Agenda item

Contact Officer: Nick Graham/Glenn Watson

In August 2023, the Committee had agreed to undertake a Community Governance Review (CGR) of the unparished area of High Wycombe. In doing so, a cross-party Councillor Working Group of the Committee had been established to make recommendations on the scope of the review, the timeframe for it and the engagement plan for consulting upon it.

The Committee considered a report that explained the background to CGRs concerning parish governance arrangements, which included consideration of whether the existing governance arrangements in the unparished area of High Wycombe were sufficient or whether the whole of the High Wycombe area should formally be parished and a Town Council created.  It also explained the key criteria for a CGR.

The cross-party Working Group had met on four occasions between September-December 2023 to frame its recommendations.  Terms of Reference were required for every CGR which needed to set out what the Review would consider and the statutory and other considerations that applied. The Working Group’s recommended Terms of Reference were at Appendix 1 to the report.

The options put forward by the Working Group dealt squarely with the binary question of whether or not the unparished area of High Wycombe should be parished. It recommended that the two options for consultation should be:

(a)                whether the existing governance arrangements for the area of High Wycombe were sufficient or could be improved; OR

(b)               whether the currently unparished area of High Wycombe should be parished and so have a Town Council for the whole area.

The rationale for Options (a) and (b) were detailed in the report.  Appendix 2 set out the recommended timeline for the Review which following best practice would potentially include two consultations – one beginning in February 2024 (12 February to 7 April) on the Terms of Reference; and a second, if necessary, beginning in July 2024 on the Draft Recommendations arising from a consideration of the initial consultation responses.

The Council was conducting the Review under its discretionary power. As such it was not bound to a particular timeframe. However, best practice was that a Review should be concluded over a 12-month period beginning with the publication of the Terms of Reference and ending with the publication of Final Recommendations. The recommendation was that the Review should be concluded within 12 months.  Flexibility in the review timeframe might be needed if a General Election occurred during 2024 that could affect the timing of the second consultation.

Appendix 3 set out the proposed Consultation and Communications Plan for seeking local and stakeholder views. A copy of the proposed survey was included. The Council had to consult local electors in the unparished area together with any stakeholders the Council considers appropriate.  The Consultation and Communications Plan built on this and proposed a sustainable, inclusive and comprehensive consultation plan proposing a range of methods based on previous engagement in this area and the nature of the communities. Other formats and languages would be available on request. The methods would include a household postal survey (34,000 households) with free return and information booklet, an online survey, email or written responses, and multi-channel awareness raising including leaflets, roller banners, outdoor adverts and radio advertisements on several channels, as well as on social media.

During discussion the following points were made:-

·         In terms of the binary choice under purpose of the review, Members noted that the choice was to have the arrangements as they current were without the need to establish a new formal layer of governance or to set up a new layer of local government such as a Town Council. With the current arrangements, there was also the opportunity of doing things differently for example changing the Community Board or making changes to the Town Committee. The Working Group had wanted to make the options very clear to the public.

·         There was a typo in terms of the number of Councillors.

·         Representatives should be referred to as ‘democratic representatives’. There was a discussion that co-opted Parish Councillors were not elected and it was agreed that this statement was a more accurate reflection.

·         There was a concern regarding the wording ‘any other person or body who appears to have an interest in the review’ as this seemed to be ambigous as to who determined such relevance. In addition what checks were in place to stop lots of small organisations being set up to influence the review which could weigh the results of the survey. The Principal Governance Officer reported that the Authority had to consult those who appeared by the Council to have a stake or interest, so it was the Council’s choice on who met this criteria for consultation and the Working Group would consider how to weigh the evidence.

·         In terms of the key stakeholders in the Consultation and Communications Plan it was suggested that the list of political parties should include all parties (e.g. UKIP and Reform had not been included) or refer to parties generally.

·         With regard to the information booklet and current arrangements for paying for services a Member commented that there were no public halls in High Wycombe and that this was not a complete list. Under the services provided by a Town Council it was important to note that some of those services were currently provided by High Wycombe Bid Co which had not been mentioned in the information booklet, although they had been listed as a consultee. This Company should perhaps be mentioned so that the public were aware that these roles were still undertaken without a Town Council. Another Member commented on the ability of Town Councils to raise precepts to create community halls etc. He also commented that Town Councils varied across Buckinghamshire and had different population sizes and community assets and that Amersham Town Council was probably a better comparison than Princes Risborough. It was also important to compare urban and rural Town Councils. He emphasised the importance of being clear about Special Expenses and the transfer of assets from the Council to the Town Council should that option be decided.

·         With the introduction of the document a Member commented that it was important to draw residents in at the start to attract as many responses as possible. A Member of the public would be more interested in the pros and cons of each option rather than the detailed governance. The public should be really clear about what a Town Council could do for their local area and further examples should be provided (in addition to bullet points already provided) about what other Councils had done e.g. Marlow. Residents were currently unhappy about the town and how to regenerate it. The Principal Governance Officer reported that the wording of these documents had been tested on the public. In its drafting they had also been very careful to ensure that a balance of information had been provided for both options so it was not weighted in favour of one option.

·         A Member commented that because of its topography parts of Wycombe were not able to access digital radio and it would be useful also to advertise on other frequencies. The Head of Communications reported that the reason digital radio had been chosen was that it geo targeted advertising but they would endeavour to make sure other local FM radio stations also received the information. 

Members were in support of the recommendation and asked that the above points be considered. Following a vote (proposer Cllr Chapple and seconder Steven Lambert) it was

RESOLVED –

(1)               That the recommendations of the Community Governance Review Working Group be NOTED and the following be APPROVED:

(i)                 The draft Terms of Reference for the Review (Appendix 1).

(ii)               The draft timescale for the Review (Appendix 2).

(iii)             The draft consultation and communications plan for the Review (Appendix 3).

(2)               That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to formally commence the Review by publishing the approved Terms of Reference and to begin the consultation accordingly.