Agenda item

Community Governance Review for Willingham and Over (Civic Affairs Committee, 4 January 2018)

 

The Civic Affairs Committee

 

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

 

That Council agrees to

 

(a)  agree the alternative boundary, as shown on the green line in the attached map (Appendix L), less the red cross hatched area, and

 

(b)  make a request to the LGBCE to re-align the County Council boundary along the new parish boundary.

 

Report Attached.

Decision:

Following amendment of the original recommendation of the Civic Affairs Committee, Council AGREED:

 

(1)  To agree the alternative boundary, as shown on the green line, less the red cross hatched area, in the newly circulated map marked L1; and

 

(2)  To make a request to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) to re-align the County Council boundary along the new parish boundary.

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor David McCraith, Chairman of the Civic Affairs Committee, presented a report which invited the Council to consider the recommendations of the Committee, at its meeting held on 4 January 2018, regarding the Community Governance Review for Willingham and Over.

 

In so doing, he reminded Members that the Council had received a petition signed by local residents and businesses to carry out a Community Governance Review of the Willingham and Over boundary.  The terms of reference for the review had been published and public consultation undertaken. The Civic Affairs Committee had initially considered the options at its meeting held on 28 September 2017 and had agreed to recommend no change to the boundary for the reasons set out in the report before Council.  Subsequently, as a result of a third party challenge and legal advice received, the decision had been taken by officers to refer the matter back to the Civic Affairs Committee for re-consideration.  The Civic Affairs Committee, at its meeting held on 7 December 2017, had reconsidered the options in relation to the Community Governance Review.  The unanimous decision had been to defer consideration to allow the two parish councils time to discuss and resolve the matter locally.  On reconvening on 4 January 2018, the Civic Affairs Committee had been advised that the two parish councils had been unable to reach agreement.  Having considered all the options available and the need to secure that community governance in the area under review reflected “the identities and interests of the community in that area” and was “effective and convenient”, the Committee had agreed the recommendation as set out in item 9(b) of the agenda.  The draft minutes of the meeting held on 4 January 2018 had also been attached at Appendix M to that report.

 

CouncillorMcCraith accordingly moved the following recommendations of the Civic Affairs Committee:-

 

“That the Council agrees to

 

(a)  Agree the alternative boundary, as shown on the green line in the attached map (Appendix L), less the red cross hatched area, and

(b)  Make a request to the LGBCE to re-align the County Council boundary along the new parish boundary.”

 

Councillor Charles Nightingale seconded the proposition.

 

Councillor Peter Topping proposed an amendment as follows:-

 

“That recommendation (a) be amended to delete the words “in the attached map (Appendix L)” and to insert the following words after “area” “in the newly circulated map marked L1”; and so that (a) reads:

 

(a)  Agree the alternative boundary, as shown on the green line, less the red crossed hatched area, in the newly circulated map marked L1; and

 

Recommendation (b) to remain as set out in the original recommendation.”

 

Councillor Topping outlined his reasoning for proposing the amendment, noting that it was intended to tighten the boundary and reduce the amount of land which would move from Over to Willingham with the aim of achieving a fair compromise in respect of a subject which had been subject of much debate over the last year.

 

Councillor David Bard seconded the proposition. In so doing he expressed the view that the revised boundary was defensible given that it was clearly identifiable.  With respect to arguments put forward that this was a 400 year old boundary, he noted that the Boundary Commission’s guidance was clear that community governance should reflect the interests of the existing community.

 

In response to a request by Members for greater clarity about the area proposed to be transferred, a copy of revised map L1 referred to in the amendment was displayed at the meeting and the Head of Sustainable Communities and Wellbeing explained the impact of the amendment, noting, in particular, that the dotted green line in the original map L had been moved up and the resultant red hatched area would remain in Over and not move to Willingham.

 

A point of order was raised by Councillor Kindersley which sought to establish whether the local Ward Members and parish councils had been reconsulted on the proposed revision to the boundary and whether it was lawful to proceed with a proposal that had not been subject to consultation.  In response, the Deputy Head of Legal Practice drew Members’ attention to paragraph 42 of the report which explained the options Members could take with regard to the recommendation put forward by the Civic Affairs Committee, including at option (d), changing the boundary as per an alternative boundary agreed by the Council.  He further explained that there was no requirement either in the Act or in the guidance to undertake further consultation.  Given that the public had already been consulted on the first proposed new boundary and second proposed new boundary, as denoted by the green and blue lines respectively, it could be considered reasonable to proceed without further consultation if the Council was minded to approve the amendment at this meeting. 

 

Councillor Roberts challenged the legality of proceeding with the proposal to amend the boundary without further public consultation, given that the terms of reference for the Community Governance Review had only provided for public consultation on the first and second proposed boundaries.  In response, the Deputy Head of Legal Practice advised that the only requirement for the terms of reference under section 81 of Act was to specify the area under review. This had been done by provision of a plan showing two proposed boundaries for consideration. The Council had complete liberty to set the procedure for the Community Governance Review.  At its conclusion the Council could decide to make no change, adopt one of the proposed suggestions or propose an alternative. There was no requirement in the Act or the guidance for further consultation if it took the latter course. In current circumstances, given that the alternative being recommended by the Civic Affairs Committee was a slight variation from the existing proposals, it was not considered that such a consultation would be either necessary or proportionate. It was not considered that this would represent either a breach of the terms of reference or render any final decision taken ultra vires.

 

As a further amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Kindersley and seconded by Councillor Bridget Smith:

 

“ that further consideration be deferred to allow public consultation upon the revised boundary.”

 

The Chairman indicated his intention to deal with the first amendment before proceeding to that put forward by Councillor Kindersley.

 

Members speaking in favour of the amendment put by Councillor Topping raised points including the following:

 

  • Councillor Manning, a Ward Member, emphasised that it was important to remember that local people and businesses had raised the petition, not the Parish Council.  He believed that residents and businesses in the area had greater affinity and connection with Willingham than Over. Moreover, the new boundary proposed in the revised plan was easily identifiable and therefore consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LBGCE) guidance.  He also believed that Willingham Parish Council would be supportive of the revised boundary.
  • Councillor Corney, a Ward Member, pointed out that both parishes were aware of the options and, noting that local businesses had been party to the petition, urged that the Council should now proceed to make a decision in the interests of local businesses. She further noted that the proposal to move the boundary had been subject to consideration and review for a considerable time and urged the Council not to delay making a decision any longer.
  • Councillor Riley commented that the law was clear that the Council needed to take into account representation received in respect of the review.  Out of 18 responses from affected persons, 14 (78%) had supported moving the parish boundary. Of 244 responses from members of the public overall, 67% of respondents supported moving the boundary. He further observed that the red hatched area was unpopulated agricultural land and therefore no residents were affected.
  • Councillor Topping commented that the amendment represented a fair compromise and it was important that the Council had regard to the fact that 91% of Willingham residents and 58% of Over residents responding to the consultation had supported moving the parish boundary. He further noted that no evidence had been presented to indicate that the public consultation was flawed.

 

Members speaking against the amendment raised points including the following:

 

  • Councillor Kindersley suggested that there appeared to be some doubt as to whether the residents affected did support the boundary change, based on comments reported by Councillor Burling, a Ward Member, at the Civic Affairs Committee. He believed that the Council should reconsult with the public and parish councils on the revised boundary now proposed.
  • Councillor Roberts argued that, notwithstanding the earlier legal advice, the Council should reconsult on the proposed boundary as this did not represent the proposals in the terms of reference.
  • Councillor Hawkins commented that the difficulty experienced by businesses in receiving deliveries had been cited as a reason driving the request for the boundary review and yet similar boundary anomalies existed in other parishes, for example in Toft, and did not appear to impact on deliveries.
  • Councillor Williams suggested that whilst councillors had argued that the area of land involved was small he understood that it was outside the village envelope and green belt and expressed the view that if the boundary changed it would become a valuable piece of land with planning potential
  • Councillor Bridget Smith was concerned at the apparently low rate of response to the public consultation and was of the view that there was a need for improved community consultation. She further commented that it was not likely that Over would accept the revised boundary and further consultation to obtain the views of both parishes and the public should therefore be undertaken
  • Councillor Burling, a Ward Member, reminded the Council of the various steps in determining the Community Governance Review, highlighting that initially the Civic Affairs Committee had recommended no change to the boundary. He was concerned at the reasons which he believed may have influenced the change of decision which he explained at the meeting. Moreover he felt that Councillors should have due regard to the 400 year boundary and preserving the associated heritage.

 

Upon the amendment being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows:

 

In favour (28):

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Ruth Betson, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Des O’Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Edd Stonham, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

 

Against (19)

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Nigel Cathcart, Doug Cattermole, Andrew Fraser, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Cicely Murfitt, Deborah Roberts, Tim Scott, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Abstain (0)

 

The amendment was declared carried.

 

(Note: Councillors Burling and Manning, having each declared an interest and a dispensation to participate in discussion but not voting, withdrew from the meeting during the above vote)

 

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley moved his further amendment, of which notice had been given earlier, as follows:

 

“That further consideration be deferred to allow public consultation upon the revised boundary”

 

In so doing, Councillor Kindersley expressed the view that just because there was not a legal requirement to reconsult, that did not mean the Council should not reconsult on the revised boundaries. Noting that an equivalent proposal had been rejected by the majority of Members of the Civic Affairs Committee, the reason for the change of position in relation to the proposed boundary was questioned. 

