Appendix 1 – Draft Parish Charter

Draft Parish Charter

A Charter for Partnership Working and Understanding between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector in North Yorkshire

..................Column Break..................

Foreword/Welcome

FOREWORD: REPRESENTATIVES FROM PARISH COUNCILS INVOLVED IN THE CO-PRODUCTION OF THE DRAFT CHARTER

The Working Group is pleased to support this Charter which seeks to set out the arrangements for partnership working between the new North Yorkshire Council and local City, Town and Parish Councils and Parish Meetings. Each is responsible for providing local services to the residents of North Yorkshire and we recognise that close working relationships between North Yorkshire Council and their senior officers can only lead to better delivery of these services for our residents.

The development of this Charter is just a starting point and further work will be undertaken as the new Council works to bring together the operations of the former county, district and borough councils.

Whilst it remains the right of each parish sector council or meeting to determine whether or not it wishes to support the principles identified within the Charter, the potential benefits to local communities should encourage all parishes and North Yorkshire Council to work collaboratively.

The working group is made up of Town and Parish Councillors nominated by YLCA branches in Craven, Hambleton, Harrogate, Richmondshire, Ryedale, Scarborough and Selby. Along with the Yorkshire Local Councils Associations Team Support and Member Liaison Officer and a representative from the Society of Local Council Clerks. The group has been supported by the Yorkshire Local Councils Associations and a small team of officers from different teams and councils.

FOREWORD: LEADER OF NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNCIL

Parish and Town Councils and Parish Meetings are an important part of local government and have a vital role in acting on behalf of the communities they represent. North Yorkshire Council is committed to working with Parish and Town Councils and Parish Meetings across the county to connect with local communities, understand their needs and respond to their priorities.

This Charter has been developed in partnership with representatives of Parish and Town Councils and Parish Meetings in North Yorkshire and sets out how we will work together for the benefit of our communities. There is much work still to do to bring together the operations of all the eight councils involved in Local Government Reorganisation in North Yorkshire and new working arrangements will develop over time. The Charter recognises this and commits North Yorkshire Council to developing and reviewing areas and working arrangements for inclusion in the Charter in more detail.

I am delighted to support this Charter and look forward to working closely with our Parish and Town Councils and Parish Meetings as leader of the new North Yorkshire Council.

Councillor Carl Les

Leader of North Yorkshire County Council (will lead North Yorkshire Council)

1.0 Context – Local Government Reorganisation

1. The new unitary North Yorkshire Council will be formed on 1 April 2023, following Local Government Reorganisation, which will result in the abolition of North Yorkshire County Council and seven District/Borough Councils.

2. The new Council has set out its aim to work in new ways, offering:

· Improved efficiency and effectiveness of local government services

· Reduced duplication, bringing together services and making savings

· A local office in every district area

· A range of local customer access points across North Yorkshire

· A council of 90 councillors, representing 89 new divisions

· Six local area committees

· New community partnerships to support the needs and aspirations of towns and surrounding areas

· New ways of working with, and empowering the parish sector

3. In working to establish the new Council, the importance of the parish sector and the need for effective partnership working to achieve its vision and aims as set out in its newly adopted Corporate Plan has been recognised from the outset.

4. The development of a Parish Charter, to define the relationship between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector and set out how the principal authority and parish authorities will work together in partnership, was seen as a priority in the work leading up to vesting day, 1 April 2023. It is recognised that there is still much work to do to bring together the operations of all the eight councils including an ongoing programme of transformation beyond the new Council’s start date in April 2023. 

5. It is not possible to finalise detailed working arrangements with the parish sector at present as these will be transformed over time. It has therefore been agreed that the development of this Charter should be a staged process, with ongoing consultation with the parish sector and learning from experiences during the first months of operation of the new Council. These will then be incorporated in the Charter through a regular review, monitoring and update process.

6. It is recognised that there are a number of key areas that North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector will wish to develop more detailed working relationships. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

· Parish Sector Elections and Polls

· Financial Arrangements

· Planning

· Community Services – such as highways, street lighting, grass cutting, local assets

· Resilience planning/emergency response e.g., flooding

1.7 It is also recognised that this document is very much a working document, therefore commencing within the first six months of its operation, and on an on-going basis North Yorkshire Council commits to developing and reviewing these and other areas for inclusion in this Charter in more detail.

1.8 This document is the culmination of the first stage in this process and sets out a number of key principles by which North Yorkshire Council will work with the parish sector in their areas. It also sets out further stages in the process by which a more detailed Charter will be agreed, reviewed and updated on a continuing basis.

2.0 Introduction

2.1 At the time of writing of this Charter, there are currently 731 parishes in North Yorkshire. There are also a number of parish meetings without a parish council. In some areas small parishes may work together with neighbouring parishes to run a grouped, joint or common parish council. Parish councils may be created in accordance with legislation and local community demand. All parish sector authorities are parish councils but can choose to alter their style (e.g., town or city council) but they all have the same role. In this document the term the ‘parish sector’ is used to encompass all these various arrangements.

2.2 The parish sector is the first tier of Local Government in England, with Members elected every four years. They have a range of powers and are principally funded by an annual precept.

2.3 The purpose of this Charter is to define the relationship between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector. It has been designed to facilitate effective partnership working and understanding between the two tiers of local government within North Yorkshire at a time of significant change.

2.4 It sets out a framework for defining and developing joint principles to enable North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector to work effectively together to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of North Yorkshire.

2.5 North Yorkshire Council acknowledges that the parish sector is the grassroots level of local government. The parish sector acknowledges the strategic role and responsibilities of North Yorkshire Council. The parish sector and North Yorkshire Council recognise each other as independent authorities legitimised through the democratic process and legal independence.

2.6 North Yorkshire Council supports and encourages the development of the parish sector as democratically accountable bodies having local governance responsibilities and local representational authority to shape the decisions that affect their communities. North Yorkshire Council recognises the potential for the devolvement of appropriate services and decision-making responsibilities and will support this devolvement by mutual agreement to the parish sector. This will be where the sector has the ability to discharge them, where it is cost neutral to North Yorkshire Council and where it is appropriate.

2.7 North Yorkshire Council will encourage the parish sector to adopt recognised good governance standards. These include standards set by National Association of Local Councils in their Local Council Award Scheme.

2.8 The parish sector will ensure that North Yorkshire Council is informed about relevant local issues of which they are aware to support its decision-making as appropriate.

2.9 The implementation of the Charter, and its effectiveness, will continue to be monitored by regular meetings of the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group and the document will be reviewed and updated after a six month period and then annually thereafter. The terms of reference of the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group are attached at appendix 1.

3.0 Partnership Working

3.1 Successful partnership working between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector can only be achieved if all partners understand and respect each other’s roles and work cooperatively to serve the community. It is recognised that both North Yorkshire Council and parish sector Councillors and the Chairs of parish meetings are elected to their roles for the benefit of their diverse communities. It is also acknowledged that many parishes have very limited resources. In addition, the new North Yorkshire Council is committed to delivering improved efficiency and effectiveness in services, reducing duplication, and achieving savings. Effective partnership working is key in achieving this commitment.

3.2 North Yorkshire Council recognises that the parish sector across North Yorkshire are:

· Bodies which draw on their local democratic accountability and expertise to take decisions and actions, and to collaborate with responsible bodies including North Yorkshire Council and other public sector bodies, to benefit their communities

· Key providers of some local public services, as authorised by statute

· Facilitators and supporters of action by the wider community, providing resources, encouragement and a ‘stamp of approval’ to community initiatives

3.3 The parish sector recognises the strategic role and responsibilities of North Yorkshire Council and its priorities as set out in its Council Plan.

