Issue - meetings

Crewe Community Governance Review - First Stage Consultation

Meeting: 13/03/2012 - Community Governance Review Sub-Committee (Item 35)

35 Crewe Community Governance Review - First Stage Consultation pdf icon PDF 462 KB

The initial consultation with stakeholders and the public took place between 14 November and 16 December 2011 and the feedback received was considered by the Sub Committee on 20 December 2011.  At that meeting it was agreed to extend the general period of consultation to 29 February 2012, along with a postal ballot of electors for the unparished area of Crewe which took place from 1 – 29 February.  The wording for the ballot paper was agreed by the Sub Committee based on the feedback received, which indicated a level of support only for the option of a single Town Council for Crewe.


Members are asked to take into account the following feedback received and to consider and determine its recommendation to the Constitution Committee on 22 March 2012.  The Constitution Committee will subsequently make a recommendation to Council for the draft outcome of the review.  A further period of consultation will then take place on the draft.


a) Results of the consultation with electors

b) Additional representations received since 16 December

Additional documents:


Members considered the outcome of the Stage 1 consultation which had concluded on 29th February 2012. The Sub-Committee now had to determine its advice to the Constitution Committee on the formulation of the Council’s draft recommendation. The Constitution Committee would be meeting on 22nd March 2012 and would consider the Sub-Committee’s advice at that meeting.


In addition to the briefing paper considered earlier in the meeting, Members had before them the outcome of the ballot of local electors and other representations received from the public and stakeholders during the first round of consultation.


The initial phase of consultation had included written representations received in response to public notices, specific invitations, a website tool and information leaflets.  Two public meetings had been held in September to give members of the public the opportunity to learn more about the review and to express their views in a public forum. Further opportunities had subsequently been provided to provide information at various community events during November and December 2011. The Council’s website had also been used as a source of information and as a tool for people to use to record their views. Finally, a voting paper had been sent to electors in Crewe to be returned by 29th February.


The ballot of local electors had taken place throughout the month of February 2012 and the result was as follows:



No of voting papers received













Leighton (unparished)












There was therefore a clear majority in favour of a single town council for Crewe, both within the unparished area as a whole and in the unparished area of Leighton taken separately.


The vote represented a 32% turnout and Members of the Sub-Committee were satisfied that this was sufficient to represent the views of the electors of Crewe.


Members also had before them a summary of other public and stakeholder responses to the initial stage of consultation. These also showed a clear preference for a single town council.


Members then considered whether the potential cost implications of setting up and running a town council had been adequately highlighted and addressed in the consultation publicity and were satisfied that they had been.


Finally, reference was made to a potential mechanism under the Localism Act 2011 which would allow the introduction of a form of community governance known as a community trust. Members considered whether it was appropriate to include this option in the current review. It was noted that there was insufficient information on community trusts at present and that guidance was awaited. Indeed, the option of a community trust was neither contemplated nor available when the community governance process began and it could be considered inappropriate to include it as an option at a point when the review was well advanced. Given this, and the fact that the consultation response so far had not favoured any form of governance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35