Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED

That Councillor D Marren be appointed Chairman of the Sub-Committee

Councillor Marren in the Chair

RESOLVED

That Councillor P Groves be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Sub-Committee.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda.

Councillor R Cartlidge declared a personal interest as the Mayor of Crewe.

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the meeting on any matter relevant to the work of the meeting. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman or person presiding will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers. Members of the public are not required to give notice to use this facility. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours’ notice is encouraged.

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.

There were no members of the public present.

The Sub-Committee is asked to discuss the briefing paper which sets out the proposed procedure for conducting the review, having regard to statutory guidance and criteria.

The Sub-Committee had been appointed by the Constitution Committee on 2^nd June 2011 to conduct a Borough-wide review of community governance arrangements in order of the priority listed below:

a.      A review of the unparished areas of Crewe; in accordance with the Notice of Motion to Council on 14 October 2010

b. A review of the unparished areas of Macclesfield; in accordance with the representations made by the Macclesfield Civic Society

c.  A review of parishes in the Borough, with particular focus on areas where there is evidence that parish councils are not fully functional or not operating effectively; due to a lack of parish councillors being elected; or where very small parishes exist which may benefit from a grouping arrangement to facilitate the localism agenda

Members noted that as the Review moved around the Borough, the Sub-Committee’s membership would be reviewed so that Members of appropriate knowledge and experience could participate.

The Sub-Committee considered an initial briefing paper outlining the process to be followed in conducting a Community Governance Review (CGR). The paper was based on the ‘Guidance on Community Governance Reviews’ issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Electoral Commission. Copies of the Guidance were circulated at the meeting.

Since February 2008 the decision-making powers relating to the creation of parishes and their electoral arrangements had been devolved from the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission to principal Councils.

Cheshire East Council could decide whether to give effect to the recommendations made arising from a CGR provided it took into account the views of local people.

It was anticipated that the Crewe CGR would take about 12 months.

A draft project plan for the Review had been circulated with the report. This was intended to be a initiating document to aid project planning. The time scales would be regularly reviewed and updated as appropriate.

The consultation stages of the Review would be critical to the process. The Sub-Committee therefore needed to:

?       agree a list of consultees

?       agree the methods of consultation to be used

?       agree the timing of the consultation stages

It was suggested that as with the Wilmslow Review, the Crewe CGR should begin with two public meetings to give interested parties the opportunity to express their views in a public forum. The meetings would comprise an Officer presentation followed by public questions. They would constitute a listening exercise in which public views would be gathered.

An explanatory leaflet would be prepared and distributed to consultees, outlining the details of the review and the options being consulted. A proposed list of consultees had been circulated. Examples of the explanatory leaflets used in previous Reviews were circulated at the meeting. Members felt it was important that organisations were asked to submit views relevant to the particular business or activity they were involved in. They should also be asked whether they thought that some form of local community governance would help or hinder service delivery in their communities.

The Cheshire East website  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.