3.4 North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector will work together in partnership to:

· Promote and protect social, economic and environmental well-being for the benefit of our local communities, to ensure vibrancy and future sustainability

· Strive to eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote equality of opportunity

· Promote an active democracy to ensure all members of every North Yorkshire community are able to have a say in our future and to help develop a shared vision, identity and sense of belonging

· Welcome all feedback and aim to act quickly and efficiently to address issues within their power

· Respect and promote the role of both elected and co-opted councillors as representatives of their communities through positive communication, leadership and engagement, all undertaken to high ethical standards

· Give importance and recognition to issues and ideas raised at each level of local government

· Ensure efficient, effective and value for money management, supported by adequate training

4.0 Communication

4.1 Effective communication is the basis for any successful working relationship, it needs to be a two-way process utilising a variety of methods. The Yorkshire Local Councils Associations has an important role in facilitating communication and providing coordinated feedback and training.

4.2 North Yorkshire Council will:

· Use a variety of methods to communicate with the parish sector - selecting the most effective method, dependent on the issue and which parish(es) are impacted

· Make best use of the information technology available to promote quick and efficient communication

· Respond to enquiries and reported issues from the parish sector in line with the Customer Charter - the policy is to acknowledge communications within five working days of receipt, and normally provide a full response (if required) as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 20 working days. If this is not possible an explanation will be given as to why, along with an indication of when a full reply will be provided

· Ensure working arrangements with the parish sector are reviewed regularly via the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group and information is published online

· Notify the parish sector via email of all programmed maintenance and improvement schemes relating to highways and other matters of significant impact within their boundaries

· Circulate notification of the publication of Area Constituency Committee agendas and papers on our website to parish clerks at the same time as they are sent to our members

· Provide opportunities for members of the public, including elected Members (Councillors) and parish clerks, to ask a question or make a statement at the start of ordinary meetings (Executive and committees), if notice including the full text of the question or statement has been given in writing or by electronic mail to the Democratic Services team democratic.services@northyorks.gov.uk no later than midday three working days before the day of the meeting.

4.3 The parish sector will:

· Make every effort to attend and be represented at relevant North Yorkshire Council meetings and events when invited

· Make best use of the available information technology to communicate with North Yorkshire Council

· Encourage Councillors to have access to and use of electronic communication

· Where practicable support, provide and encourage all clerks to have access to a council-owned computer and council (rather than personal) email account

· Send a substantive reply to correspondence from North Yorkshire Council within 28 working days (not including responses to consultation documents), unless there are exceptional reasons why this cannot happen

· Provide up to date contact details/changes to contact details for both Parish Clerks and Chairs to North Yorkshire Council’s Democratic Services team on democratic.services@northyorks.gov.uk in a timely manner

· Use a variety of appropriate methods to communicate and consult with communities, e.g., through setting up group chats using messaging apps, village magazines and flyers

· Raise any issues relating to dissatisfaction with North Yorkshire Council’s actions, the response to a request for information, or failures to consult, by making a formal complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure, noting that these issues can also be raised with the relevant elected Member of North Yorkshire Council, the local Area Committee and the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group

· Report all non-urgent highway defects via the Parish Portal online reporting system (this was designed following engagement with the parish sector and includes a full record of all reports made to North Yorkshire Council’s Highways department together with available updates for each case, more information is available in appendix 2)

· Provide the opportunity for North Yorkshire Council officers and Members to speak at meetings on matters of mutual interest

5.0 Consultation and Engagement

5.1 North Yorkshire Council will:

· Engage with the parish sector on key issues that are likely to affect or be of particular interest to their area

· Engage regularly with the parish sector through the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group

· Follow Government practice and allow 12 weeks for consultation where possible

· Provide the parish sector with sufficient information to enable them to reach an informed view on matters upon which they are being consulted

· Support the engagement process through North Yorkshire Council Councillors

· Consult the parish sector in respect of planning, licensing and highways matters

