Agenda item

Next Stage of the Review

To consider and agree arrangements for the next stage of consultation for the Governance Review (on the two options of Parishing and An Enhanced Service Delivery Committee), in particular:


a)         Based upon the workshop held at the last meeting (notes attached) (5ai), to consider a summary of the proposed role of an Enhanced Service Delivery Committee and Assembly Meetings (attached) (5aii).


Some local authorities operate a system of Area Committees and for comparison purposes a summary of some of their roles is provided for information (attached) (5aiii).


b)         To discuss and agreed the wording for the draft supporting literature. A main leaflet is proposed (attached) (5bi) together with a summary leaflet which could be sent out with the ballot packs (attached) (5bii).


(Note: Where documents refer to legal clarification being required, this advice will be provided at the meeting).   


c)         To discuss options for the wording of a voting paper(s) taking into account the identities and communities in Macclesfield.


(Note: A map depicting the Borough Wards within the unparished area and examples of voting papers used for previous Community Governance Reviews will be made available at the meeting to aid discussions).


d)         To consider and agree publicity required and timescales for the next stage of the Review.



The Sub-Committee was asked to consider arrangements for the next stage of consultation in the Community Governance Review with particular regard to the details surrounding the options of either (1) Parishing or (2) an Enhanced Service Delivery Committee (ESDC).


The agenda included examples of the roles of an ESDC, and an Enhanced Macclesfield Local Service Delivery Committee (ELSDC) and compared them to those of a Parish Council.  The Chairman considered it essential that the differences between these were properly understood in order to make an informed decision on the options available.


Concern was expressed that an ELSDC would be limited to making recommendations to Cabinet and would not give any additional democratic representation to the people of Macclesfield by which they could control the assets of the area.  An alternative view however was that very little would be gained by the introduction of an additional 12 Councillors.  It was noted that the powers of an ELSDC could, for example, be drafted to include control of a small budget, to be a consultee, to be responsible for the use of S106 monies, and to have representatives on key strategic initiatives.  In addition a Community Interest Company could be established to which local assets could be transferred.


It was reported that there were examples elsewhere of ELSDC’s that operated through Area Committees.  This was, however, not considered appropriate in this case as in order to operate effectively they would need to be established across the area as a whole.


The Sub-Committee considered that a TC or an ELSD should have a part in deciding its own responsibilities and that the existing Macclesfield LSDC could look at this in detail on behalf of the Sub-Committee.  It was agreed that this should be referred to the next meeting of the Macclesfield Local Service Delivery Committee on 24 January and that its findings be considered further at the next meeting of the Sub-Committee.


With reference to Parishing consideration was given to what identities and communities existed in Macclesfield and it was suggested that the areas of Broken Cross and Upton; Hurdsfield and Tytherington could be said to have their own sense of identity.  It was recognised, however, that all seven wards might want to be individually parished and that this choice should be offered.  In order to accommodate this possibility the questions on the ballot paper would need to be posed in two stages along the lines of: -


·         Do you prefer an ESDC or parishing?

followed by

·         If you prefer parishing do you want to be in an individual parish of …. (e.g. Hurdsfield with each area ballot paper being individualised) or in a single parish for the town of Macclesfield?


This would necessitate 7 different ballot papers being drawn up – 1 for each of the 7 wards involved. 

Concern was expressed as to how assets would be divided /allocated to any resultant individual parishes and to the funding implications.  It was recognised that this was a difficulty as it would be for any individual parish to decide upon its own range of responsibilities once it was established and, as a result, the assets to be transferred and also the final precept could not be accurately predicted. 


In response to concerns that the boundaries of some wards might not be accurate it was agreed that they would be looked at further and prior to inclusion in any of the future consultation literature. In addition it was confirmed that that part of the Councils website dealing with the Community Governance Review would be updated at the earliest opportunity to reflect the current position.




1.    That the Macclesfield Local Service Delivery Committee be requested to consider the role of an Enhanced Service Delivery Committee for Macclesfield and that their findings be considered further by this Sub-Committee.


2.    That approval be given for Officers to prepare wording for a draft ballot paper to incorporate a question enabling each of the 7 areas (wards) to vote upon becoming an individual parish and that this be considered at the next meeting and then by the Constitution Committee.

Supporting documents: