Meeting documents
Venue: Council Chamber, King George V House, King George V Road, Amersham
Contact: Mathew Bloxham 01494 732143; email: mbloxham@chiltern.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: Cllr Mark Shaw
declared a personal interest due to his role as a Buckinghamshire County
Councillor. |
|
Modernising Local Government in Buckinghamshire PDF 65 KB Minutes: The
Leader of the Council, Councillor I A Darby, presented the report which sought
agreement to make a submission to the Secretary of State under the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and Section 15 Cities and
Devolution Act 2016. The
Leader advised that the momentum for unitary government and the drive for change in local government has increased
in recent months and on 27 September 2016 Buckinghamshire County council made a
submission to the Secretary of State which proposed the creation of a unitary
Council to cover the existing administrative area of the County Council. The four District Councils in Buckinghamshire
were unconvinced that the County Council submission was in the best interest of
the people of Buckinghamshire, and therefore jointly commissioned a report from
Deloitte consultants to consider the range of options available for the future
of Buckinghamshire. Following publication of that report in October stakeholder engagement was undertaken and
feedback received from 146 key stakeholders including 79 town and parish
councils, 25 local businesses and business groups, 37 voluntary groups and 5
other public sector organisations. The
response from stakeholders indicated 73% in favour of a two or three unitary
model which would secure the best outcome for Buckinghamshire; against only 27%
in favour of a single unitary authority for the County. The
District Councils’ report had undertaken work towards a Strategic Options Case
to help make an informed decision. Based
on the Strategic Options report, as detailed in Appendix 2, the draft
submission at Appendix 3 proposed that the five Councils that currently operate
on a two tier basis should be abolished and replaced by a two unitary model of governance across the
whole of Buckinghamshire. C
Ford entered at 6.37pm It
was noted that there were significant differences between the north and south
of Buckinghamshire which needed to be reflected in local government structures
to ensure services were delivered to meet the needs of local residents and
communities whilst maximising the areas’ economic potential and delivering
long-term financial sustainability. H
Wallace entered at 6.40pm The
next steps were for the agreed proposal to be submitted to the Secretary of
State to consider whether Buckinghamshire should move to a unitary form of
governance and abolish the existing two tier arrangements. The Secretary of State had agreed to consider the four District Councils’ unitary
proposals as well as the County Council proposal before making a final decision
which was not likely before March 2017. Cllr
Darby proposed and Cllr Phillips seconded That: (i)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the Strategic options case at
Appendix 2 be endorsed; and (ii)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the submission prepared by the District Councils be
supported (iii)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Leader of the Council be given delegated authority to
make minor amendments and to make the submission on behalf of the Council to
the Secretary of State. Councillor
P Jones opposed the proposal for twoÂ
unitary councils in favour of a
single unitary option for Buckinghamshire for two main reasons; that one
Council for the County would provide increased clarity on where residents need
to go for services and that the one unitary option would result in higher
savings. He added that if a new council
was formed on the existing Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe boundaries it
should be called the Council of the Chiltern Hundreds. Councillor
D Lacey spoke in favour of the District Councils proposal for a two council
unitary option for the County based on the need to retain a strong working
relationship with local based councils that understood the needs and delivery
of services required for residents and local communities. Councillor
A Bacon supported Councillor P Jones in opposing the proposal for two unitary
councils in favour of one single unitary
council for the County as he was not convinced by the geographical arguments outlined in the
report and considered one single council would be a more effective governance
arrangement in terms of reducing costs. Councillor
Darby accepted her right to reply and summarised that the proposal was not just
in the interest of saving money but was to establish the best approach to
delivery of services to residents and local communities in Buckinghamshire. The
recommendation as proposed by Councillor Darby and seconded by Councillor
Phillips was put to the vote. The
recommendation was carried and it was RESOLVED: That: (i)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the Strategic options case at
Appendix 2 be endorsed; and (ii)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the submission prepared by the
District Councils be supported (iii)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Leader of the Council be given
delegated authority to make minor amendments and to make the submission on
behalf of the Council to the Secretary of State. |
|
Exclusion of the Public (if required) To resolve that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act. |