· Take account of the views of the parish sector during the North Yorkshire Council budget setting process, providing information in a timely manner

· Provide briefing or training sessions to Councillors and clerks from the parish sector on complex consultation issues and where capacity allows

· Provide feedback to the parish sector on the results of consultation

· Use plain English and keep information jargon free when consulting with the parish sector

· Offer information in different formats where that is appropriate

5.2 The parish sector will:

· Provide a representative at North Yorkshire Council engagement meetings, whenever practicable to do so

· Recognise the strategic role of North Yorkshire Council in tackling issues that look beyond individual parish boundaries

· Respond within consultation deadlines set by North Yorkshire Council, unless otherwise agreed e.g., by considering having an extraordinary meeting to meet the deadline

· Work with North Yorkshire Council to seek mutually acceptable solutions to issues

6.0 Finance

6.1 Financial arrangements will be informed by the overarching principles of fairness, efficiency and transparency.

6.2 North Yorkshire Council will:

· Consult the parish sector on proposed changes to service provision and on budget implications in a timely manner

· Provide information in a timely manner, such as the tax base, to support and assist the parish sector in determining their precepts

· Pay the precept to the parish sector

· In October each year, provide a detailed breakdown of election costs to which the parish sector are expected to pay or contribute to if requested and which will inform precept decisions

6.3 The parish sector will:

· Provide precept information by the mutually agreed deadline

· Be responsible for the full cost of any parish sector by-election within their parish

7.0 Local Services and Assets

7.1 The parish sector is able to provide some local services and organise activities which take place within their area. Many parish sector councils across North Yorkshire already provide and operate a range of services, including parks, playing fields, cemeteries, closed churchyards, and allotments.

7.2 North Yorkshire Council will:

· Support the parish sector to maintain their own local services and assets if they wish to, and where it is practicable for them to do so

· Consider, in accordance with relevant legislation and the Council’s own policy and procurement arrangements, proposals for the transfer of some locally based services and assets to the parish sector. This will exclude decision making on matters such as planning applications and traffic regulation orders and a range of services which the North Yorkshire Council are not able to delegate because of their particular statutory nature, e.g., children’s education, social care

7.3 The parish sector will:

· Manage, maintain and resource the provision of local services and facilities, where appropriate in consultation with North Yorkshire Council

7.4 It should be recognised that the above principles are general and there can be local variations.

8.0 Practical Support

8.1 North Yorkshire Council offers practical support to the parish sector in a number of areas. This will be reviewed and further information provided as services are transformed following vesting day. North Yorkshire Council Councillors can provide information to the parish sector about issues in their areas and take the views of the local community into account in the decision-making process. They also have locality budgets which allow them to respond to local needs by recommending funding to support specific activities. The following sets out the practical support available to the parish sector at the current time.

8.2 North Yorkshire Council will:

· Offer the parish sector access to some services (e.g. printing, purchasing and training) at a mutually agreed price and as part of joint procurement opportunities. The ability to join a street lighting energy contract and street lighting maintenance contract may be possible and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis (applies to parish sector authorities only)

· Provide a first point of contact when the parishes are developing or refreshing parish plans, through the relevant North Yorkshire Council team

· Consider whether there are areas of a parish plan where it could help the parish sector

· Provide a point of contact for support and possible grant funding opportunities for community-based projects

· Provide the parish sector with advice and guidance to develop a Community Resilience Scheme, through the Resilience and Emergencies Team. This will enable the parish sector to increase their local community's resilience in the first few hours of an incident such as flooding, before the emergency services arrive

· Provide advice, guidance and support to the parish sector on their rights in respect of Community Right to Bid, Community Right to Challenge and the Community Right to Build as set out in the Localism Act

· Offer opportunities for the parish sector to manage some services and assets, including transfer of appropriate budget, where this is cost neutral to North Yorkshire Council and there is a sound business case

8.3 Further information on how to report issues, e.g., matters relating to highways, and contact details are set out in appendix 2.

9.0 Next Steps – Further development, Monitoring and Review

9.1 As stated previously, this document represents the first stage in the process towards developing a more comprehensive Parish Charter which will include detailed working arrangements between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector in its area. It commits North Yorkshire Council to work with the parish sector to agree detailed arrangements regarding specific service areas such as planning, elections, finance, economic development etc.

9.2 Implementation of the Charter will be monitored by the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group.

9.3 The Charter will be reviewed commencing within the first six months of its operation and on an on-going basis. On-going reviews will be on an annual basis and following each North Yorkshire Council election, as a minimum, to ensure that it remains relevant.

..................Column Break..................Appendix 1

Terms of Reference

North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group

These arrangements provide the framework for the operation of the Group.

1. Title

The group shall be called the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Liaison Group.

1. Background

At the time of writing of this Charter, there are currently 731 parishes in North Yorkshire. There are also a number of parish meetings without a parish council. In some areas small parishes may work together with neighbouring parishes to run a grouped, joint or common parish council. Parish councils may be created in accordance with legislation and local community demand. All parish sector authorities are parish councils but can choose to alter their style (e.g., town or city council) but they all have the same role. In this document the term the ‘parish sector’ is used to encompass all these various arrangements.

2. Objectives

The objectives of the group are:

· To provide a means for liaison between North Yorkshire Council (NYC) and the parish sector on matters of common interest

· To co-ordinate local networking and joint activity

· To support the development of working relationships between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector

· To provide a means for sharing and discussing information that is relevant to both North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector

· To create a reliable dialogue between group members to ensure the parish sector and North Yorkshire Council issues inform strategic decision and policy making on both sides

3. North Yorkshire Council Representatives

· The NYC Executive portfolio holder for locality engagement

· NYC Executive members and senior officers relevant to the issues being considered at the meeting (as nominated by the NYC Executive portfolio holder for locality engagement)

4. Parish Sector Representatives

· Each branch of the YLCA shall appoint a representative to the Group

· Representatives may be accompanied by a Parish Clerk

· The two elected Parish Council North Yorkshire Standards Committee representatives will attend the meeting on occasions where there is information to share

· A parish sector spokesperson will be elected by parish sector representatives to manage shared communications between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector on liaison issues

5. Chair

· The Group shall be chaired by the Executive member of North Yorkshire Council or her/his nominee

· The Vice Chair shall be the parish sector’s spokesperson

6. Yorkshire Associations of Local Councils and Society of Local Council Clerks

· A representative of Yorkshire Local Councils Associations (YLCA) and Society of Local Council Clerks (SLCC) shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Group

7. Meetings of the Group

· Meetings of the Group shall take place quarterly and additional meetings shall be called as necessary. Dates for meetings shall be fixed for the year (as far as practicable) at the first meeting in each municipal year

· Additional meetings of the Group shall take place as soon as practical on a request being made and supported by 25% of parish sector authorities

· Should there be no issues raised for an agenda by the parish sector or North Yorkshire Council, a meeting can be cancelled with the agreement of the Chair and the parish sector’s spokesperson

8. Agenda and Minutes

· Agendas for meetings shall be circulated at least five working days before meetings and minutes shall be circulated as soon as practical after meetings of the Group

· Preparation and circulation of agendas and minutes shall be undertaken by a North Yorkshire Council Officer

· The parish sector can submit items for inclusion on the agenda through the parish sector spokesperson. Agenda items will be at the joint unanimous discretion of the Chair and Vice-Chair

9. North Yorkshire Council Officers

North Yorkshire Council shall arrange the attendance of relevant officers at meetings of the Group (subject to availability) to reflect the matters on the agenda

10. Subgroups

The Group may appoint subgroups to undertake specific tasks and report back to the Group

11. Review of Arrangements

These arrangements can be reviewed as required

..................Column Break..................Appendix 2

How to Report Issues/Contact Details

In relation to Highways issues, the parish sector should:

· Use the North Yorkshire Council website where possible to find information about our services and news updates including road, footpath closures, temporary traffic lights and diversions

· Report all non-urgent highway defects via the North Yorkshire Council Parish Portalonline reporting system

· Report all urgent highway issues by telephone to 01609 780780.

