Monday, 14 May 2007
Ryedale House, Malton
Present:
Miss P Anderson (Chairman of the Council - in the Chair) andCouncillors Andrews, Aslett, Bailey, Mrs Burr, Mrs Cowling,Cussons, Mrs De Wend Fenton, Mrs Frank, Hawkins, Hemesley, Jackson,Keal, Knaggs, Mrs Shields, Ms Warriner, Mrs Wilford, Windress andWood.
The following Town/Parish Councils and Parish Meetings wererepresented:
Malton, Harome, Pickering, Heslerton, Edstone, Norton,Helmsley, Willerby, Luttons, Thixendale, Hartoft, Thornton le Dale,Flaxton and Farndale East
North Yorkshire County Councillors - Greg White, DavidLloyd-Williams and Mrs Clare Wood
In attendance:
Mrs L Carter, Mrs M Jackson and Miss J Waggott
Minutes:
58. Welcome
The Chairman welcomed representatives to the meeting.
59. Minutes
The minutes of the last Parish Liaison Meeting held on 20February 2007 were presented (previously circulated).
Resolved
That the minutes of the Parish LiaisonMeeting held on 20 February 2007 be approved and signed by theChairman as a correct record.
60. North Yorkshire County Council’s Bid for UnitaryStatus
The Chief Executive reported that the purpose of the meetingwas to the seek views of Town/Parish representatives and members ofthe public on the District Council’s response to the CountyCouncil’s bid for unitary status.
The Chief Executive and the Director of Policy gave apresentation on the Local Government White Paper ‘Strong andProsperous Communities’.
The purpose of the White Paper was:
- To provide more focus on local needs and priorities
- Give communities a greater say in the things that affectthem
- Provide greater local choice in the way services can beaccessed
- Extend well-being powers to Quality Parish Councils
- It was not a means of encouraging or forcing structuralchange
- Only a small number of unitary bids were to be considered(8)
Councils had been invited to submit voluntary proposals forlocal government structures, where ‘restructuring is widely seen asthe way forward’, voluntary proposals for pathfinder status forinnovative two-tier models or improved two-tier working for all.Maintaining the status quo was not an option.
Submission of bids for unitary status had been sought by 25January 2007 and an announcement on the preferred bids had beenmade at the end of March, one of those preferred bids being thatsubmitted by the County Council. A twelve-week consultation was totake place up to the end of June and a final decision on successfulbids was anticipated at the end of July.
The Chief Executive reported that in August 2006 all the NorthYorkshire Councils, including the County Council, had agreed todeliver enhanced twp-tier working as the best way forward. Thisapproach had been agreed by each Authority at full Council leveland the priorities had been agreed as:
- Shared Single Point of Contact for Customer Access
- Waste Management
- Community Transport
The approach had been based on consensus and a shared vision.However, since that time the County Council had decidedunilaterally to bid for a countywide unitary. Districts were notpart of the NYCC bid, neither had they been consulted on it. Inaddition, Parishes, stakeholders and the community had not beenconsulted.
The District Council’s position was to support enhancedtwo-tier working as the best way forward. This was the only optionthat had consensus amongst the North Yorkshire District Councils.The District Councils were opposed to a new unitary council beingformed on the existing county boundary, but were open to exploringother unitary options through consultation and consensus.
The criteria for unitary bids had been stated as:
- Affordable
- Partner Support
- Accountable Strategic Leadership
- Neighbourhood flexibility
- Value for Money and Equity
The unitary bid was summarised as follows:
- There would be one elected Leader for the whole of NorthYorkshire
- 9 Portfolio Holders/Area Champions
- 211 fewer Elected Members
- Area Committees
- Increased responsibility for Town and Parish Councils
- Estimated set-up costs of £13.5m
- Annual Savings £14m
The Chief Executive reported that Ryedale supported theenhanced two-tier option. This option did not seek to retain thestatus quo, the County and Districts would continue to exist butwould work more closely to achieve efficiencies, jointed-upcustomer access and more engagement with local communities, whichmay evolve towards unitary or unitary features. In addition,enhanced two-tier working balanced the need for efficiencies andmeeting local customer needs. The broad principles of enhancedtwo-tier working were:
- Working efficiently
- Improve customer service
- Plan strategically above district level where and when this isrelevant
- Deliver services based on local needs
- Joint leadership and governance on issues of commonconcern
The North Yorkshire District Councils were concerned that theNYCC unitary bid would not enhance local engagement and choice, norwas it geared to deliver the White Paper outcomes. It would notpromote local choice and individuality of place. It was notappropriate that councillors representing an area approximately 70miles away should take part in decisions affecting Ryedale. It wassuggested that this was not local government but was more akin toregional government. In addition, it would be unworkable tomaintain relationships with the 731 Town and Parish Councils thatcurrently existed in North Yorkshire. The ‘Big is Best’ argumentwas flawed as simply joining everything together did not lead toefficiency. There was a need for a ‘mixed economy’ based on thebusiness case for each service and it was considered that serviceswould not be geared to meet local needs. Big organisations wereslow to change and there would be a loss of democraticrepresentation i.e. 144 fewer councillors. Northallerton did nothave a city type focus as an economic, shopping or educational hub.The Crime & Disorder Act Review had proposed the creation of aCDRP at county level but this had been considered ‘too remote fromthe communities they serve and would be out of step with thelocalism agenda’. In addition, the Districts had expressed concernregarding the inevitable disruption and cost of implementing theCounty’s proposals.
