councillors – this request was supported but further information requested to confirm the number; 5. Priors Marston : requested a reduction from six to five councillors – this request was not supported; 6. Salford Priors : requested an increase from seven to nine councillors - this request was supported; 7. Wilmcote : requested an increase from seven to eight councillors - this request was supported. Boundary Changes 8. Binton : recommended that Binton Parish Council be invited to speak at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 9. Dorsington : this submission was not supported; 10. Exhall : this submission was not supported ; 11. Loxley : this submission was not supported; 12. Quinton : Understood there was a need for change but recommended that this submission be investigated at a later review; 13. Alcester : a. Arrow- this submission was supported; b. Oversley Wood - this submission was supported; and c. Kinwarton – further information required; The Group requested that Arrow, Kinwarton and Alcester be invited to make any further submissions at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 14. Beaudesert and Henley : the part of the submission made by both parties involving Ullenhall was not supported. It was recommended that Beaudesert and Henley-in-Arden Joint Parish Council, Henley Independents and the Ward Members, Councillors Matheou and Thirlwell, be invited to make comment. A slight preference for the Joint Parish Council submission was made. 15. Old Stratford and Drayton : a. Luddington – this submission was supported; b. Wilmcote – this submission was supported as amended by Wilmcote Parish Council; and c. Snitterfield - Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council Town Council and Snitterfield Parish Council to be invited to speak at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 16. Preston-on-Stour : this submission was not supported; 17. Coughton : was thought to be a reasonable submission; Sambourne and Coughton Parish Councils to be asked to provide any extra information and be invited to provide further information at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 18. Studley : the submissions were not supported but Studley Parish Council, Mappleborough Green Parish Council and Sambourne Parish Council to be invited to speak at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 19. Welford - this submission was supported. RECOMMENDED (1) That the comments in the pre-amble to this Minute be forwarded to the next meeting of the Audit Committee for its consideration and (2) That where councils and councillors were invited to speak, that a three minute time limit be imposed. 13. Future meetings Councillor Philip Seccombe, as Chairman of the Audit Committee, moved that the next meeting of the Audit Committee scheduled for 25 March 2013 should commence at 4.00 p.m. with the item on the Community Governance Review to start at 6.00 p.m. CHAIRMAN This page has been left intentionally blank Minute Item 12 Elections Reference Group 18 February 2013 Subject: Community Governance Review 2012/13 Lead Officer: Darren Whitney Contact on 01789 260210 Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor P Seccombe Summary The Group are being asked to forward comments to Audit Committee or to ask officers for further information on the proposals which have been consulted on. 1 Background/Information 1.1 At its meeting on 17 October 2011, the Council agreed to carry out a Community Governance Review (CGR) under the terms of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 starting at sometime in 2012/13. 1.2 A Terms of Reference document was drawn up and published on 23 July. The press, parishes, the County Council and District and County Councillors were informed and submissions were asked for to be received at the District Council no later than 12 September 2012. 1.3 All parishes were given notices and posters to display advertising the Review. 1.4 It was noted that this was not an ideal time to start the Review due to many parish councils not meeting during the summer. However, there had been a delay in employing a Parish Review Officer and there was a keenness to start the CGR as the District Council had made an application to the Local Boundary Commission for England to have its own Wards considered, and the CGR needed to be completed before this started. 1.5 The District Council did not initiate any changes (although individual District Councillors could make submissions) but must ultimately decide on any conflicting proposals. 1.6 The LGBCE initially rejected the District Council’s request for a Further Electoral Review (FER) but has since had a Council drop out of its programme so SDC has now been added at an earlier time than that envisaged by the Council. Consequently, this means there is a tighter timetable to complete the CGR, which now must be completed by May 2013. 1.7 All submissions included here were considered by the Electoral Reference Group which met on 24 September and were considered valid to go to the Audit Committee. Page 1 1.8 The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (LGPIH) 2007 devolved the power to take decisions relating to the creation and abolition of parishes, the boundaries of parishes and the electoral arrangements of parish councils from the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission to principal councils. With effect from February 2008, district councils have had the responsibility for undertaking Community Governance Reviews and have been able to decide whether to give effect to recommendations made in those Reviews. In making that decision, councils need to take account of the views of local people and are required to have regard to guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Members need to consider each submission on its merits in relation to the particular circumstances in the parish and not attempt to find an apparently consistent approach to all parishes. 1.8.1 There were 61 submissions received at the first stage from Parish Clerks, Meetings or Chairs. 1.8.2 Five submissions were made from other parties – not including Henley and Beaudesert where an online magazine asked electors to complete a short form and submit it to the District Council; 28 of these were received. 1.8.3 From those received, 39 submissions were for no change. 1.8.4 Audit Committee decided to proceed with consultation on all submissions apart from boundary changes in Priors Marston and Shotteswell. 1.8.5 There was a consultation period until 7 February 2013 published by Parishes. Directly affected residents where a boundary change may happen were written to for their views. 2 Matters for Consideration 2.1 Name Change 2.2 Wellesbourne Parish Council proposes to change its name to Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council. Originally two of the District Councillors were happy with recommendation and the other had no view regarding it. Wellesbourne re-iterated their comment but no further comments have been made. 2.3 Change in Council Size 2.4 The Government’s guidance is that “each area should be considered on its own merits, having regard to its population, geography and the pattern of communities,” and therefore the Council is prepared to pay particular attention to existing levels of representation, the broad pattern of existing council sizes which have stood the test of time and the take- up of seats at elections in its consideration of this matter. 2.5 The number of parish/town councillors for each council must be not less than five but can be greater. However, each parish grouped under a common parish council must have at least one parish councillor. The Aston Business School found the following levels of representation to the good running of a council: Electors Councillors Page 2 Less than 500 5-8 501-2,500 6-12 2,501-10,000 9-16 10,001-20,000 13-27 More than 20,000 13-31 2.6 On saying this, the National Association of Local Councils suggests the minimum number of councillors be seven and the maximum be twenty- five. 2.7 Henley Independents have requested an extra councillor if boundary changes are accepted. 2.8 Long Compton: increase from 6 to 8 councillors. Long Compton generally fills it seats and last had an election in 2000.