Issue - meetings

In accordance with Procedure rules Nos. 11 and 35 a total period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the Member Group on any matter relevant to its work.  Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers.

Note:  In order for Officers to undertake any background research it would be helpful if questions were submitted at least one working day before the meeting.

In accordance with Procedure Rules No. 11 and 35, a total period of 10 minutes was allocated for members of the public to address the Sub Committee on any matter relevant to its work. 

Mr Peter Kent representing the Voice for Crewe Campaign indicated that those seeking the creation of a Town Council for Crewe were not politically motivated.  He stated that although the Campaign had originated from discussions at a meeting of the local Labour Party, it had gained cross party support and had been bolstered by individuals who had had no association with local government in the past.  It was his view that it was incorrect to consider the Campaign as political in nature; rather it was a tool for constitutional change. 

Councillor Dorothy Flude referred to the stakeholder responses reported on the agenda, drawing Members attention to the seventeen which had supported the call for a single Town Council.  Two of those respondents had subsequently contacted her to question why there had been no opportunity for the organisations to identify themselves on the questionnaires.  She also referred to the statutory guidance which the Sub Committee would adhere to; stating that at no time during any of the meetings held in respect of Crewe Community Governance Review, had the matter of community identity been discussed: an issue which she intended to raise with the Borough Solicitor outside the meeting.   

Councillor Terry Beard stated that in many people’s opinion the voting paper had been flawed which had resulted in numerous constituents questioning him on how they should respond to the consultation in order to accurately record their vote.  In his view, the results had shown that the four-parish proposal was not supported and he asked the Sub Committee to disregard this option and focus on whether the case for a Town Council had been proven, which he felt it had.

Councillor Westwood commented that whilst there had been an intensive campaign in favour of a single Town Council, the same could not be said for the four-parish proposal.  However, a significant number of individuals had voted for this option and it could not, therefore be dismissed at this stage.  He anticipated that support for the option would have been greater had it been given the same level of publicity.