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Bridget Smith who argued in favour of reconsulting with the public and parishes upon the revised proposal.  Whilst not legally required to do so, she considered that this represented best practice.  She felt that the response rate to the public consultation had been extremely poor and suggested that perhaps a more a tailor made consultation should take place upon the revised boundary now proposed.

 

During the ensuing debate upon the amendment, those speaking in favour raised points including the following:

 

  • Councillor Burling, a Ward Member, referred to his reservations about the validity of the survey results, noting, in particular, that more elderly residents might be less likely to engage in responses to email consultations. He therefore argued that the proposed revised boundary should be subject to a fresh round of public consultation.  He also challenged the assertion that most of the residents affected wished to be part of Willingham and noted that this did not reflect his own conversations with residents.
  • Councillor Roberts argued that It would be best practice and in the interests of transparency to consult on the proposed boundary.  The results could then be reported back to the meeting of the Council in February.
  • Councillor John Batchelor pointed out that there appeared to be confusion as to the voting numbers reflected in the minutes of the meeting of the Civic Affairs Committee since only 9 voting members were recorded as present at the meeting.  In response, it was noted that Councillor Bard’s name had been omitted from the list of those present.
  • Councillor Hales sought confirmation that there was no legal restriction preventing the Council from reconsulting on the options.  The Deputy Head of Legal Practice confirmed this to be the case but also restated that the Council was not legally required to do so.

 

Those speaking against the amendment raised points including the following:

 

  • Councillor O’Brien suggested that residents supported the boundary change because of their sense of place and greater affinity with Willingham.  The Council should have regard to the results of the public consultation.
  • Councillor Manning, a Ward Member, repeated the view that the people in the area affected wished to be part of Willingham.  If the Council agreed the boundary change at this meeting, the necessary amendments could be made in time for the May 2018 elections.
  • Councillor Corney, a Ward Member, urged the Council to make a decision noting that the boundary review impacted on only a small number of people.  The apparently low response to the public consultation appeared to indicate that there was not significant public opposition to the proposal from the residents of Over.
  • Councillor Edwards observed that when an equivalent amendment had been proposed during the debate at the Civic Affairs Committee on 4 January 2018, it had not also been recommended that further public consultation should take place on the revised boundary proposed.
  • Councillor Riley commented that the law did not require the Local Authority to obtain the consent of the parish councils but it must take into account the representations received in response to consultation.
  • Councillor Topping pointed out that it had already been demonstrated that there was little likelihood that the parish councils would agree on a local resolution.

 

Upon the amendment being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows:

 

In favour (17):

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Nigel Cathcart, Doug Cattermole, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Cicely Murfitt, Deborah Roberts, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Against (28)

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Ruth Betson, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Des O’Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Edd Stonham, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

 

Abstain (1)

 

Councillor Tim Scott

 

The amendment was declared lost.

 

(Note: Councillors Burling and Manning, having each declared an interest and a dispensation to participate in discussion but not voting, withdrew from the meeting during the above vote)

 

The Council then proceeded to debate the substantive motion during which:

 

  • Members opposing the motion made further representations in favour of consulting upon the revised boundary.
  • Councillor Burling, a Ward Member, expressed the view that Over would not support the revised boundary and spoke in favour of preserving the status quo and leaving the parish boundary unaltered.
  • Members supporting the motion argued that the Council should have regard to the results of the public consultation and should not further delay making a decision.

 

Upon the substantive motion being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows:

 

In favour (29):

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Ruth Betson, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Des O’Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Edd Stonham, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

 

Against (18)

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Nigel Cathcart, Doug Cattermole, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Cicely Murfitt, Deborah Roberts, Tim Scott, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Abstain (0)

 

The substantive motion was declared carried.

 

(Note: Councillors Burling and Manning, having each declared an interest and a dispensation to participate in discussion but not voting, withdrew from the meeting during the above vote)

 

The Chairman then moved recommendation 2(b), which was duly seconded, as follows:

 

“That Council make a request to the Local Boundary Commission for England to re-align the County Council boundary along the new parish boundary.”

 

Upon being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows:

 

In favour (31):

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Ruth Betson, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Des O’Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Edd Stonham, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, Tim Wotherspoon, Nick Wright.

 

Against (15)

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Nigel Cathcart, Doug Cattermole, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Cicely Murfitt, Deborah Roberts, Tim Scott, Bridget Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer, John Williams.

 

Abstain (1)

 

Councillor Hazel Smith

 

The motion was declared carried.

 

(Note: Councillors Burling and Manning, having each declared an interest and a dispensation to participate in discussion but not voting, withdrew from the meeting during the above vote)

 

It was accordingly:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Council:-

 

1.    Agree the alternative boundary, as shown on the green line, less the red cross hatched area, in the newly circulated map marked L1; and

 

2.    Make a request to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to re-align the County Council boundary along the new parish boundary.

Supporting documents: