Agenda item

No written questions submitted.

Question – Councillor B Bendshye-Brown

Where will officer support for the Armed Forces Covenant Board and the 2 Armed Forces Champions sit as the current Tier 2 operational structure makes no provision for this support? I also make a plea that when this is resolved that there will be an additional manpower post provided to fulfil this task as the current Ceremonial team will not be able to absorb this task where there are currently 6 part time posts across the existing 5 Councils to meet this role.

Response

Officer support for the coordination of the Armed Forces Covenant will sit in the Deputy Chief Executive’s department. A number of officers have responsibilities in relation to ceremonial activities, promotion of events, liaison with partners, grant funding applications, and development and delivery of the action plan, and this capacity will continue to be provided to support the Covenant when the new council is established.  In addition, we anticipate that lead contract points will be identified in all council services. These contacts will work with the coordination officers to ensure that all council services actively support armed forces personnel and their families in the community. 

Question – Councillor R Stuchbury

Buckinghamshire Shadow Executive at its last meeting took a decision to agree the terms of reference for Community Boards. When the amendment to give town and parish councils the ability to both vote to elect a chairman and vote within those boards on spending priorities was not carried, this could be seen as a move towards centralism and away from localism. In doing this, it may well be judged as being in conflict with the intentions of the Secretary of State when the business criteria for Buckinghamshire Council becoming a single unitary authority was set out with the aim of achieving good working practices with local entities. 

By not using population density as the criteria in determining representation numbers, the largest centres of population such as Aylesbury, Buckingham and Wendover will only have the same level of representation as the smallest of the parishes. This will grossly distort representative equity and as a matter of calls for the earliest review. Once again this is conflict with the business case put to the Secretary of State and creates a significant democratic deficit.

This matter is true right across the Buckinghamshire Council area. The fact that High Wycombe doesn’t currently have a Town Council and the discussion on that was side-stepped without any authoritative direction during the meeting doesn’t preclude the urgent re-appraisal of the terms of reference for Unitary Boards.

Response

I would like to reassure you that we are very committed to the localism agenda. The Shadow Executive has highlighted the commitment to localism and the importance that we place on Buckinghamshire Council councillors working closely with local communities and partners.  The totality of offerings that the new council will have in terms of locality working is extensive. Examples include planning which will be done on a local basis; local elected members will be making decisions on local planning applications. This is absolutely right that they do so as they will know the areas and negates a central committee making those important local decisions.  

We are also rolling out community access points which will be mean more physical points of contact for residents where they can access the exact information they need in their localities. It is important residents have the information they need at their fingertips within an easy travel distance of where they live.

Another commitment to locality working is devolution which we know is something Town and Parish Councils are very interested in. A significant devolution offer has already been discussed; it will mean they can participate in the running of the new council area, to the extent that they wish to do so.  Community Boards will be the way in which the new unitary members will engage with communities and address local issues. This will be a forum for the community and are committed to doing this in partnership with town and parish representatives.  One of the things we have encouraged is should there be a particularly contentious issues there is an indicative vote at the discretion of the chairman so they can get a sounding from the meeting of the general views of all the representatives in the room.

In terms of the weighting of votes, it is important to recognise that the number of unitary councillors is determined by the populations of those areas, there will be more unitary councillors representing the bigger urban areas than there are representing the more sparsely populated rural areas. So there may only be one representative from, for example Buckingham Town Council, there will be representatives from the unitary council, potentially 6 for example for Buckingham who will also be there and able to vote. So Buckingham will be represented in proportion to its population via it unitary councillors on those organisations. We believe this is a massive commitment to localism and democracy.

Question – Councillor D Watson        

What is the impact by former district council area of the proposed 20/21 district council tax harmonisation in £K and for a band D payer? 

Response

The impact of harmonising council tax at the weighted average level for a band D payer (and prior to any council tax increase) is as follows:-

Aylesbury Vale = -£3.90

Chiltern = -£24.58

South Bucks = -£1.28

Wycombe = +£20.66

Question – Councillor K Ahmed 

Wycombe’s Mayoralty dates back nearly 800 years, ever since it has been preserved through a group of town ward councillors that effectively double up as Charter Trustees. It has been detailed in documents available to most of us that after 31 March 2020, the Charter Trustees will cease to exist under the current structure.

The role of Mayor of High Wycombe, together with the Charter Trustees, Town Clerk and Mayors Secretary roles will also be cease to exist too as a result. What contingency is being put into place to protect the history and continuance of the Mayoralty?

We need to protect Wycombe’s Mayoralty. I believe that this is can only be achieved through the formation of a town council at the same time as the new unitary council comes into effect from May 2020. 

A shadow team and key officers needs to be in place to protect the mayoralty and start delivering the necessary infrastructures and resources. Can this be put in place now?

Response

I can reassure you that the Mayoralty is not at risk.  The Charter Trustees are a separate legal entity created on the demise of the old High Wycombe Municipal Borough Council which was abolished with 1974 local government reorganisation.  The new larger council, Wycombe District Council (which also included the Rural Districts of Marlow and Wycombe) has a different area and therefore could not have those responsibilities and so the Charter Trustees were established for the area of the old Municipal Borough.  If a parish or town council with the same areas as the municipal borough is created the responsibilities would transfer to the new parish or town council with the same boundaries as the old Borough.  However, if there is no new Council with those boundaries, the Charter Trustee, the Mayor, the Town Clerk and all the other ceremonial aspects of the old Borough will continue as they do now.  The 2019 Structural Changes Order does not affect them.

The Charter Trustees will continue to precept separately to pay for the Mayor and any staff.  It is therefore not necessary to establish a Town Council to protect the Mayoralty.