Meeting documents
Venue: Council Chamber, King George V House, King George V Road, Amersham
Contact: Mathew Bloxham 01494 732143; email: democraticservices@chiltern.gov.uk
Note: Extraordinary
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: Councillors
I Darby and P E C Martin declared a personal interest in item 4: Implementation
of the New District Unitary Council being Members of Buckinghamshire County
Council. |
|
Implementation of the New District Unitary Council PDF 113 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: On
1 November 2018, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local
Government (MHCLG), James Brokenshire, announced a
decision in favour of a single new District Unitary Council, for the whole of
the current administrative area of Buckinghamshire County Council, in a Written
Ministerial Statement (WMS). The new authority would be implemented on 1st
April 2020 and elections to the Council would take place on 7th May 2020. The
statement included some matters already decided and others which he intended to
consult on before reaching a decision. The
report sought approval to the process for agreeing the wording of
representations to be made in response to the WMS. It also sought to ensure that sufficient resources
were available to enable the authority to respond to the requirements of the
proposed Structural Change Orders, which would set out how the new Council
would be created, and to support transition within the Council. The
Leader, whilst presenting the report, proposed that the recommendations in the
report be agreed, subject to the words “other District Leaders†being inserted
after the word “Leader†in recommendation 2. This was seconded by Councillor
Stannard. The
Leader then reflected on the background to the WMS. Reference was made to the
previous Pathfinder project involving sharing services across the Districts and
County Council; the Secretary of State’s “minded to†decision announced in
Parliament on 12 March 2018; and the snap General Election held on 8 June
2017. Whilst
it was sad that the Council would no longer exist from 1 April 2020 this also
provided a fantastic opportunity to build a new Unitary District Council. It
was therefore important to make sure that the new Council was the very best
that it can be. The
timescales for its implementation, set out by the MHCLG, were very short. The
draft Orders were based largely on those from the Dorset local government
reorganisation. The draft Orders were due to be laid in Parliament on 14
January 2019 which meant that the final content needed to be agreed in early
December, and representations from Councils on the detail of those draft Orders
were required by 30 November 2018, at the latest. As a result there had been
many discussions between Council Leaders over the past few weeks on the detail
of the proposed Orders. There was already agreement on some areas, but not all,
and the aim was to reach agreement on all areas, if possible. The Districts all
had Council meetings scheduled to consider making submissions to the Secretary
of State before 30 November 2018. Councillor
P Jones, whilst supporting the Leader’s comments, added that it was important
to implement the new Council swiftly. Members
were then asked for their views on specific items in the proposed Orders which
were considered in turn. The
first proposal considered was the District and Parish Council elections, due to
be held on 2 May 2019, being postponed to 7 May 2020, to avoid a term of office
of only 1 year. Members were in agreement on this proposal. The
Secretary of State suggested in the WMS that there could be 3 Members per
Electoral Division (totalling 147 Members), rather than the 2 Members per
Electoral Division (totalling 98 Members) proposed by the County Council.
Members discussed the size (number of Councillors) of the new District Unitary
Council, and during which the following points were made: ·
That
democratic representation was an important issue, and a democratic deficit
should be avoided by ensuring that there were sufficient Members to represent
residents. ·
That
fact that the Secretary of State had included the suggestion of 147 Members in
his WMS was significant in that it suggested he agreed that 98 Members would
result in a democratic deficit. ·
It
would take time for Councillors to build knowledge required for the new
authority therefore 147 Members would be a more appropriate number of
Councillors to start with. Council size could then be reviewed during the first
term of the new authority. ·
The
large size and rural nature of Buckinghamshire meant that 147 Councillors were
required in order to ensure there was sufficient capacity to meet the workload
from residents’ casework. Currently there were 236 Councillors (34 being twin
hatters) from 5 different Councils carrying out this work. ·
An
example was given where the Little Missenden District Ward was split between
two County Wards (Great Missenden and Chiltern Ridges). There were currently 11
Members representing the District and County across both County Wards. Some
District Wards also covered a very large geographical area for example Cholesbury, The Lee and Bellingdon.