· Report highway emergencies outside normal office hours by contacting North Yorkshire Police on 101, website: (https://www.northYorkshire.Police.uk/contact/). Highway emergencies include any highway hazards such as flooding, mud/diesel spillages, carriageway debris, fallen trees and any road or footway defects which may be a danger to highway users.

· Gather evidence or feedback to assist us in our highways service delivery, including reporting road defects (e.g., potholes and drainage problems), and reporting misuse of weight restricted routes by heavy goods vehicles. This feedback can be provided via email to the local Highway Area Office or to Customer.Services@northyorks.gov.uk

In relation to social care emergencies (out of hours support), the parish sector should:

· Report any social care emergencies that arise outside of normal office hours by telephoning 01609 780780

NB Further contact details and reporting arrangements will be included when arrangements and procedures have been finalised. It is intended that all relevant contact details will be provided before 31 March 2023.

Appendix 5.0 Snap Questionnaire Responses

Draft Parish Charter consultation

This report was generated on 18/04/23. Overall 108 respondents completed this questionnaire.

The report has been filtered to show the responses for 'All Respondents'.

The following charts are restricted to the top 20 codes.

Appendix 5.1 - What is the name of your city/town/parish council or parish meeting?

1. What is the name of your city/town/parish council or parish meeting?

Scorton Parish Council

Thornton le Beans and Crosby with Cotcliffe Parish Council

Reeth, Fremington and Healaugh Parish Council

Barlby and Osgodby Town Council

Levisham Parish Meeting

Thornton Steward Parish Meeting

Lythe Parish Council

Thornville Parish Meeting

Aiskew and Leeming Bar (individual response from Councillor)

Bentham Town Council

Arkengarthdale Parish Council

Marske and New Forest Parish Council

Reeth, Freminton and Healaugh Parish Council

Cowling Parish Council

Carthorpe Parish Council

Danby Group Parish Council

Melbecks Parish Council

Langton

Clapham cum Newby Parish Council

Bishop Thornton, Shaw Mills and Warsill, Fountains Abbey and Grantley and Sawley (3 parish councils)

Bagby and Balk Parish Council

Kilburn High and Low Parish Council

Siltons, Kepwick Landmoth cum Catto Parish Council

PREASTON UNDER SCAR PARISH COUNCIL

Thornton On the Hill

Farnhill Parish Council

Catton Parish Meeting (NB - added manually, final response lightly edited due to wordcount)

