Issue - meetings

On 30 March 2009 a petition was received which called for a Community Governance Review and identified three recommendations arising from a Review specific to creating a new Parish Council to be known as Crewe Town Council.  The Group is asked to discuss the briefing paper which sets out the proposed procedure for conducting the review, having regard to statutory guidance and criteria. 

On 30 March 2009, a petition had been received by Cheshire East Council calling for a Community Governance Review; the petition identifying three recommendations arising from a Review; namely that 

i)                    a new parish council be constituted under Section 87 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007;

ii)                  a new parish should have a council to be know as Crewe Town Council; and

iii)                the area to which the review was to relate would be the whole of the Electoral Wards of Coppenhall, Delamere, Grosvenor, Maw Green, St. Johns, Valley and Waldron; and those parts of the following Electoral Wards which did not already fall into an existing parish: Alexandra. Leighton, St. Barnabas and Wistaston Green.

From February 2008, the power to take such decision had been devolved from the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission to principal Councils such as Cheshire East Borough Council.  The Elections and Registration Manager spoke to the briefing paper attached to the agenda which outlined for the Group the issues which would need to be resolved to conduct the review.  In addition, a copy of the government advice on undertaking a Governance Review was provided as background information for Members.

Paragraph three of the paper identified the phases which would need to be completed and on which the Group would be asked to comment.  The draft timeline was, in part, being driven by the work of the Boundary Commission and would not allow much leeway for slippage if the Group wished to present its recommendations to Council in December and submit comments to the Boundary Committee before the deadline of February 2010. 

In responding to questions from members, officers confirmed that the review had to be completed within twelve months of the petition being submitted i.e. March 2010.  Whilst the Group understood of the need to ‘fit in’ with existing deadlines, such as committee/consultation dates, it was the view of Members that this should not be to the detriment of the process. 

Following a short debate the Group concluded that all attempts should be made to adhere to the timeline proposed but that a contingency plan be drawn together should the process slip.  It was also agreed that a letter be sent to the Boundary Committee to inform it of the Council’s position.