Agenda item

To consider the report.

Contact Officer:  Glenn Watson

Community Governance Reviews were carried out to determine the direction for governance in a local area. They could be carried out by a local authority periodically or as a result of local petitions, as was the case in 2019 when a Review was carried out by the legacy Wycombe District Council. That Review proposed a number of options for consideration, including the establishment of a new High Wycombe Town Council.

A final decision on the way forward was not made by the district council at that time. The decision was deferred as the new Buckinghamshire Council unitary authority was being set up and was established in April 2020. Buckinghamshire Council has not yet made a decision because, following the creation of the Council, an Electoral Review took place. Community Governance Reviews could not be carried out as the same time. The Electoral Review has now been completed and so community governance for Wycombe could now be considered. High Wycombe remained unparished.

The Service Director Legal and Democratic Services noted that the previous Review had assessed whether there was any support for establishing a council for the town of High Wycombe and parish councils for the communities of Micklefield, Sands or Totteridge. In January 2020, the final report was produced (Annex 1 to this report). The report was mindful of two imminent events: firstly, that local government reorganisation was about to occur with the abolition of the district council and the establishment of Buckinghamshire Council; and secondly that an electoral review of Buckinghamshire Council would then follow shortly after reorganisation. Both would have implications for local governance.

The recommendations were framed as three Options:

1) Establish new councils – for High Wycombe and perhaps for Micklefield, Sands or Totteridge, with no Reorganisation Order happening until the new Buckinghamshire Council was established;

2) Deferral of any decision until the new Council was in place, recognising that further consultation may then be necessary;

3) Take no action - because other means of effective and convenient local governance, reflective of community interests and identity, would be established through the new unitary council, its community boards and the local Town Committee, with a further CGR occurring following the electoral review

The publication of the recommendations effectively ended the formal CGR process (begun with the publication of the original Terms of Reference). Considering the recommendations in April 2020, the new Buckinghamshire Council deferred any decision until after the electoral review.

The Service Director of Legal and Democratic Services highlighted that the statutory requirement for a Community Governance Review was that a Review must reflect the identities and interest of the community in that area and be effective and convenient. The Standards and General Purposes Committee had two main options:

•     To agree to any of the proposals in the original Review carried out by Wycombe District Council, outlined in Annex 1 of the report.

•     To commission a new Review to ensure that any proposals could fulfil the statutory criteria.

If the committee voted to commission a new Review, it was suggested that a working group of this committee be set up to formulate a timeline for the Review (draft terms of reference were attached at Annex 2 of the report) which would include a public consultation, giving local residents and all interested parties the opportunity to comment.

The Chairman commented that a number of emails had been circulated to the Committee which included the views of Cllr M Smith who was unable to attend the meeting today, which supported different recommendations. He thanked residents for their engagement and commented that he maintained an open mind to those recommendations.

During discussion the following points were made by Members:-

• A Member commented that they had previously been a Member of the Wycombe District Council Working Group and of the Committee that had discussed the original CGR. There had been some concerns about the original report produced and some Members felt that the recommendations could have been more balanced. There had also been a low response to the consultation (1700 respondents out of a population of 75,000). He suggested that there should be a threshold to a consultation response of approximately 30% and that the Working Group should discuss and agree this. There were financial implications to having a Town Council, which residents should be made aware of and it was important that an informed decision should be taken. He therefore agreed that a new Review should be commissioned. The Service Director for Legal and Democratic reported that should a new Review be commissioned that it was currently proposed that the consultation should be undertaken by this Council. It would be for the Working Group to recommend the extent of the consultation.  
• Reference was made to the outcome of a CGR which must in law be effective and convenient. A Member asked for clarification regarding the word ‘convenient’. The Service Director reported that this word had not been tested in a legal context but related to the fact that it was convenient to the community. The community should not see it as a burden.
• Referring to the previous comments made by Members, a Member made a comparison to the low responses which were obtained during the budget consultation and he felt that this was a reflection of general community engagement. The responses to Totteridge, Sands and Micklefield as discrete areas were quite low. He had taken part in the preparation for the unitary councils which included talking to town and parish councils (including the unparished area) on what a future relationship would look like. This included a promise to have a Wycombe CGR with better arrangements and engagement. He considered that the previous report had sound principles and was not out of date. He expressed concern about the cost of another CGR and also another set of elections and that the information in the previous report should be utilised. The new review should be aligned with the 2025 elections. The Principal Governance Officer referred to the draft terms of reference (point 3) which said that the Working Group would look at a suggested timeline. The Service Director reported that it would be possible for the review to be completed by May 2025 if Members so wished. The Member expressed concern about having an election in May 2026 (as referred to as an example under point 5.3 of the report) and the cost to residents. 
• A Member commented that a new review should be undertaken as the landscape had changed with a new unitary authority and also with the electoral review. It was important that residents were engaged as far as possible and that any decision met the needs of the local population and provided good value for money. He also commented that the Council should run the consultation exercise. Several Members agreed with this approach.

On a vote being taken on the officer recommendations (proposed by Cllr Brazier and seconded by Cllr Mordue) it was unanimously RESOLVED that:-

1) the recommendations of the former Wycombe area Community Governance Review be not taken forward; and

2) a new Community Governance Review for the Wycombe area in the light of changed circumstances be undertaken; and

3) a Community Governance Working Group of this Committee chaired by its Chairman, be set up as set out in Annex 2 of the report, which will:

a) recommend draft Terms of Reference to this Committee for a new Community Governance Review for the Wycombe area; and

b) recommend a Consultation Plan that will fully engage community views once any Terms of Reference are adopted and are published by the Committee; and consequently

4) the recommended Terms of Reference from the Working Group be received in January 2024 with a view to commencing the statutory consultation in January/February 2024.