The District councils had expressed concerns regarding thefollowing affordability issues:
- Is bigger always cheaper? Economies and diseconomies ofscale
- Council Tax - would this be reduced as indicated by the CountyCouncil?
- Equalisation of Council Tax - lose the ability to matchresources with local needs and ambitions
- Impact on Parish Council Tax?
- Cost of change was estimated by the County Council to be£13.5m
- An independent estimate of the cost of change was some£34m
- Considerable hidden costs of change - recruitment, redundancy,equalisation of salaries
- East Riding - transition costs of £9.6m for adding Selby
- The County Council’s claims were not realistic e.g. 300redundancies to save £14m and retain town halls and offices
- Impact on local economy - loss of locally based jobs
- Michael Lyons - ‘restructuring not the answer’
The Chief Executive reported on the results of the MORIopinion survey, which had been jointly commissioned by the NorthYorkshire District Councils:
- 77% had said ‘no’ to a unitary council
- 75% said that a unitary was too remote
- 71% felt that local councillors would have less power
- 71% felt the area was too large
- 69% said that the current system works well
In addition, it was reported that the results of the MORIsurvey of Parish Councils were awaited. The Members of Parliamentfor the area were opposed to a unitary.
The Chief Executive reported that the District Council’sapproach was as follows:
- Professor Chisholm Report
- Combined response from Districts
- Challenge content of the Unitarybid
- Lobbying Ministers
- Continue to Engage withStakeholders
- Town and Parish Councils
- County-wide Stakeholders
- Local Stakeholders
- Inform the public and encourage response
- Challenge the process
The Chief Executive reported that Town and Parish Councils andother local partners were being encouraged to make their viewsknown by emailing: structures@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Questions and comments were sought from representatives.
Representatives endorsed the Council’s position and expressedsupport for enhanced two-tier working. Concern was expressedregarding the reduction in the number of elected representatives inthe event that the unitary bid was successful. Representatives werealso of the opinion that the move to unitary was a step in thedirection of regionalisation. Concern was expressed regarding thelikely costs of implementing the unitary proposals and also thatthe County Council had not taken account of public opinion.
Representatives were of the opinion that the existing two-tiersystem worked well and therefore there was no reason to change it.It was also argued that the introduction of a unitary council wouldnot result in the savings as suggested by the County Council, andthere would not be a reduction in council tax levels.
Some concern was expressed by parish/town councilrepresentatives regarding the possible imposition of additionalduties on Parish and Town Councils, as a result of the introductionof a unitary authority. The Chief Executive reported that therewere no indications in the Local Government paper that parish andtown councils would be expected to take on additional duties. Someof the District areas within North Yorkshire did not have parishcouncils; therefore one size did not fit all. Ryedale was alreadyseeking better involvement with town and parish councils and hadoffered parish and town council representatives the opportunity toparticipate in training events, particularly with regard toplanning issues.
The Chairman welcomed the North Yorkshire County Councilrepresentatives to the meeting. County Councillors Mrs Clare Woodand Greg White spoke in favour of the unitary bid and put forwardthe County Council’s views. There were financial savings to be madeand it was anticipated that these would amount to some £14m peryear. Ryedale’s annual budget amounted to some £7.7m, whereas theCounty’s was some £600m thereby offering the opportunity to makesavings. It was accepted that some services such as planning mustremain local. County Councillor White reported that he had spokenwith financial officers at County and they estimated that £132msavings would be achieved over the first ten years, should theunitary bid be successful. Local decisions would be made at a locallevel by Local Area Committees, therefore enhancingdecision-making.
A District Councillor expressed concern that support for theformation of a unitary authority appeared to be based on financialissues and the potential savings to be made. The opinion wasexpressed that the provision of services should be a priority andthe ability of the public to influence the decision-makingprocess.
No further issues were raised by representatives and theChairman, therefore, declared the meeting closed.