Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SERVICES MANAGER

To consider the responses to the Community Governance Review second public consultation and to agree the Final Recommendations.

RESOLVED: That Council:

 

(1)   Noted the outcome of the consultation.

 

(2)   Agreed the Final Recommendations for the Community Governance Review (as detailed under para 8.10 of the report – R1 – 41) subject to the following amendments:

 

Codicote:

Change the electoral cycle for Codicote, such that the elections in 2026 result in a 2-year term of office ending in 2028; thereafter revert to 4-yearly terms in line with North Herts District elections.

 

R10: To retain 10 Parish Councillors:

Codicote Village: 8

Codicote East: 2

 

Ashwell:

R1: To reduce the number of Parish Councillors from 12 to 9.

 

(3)   Noted that following decision 2.2, a Community Governance Order will be prepared, to implement the agreed recommendations, subject to consent by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (where required).

 

REASON FOR DECISIONS:  The Council is required to keep parish electoral arrangements under review. Following the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) review of district electoral arrangements (Council size and warding patterns), it is necessary to review parish arrangements across the district to bring them into alignment, ensure they remain fit for purpose, and to ensure they continue to reflect local needs. This report provides the Final Recommendations that have been developed taking into account the responses to the public consultation on the Draft Proposals.

Audio recording – 1 hour 39 minutes 24 seconds

 

The Democratic Services Manager introduced the report entitled ‘Community Governance Review – Final Recommendations’ and advised that:

 

·       Two amendments had been published that related to the number of parish councillors for Ashwell and Codicote.

·       A further amendment had been required relating to a change of the electoral cycle for Codicote as the final recommendation printed in the report of when Codicote next elected was incorrect.

·       A valid petition containing 123 signatures had been received from St Ippolyts Parish Council on the draft proposals.  As these were not being presented to Council as Final Recommendations, the Parish Council had confirmed that they would not present the petition and were satisfied if the petition was referenced as part of officer’s presentation.

·       In addition, St Ippolyts Parish Council wanted it noted that the report detailed that no Parish Council response had been received.  However, included in the list of redacted responses included the Parish Council response in objection to both draft proposals.

·       It had been noted that a comment had been incorrectly listed under Pirton which related to Offley.  The comment had already been included in both the Offley and incorrectly in the Pirton list of redacted comments.  However, the outcome remained unchanged.  

 

Richard Beesley, the consultant working for the Council, presented the report entitled ‘Community Governance Review – Final Recommendations’ and advised that:

 

·       Full Council had agreed to undertake the Community Governance Review in July 2024.

·       The Final Recommendations being considered by Council had been produced following two public consultations and took into account both the statutory criteria and the 2253 responses received.

·       The final recommendations had been developed, discussed, debated and refined by the cross-party Member Working Group, and some substantial changes made in response to the feedback received during the consultation.

·       It was noted that the consultant had supported a large number of local authorities through Community Governance Reviews and the number of responses to this consultation was a very substantial response and indicated the strength of feeling from local people to the draft proposals.

·       Following the first public consultation held in November 2024, Draft Proposals were bought before Council in February 2025 ahead of a second public consultation which ran until May 2025. 

·       The report contained details of every affected parish, town and community.

·       Redacted anonymised submissions were included in Appendix A of the report.

·       Expressed appreciation to all those who contributed to the development of the Final Recommendations by responding to the consultation.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Claire Strong

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor Matt Barnes

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to questions, the Consultant advised that:

 

·       Weston Parish Council did make a response in the first consultation regarding the parish boundaries.  Although the second consultation response from the parish referred to the synchronisation of election dates and the number of parish councillors, not to the possible boundary changes

·       The final recommendation did not include a change to the number of parish councillors for Kings Walden parish.

·       From experience other councils had moved parish elections dates to align with a new unitary authority.

 

In response to questions, the Chief Executive advised that:

 

·       The Hertfordshire Leaders Group were currently looking at a range of options for local government reorganisation.

·       The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill required all authorities to have effective council governance.

·       Based on government timelines, there would not be a unitary election in 2028, but parish council elections would still take place as scheduled.

·       It would be for the new unitary authorities to decide what would work best for their areas regarding further election cycles.

·       The Community Governance Review had commenced before the government white paper was published.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed, and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the recommendations as contained within the report, subject to the amendment to the election cycle for Codicote.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed an amendment to recommendation 2.2 to retain 10 Parish Councillors in Codicote. Councillor Steven Patmore seconded the amendment. Following a vote, this amendment was carried.

 

Councillor Tom Tyson proposed an amendment to recommendation 2.2 to reduce the number of Parish Councillors for Ashwell from 12 to 9. Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the amendment. Following a vote, this amendment was carried.

 

The following Members took part in the debate on the substantive Motion:

 

·       Councillor Paul Ward

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

 

Points raised during the debate on the substantive Motion included:

 

·       The Final Recommendations reflected the wishes of Knebworth.

·       This was a well-produced report with clear recommendations.

·       The public consultations ensured this was a democratic process and had reached the right decisions.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed as amended and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Council:

 

(1)   Noted the outcome of the consultation.

 

(2)   Agreed the Final Recommendations for the Community Governance Review (as detailed under para 8.10 of the report – R1 – 41) subject to the following amendments:

 

Codicote:

Change the electoral cycle for Codicote, such that the elections in 2026 result in a 2-year term of office ending in 2028; thereafter revert to 4-yearly terms in line with North Herts District elections.

 

R10: To retain 10 Parish Councillors:

Codicote Village: 8

Codicote East: 2

 

Ashwell:

R1: To reduce the number of Parish Councillors from 12 to 9.

 

(3)   Noted that following decision 2.2, a Community Governance Order will be prepared, to implement the agreed recommendations, subject to consent by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (where required).

 

REASON FOR DECISIONS:  The Council is required to keep parish electoral arrangements under review. Following the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) review of district electoral arrangements (Council size and warding patterns), it is necessary to review parish arrangements across the district to bring them into alignment, ensure they remain fit for purpose, and to ensure they continue to reflect local needs. This report provides the Final Recommendations that have been developed taking into account the responses to the public consultation on the Draft Proposals.