Meeting documents

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2019 (attached).

          RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting of the Regulatory & Appeals Committee held on 13 May 2019 be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any disclosure of disclosable pecuniary interests by Members relating to items on the agenda.  If any Member is uncertain as to whether an interest should be disclosed, he or she is asked if possible to contact the District Solicitor prior to the meeting.

Members are reminded that if they are declaring an interest, they should state the nature of that interest whether or not they are required to withdraw from the meeting. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Members received a report on the Community Governance Review and noted that the bulk of the report had already been reviewed by the committee at a previous meeting. Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Regulatory & Appeals Committee was scheduled for 7 October, but because of the consultation was not due to end until 30 September, it was proposed to postpone the meeting until the end of October or early November to enable officer’s to incorporate the results to bring before the committee.

The Chairman of the Community & Governance Review reported changes since the last meeting and reported that the LGRC conducted a fact finding review to address the four questions posed in the terms of reference which were raised by the four petitions submitted to council. The report also addressed the issue of the Mayoralty and Charter Trustees.

Table 1 showed the population and voter numbers for each District Ward of High Wycombe, the unparished area. It showed Totteridge rated as 5th, Sands rated as 6th and Micklefield rated as 8th of the ten wards, both in population and voter numbers.

Table 2 showed the town wards in order of increasing deprivation. Nothing in table showed that any of the wards stood out as significantly different.

Table 3 showed the age distribution across the population of each ward. None of the three petitioning wards stood out, with the exception of Totteridge which had the lowest percentage of 18 - 29 year olds. The differences between the ten wards were not significant.

Table 4 showed the ethnic diversity where the three petitioning wards occupied the 5^th and 6^th places.

From the demographics set out in tables 1 to 4 there was nothing that made any of the petitioning wards stand out as different from the rest of the unparished area.

Table 5 showed the precept raised, by ward, including the Special Expenses portion of WDC Council Tax and the Charter Trustee charge. If the average charge, shown in paragraph 3.9 of the report, of £47.95 for a band D property a calculation was made that a total of £1.112 million would be raised.

The matter of the mayoralty was addressed and if:

a)     there was a parishing of the whole of the unparished area the Charter Trustees and Mayoralty would cease to exist and their property, customs and usages would be transferred to the new council. That council could adopt the title of Mayor for their chairman and continue with the customs and usages currently in place.

or

b)     if there was no or only a partial parishing of the unparished area then the Mayoralty would continue.

The recommendations at the end of the LGRC report had been properly argued and should be accepted as the basis of the consultation.

The following documents were reviewed by the working group and had been agreed as the basis of the public consultation:

·         Options for High Wycombe Local Governance, an information sheet.

·         Consultation Questionnaire which forms one of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.