The proposal for 2 Members to cover each County Ward was therefore considered
too few. ·
The
proposal of 147 Councillors already represented a significant reduction from
the existing 236 Members (34 being twin hatters) across the 5 authorities,
particularly when the number of residents and demand for services would not
reduce. ·
A
Member, supporting a preference for 98 Members, highlighted that the BCC
business case for a single unitary Council was based on 98 Members, and felt
that 147 Members would result in a large number of Members who were not Cabinet
Members or Committee Chairmen which raised the question of what those Members
would do. ·
The
County Council’s proposal suggested that the new Council would have daytime
meetings. It was felt that this would make it very difficult for working people
to attend meetings thereby restricting who could stand as a Councillor. It was
felt that there needed to be more of a vision setting out how the new Council
would operate in practice, and what it would mean for residents. It was
emphasised that this was an opportunity to do things differently. In
spring 2019 a Shadow Authority would be set up comprising of all District and
County Councillors to carry out transition powers. A smaller Shadow Executive
would be responsible for making day to day transition decisions. The representation of each Council on the Shadow
Executive would be set out in the draft Orders, and the view of the District
Leaders was that there should be equal representation on the Shadow Executive
from each of the 5 Councils. Members were in agreement on this proposal. Members
were then asked for their views on the process for electing a Leader of the
Shadow Executive. This could be decided by the Shadow Executive, the Shadow
Authority, or the Secretary of State could specify the Leader in the draft
Orders. Some Members felt that the Shadow Authority should elect the Leader as
this was considered more democratic because all Councillors would have a say on
this issue. This also reflected the arrangement for electing the Leader at the
existing Councils. There was a suggestion that candidates should present their
vision for the new Council to all Members. Another Member felt that the Leader
should be elected by the Shadow Executive as this reflected the principle that
a Committee elects its own Chairman. This also avoided a dispute on whether
“twin hatted†Members, who were both a District and County Councillor, should
have two votes on the Shadow Authority. The
Leader advised that there were 34 twin hatted Members, and Members’ views were
sought on whether those Members should be entitled to 1 or 2 votes on the
Shadow Authority. A number of Members felt that twin hatted Members should be
entitled to two votes since they were elected to represent residents in both of
their roles. Having only one vote would result in only half of their residents
being represented. Having two votes was therefore considered to be more
representative. A number of other Members felt that one vote per Member was
preferable. There was a suggestion that twin hatted
Members should be asked to choose which Council they were representing on the
Shadow Authority and therefore only have one vote. There
was a discussion on the name of the new Council. The proposals were “Bucks
Council†or “Buckinghamshire Councilâ€, with District Leaders giving a
preference for Bucks Council, since the new District Council was not
co-terminus with the original Shire County, which includes Milton Keynes.
During the discussion there was a preference expressed by some Members to
retain the word District to reflect the new District Unitary Council that would
be created - there would be no continuing authority. Other Members preferred
the name Buckinghamshire Council which reflected the historic name of the area.
A suggestion was also made that the name could be “The Council for Buckinghamshireâ€.
Members
were thanked for their comments, which would be taken into account when
formulating the representations in response to the WMS, and following which it
was RESOLVED: 1.        That the wording of
the representations to be made in response to the Written Ministerial Statement
and the proposed content of the Structural Change Orders on single tier
arrangements for Buckinghamshire be delegated to the Chief Executive in
consultation with the Cabinet Leader. 2.        That it be noted
that the Leader will continue to take part in discussions with the County
Leader, other District Leaders, Ministers and other parties with a view to
taking forward the implementation provided that where decisions are required from
this authority these will be made in accordance with existing governance
requirements. 3.        That a provisional
budget be set aside in 2019/20 for the delivery of the implementation to
include the proportion of the costs of the Shadow Authority as may be required,
project management resource and provision for potential redundancy costs in
2019/20 that may fall directly to Chiltern District Council subject to a review
at year end by the Director of Resources in consultation with the Portfolio
Holder for Support Services. Note: Councillors C Ford, D Varley
and N Varley entered the meeting at 6.04 pm. Councillors H Wallace, C Rouse, C
Jones, J Cook and V Martin entered the meeting at 6.10pm, 6.20pm, 6.22pm,
6.27pm and 6.28pm, respectively. |