Beal Parish Council

Tockwith with Wilstrop Parish Council

Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council

Newholm cum Dunsley Parish Council

Ugthorpe & Hutton Mulgrave Parish Council

Rainton with Newby Parish Council

Washburn Parish Council

Escrick Parish Council

Allerston and Wilton Parish Council

Not Applicable

Reighton and Speeton Parish Council

Colburn Town Council

Coxwold Parish Council

Birdsall Parish Council

Yearsley

Cropton parish council

Bellerby Parish Council

Austwick Parish Council

Cayton Parish Council

Kirkby Fleetham with Fencotes Parish Council

Sandhutton Parish Council

Scriven Parish Council

Husthwaite Parish Council

Weaverthorpe Parish Council

EMBSAY WITH EASTBY

Kirk Smeaton Parish Council

Boroughbridge Town Council

Burton-cum-Walden Parish

Eskdaleside cum Ugglebarnby Parish Council

Northallerton Town Council

Richmond Town Council

Kirkbymoorside Town Council

Scruton Parish council

Osmotherley Area Parish Council

Ulleskelf Parish Council

Catterick Parish Council

Marrick Parish Council

Norton on Derwent Town Council

Seamer Parish Council

Mid Wharfedale Parish Council

Roecliffe & Westwick Parish Council

Pannal and Burn Bridge PC

Bewerley Parish Council

Patrick Brompton Parish Council

Newthorpe with Huddlestone

Sherburn in Elmet Town Council

Eastfield Town Council

EASINGWOLD TOWN COUNCIL

Howsham

Hetton cum Bordley Parish Meeting

Whitby Town Council

Ainderby Steeple Parish Meeting

Sutton-In-Craven Parish Council

Melsonby Parish Council

Scotton Parish Council Catterick Garrison

Scorton PC

Little Smeaton Parish Council

Snainton Parish Council

Carleton-in-Craven Parish Council

Hawes & High Abbotside Parish Council

Stokesley Town Council

West Ayton Parish Council

East Ayton

Thirsk Town Council

Great and Little Barugh Parish Council

GREAT LANGTON PARISH MEETING

Eppleby Parish Council

Selby Town Council

Temple Hirst

North Duffield Parish Council

Hackforth and Ainderby Miers with Holtby Parish Council

Well

KNARESBOROUGH TOWN COUNCIL

Appendix 5.2 - To what extent do you agree with the principles of partnership working as set out in section 3.0 of the draft charter

1. Consider the following statement and select the answer most appropriate for you:

(To what extent do you agree with the principles of partnership working as set out in section 3.0 of the draft charter)

Appendix 5.3 - To what extent do you agree with the principles of communication as set out in section 4.0 of the draft charter

2. Consider the following statement and select the answer most appropriate for you: (To what extent do you agree with the principles of communication as set out in section 4.0 of the draft charter )

Appendix 5.4 - To what extent do you agree with the principles of consultation and engagement as set out in section 5.0 of the draft charter

3. Consider the following statement and select the answer most appropriate for you: (To what extent do you agree with the principles of consultation and engagement as set out in section 5.0 of the draft charter)

Appendix 5.5 - To what extent do you agree with the principles for financial arrangements as set out in Section 6.0 of the draft charter

4. Consider the following statement and select the answer most appropriate for you: (To what extent do you agree with the principles for financial arrangements as set out in Section 6.0 of the draft charter)

Appendix 5.6 - To what extent do you agree with the principles for managing and maintaining local services and assets as set out in Section 7.0 of the draft charter

5. Consider the following statement and select the answer most appropriate for you: (To what extent do you agree with the principles for managing and maintaining local services and assets as set out in Section 7.0 of the draft charter)

Appendix 5.7 - To what extent do you agree with the principles for practical support for parishes as set out in Section 8.0 of the draft charter

6. Consider the following statement and select the answer most appropriate for you: (To what extent do you agree with the principles for practical support for parishes as set out in Section 8.0 of the draft charter)

Appendix 5.8 - To what extent do you agree with the proposed Terms of Reference for the North Yorkshire Council and Parishes Joint Liaison Group set out in Appendix 1 of the draft charter

7. Consider the following statement and select the answer most appropriate for you: (To what extent do you agree with the proposed Terms of Reference for the North Yorkshire Council and Parishes Joint Liaison Group set out in Appendix 1 of the draft charter)

Appendix 5.9 - Parishes Joint Liaison Group (free text)

8. Again, with reference to the proposed arrangements for the North Yorkshire Council and Parishes Joint Liaison Group set out in Appendix 1 of the draft charter, it is intended that anyone interested would have the opportunity to participate. Are there any suggestions that could improve achieving this aim?

Please do not include any information that could identify an individual.

· None at the moment.

· Very concerned that the charter as drafted excludes parish meetings (para 1.1 and para 7) says only parish sector authorities can request a meeting - parish meetings are not parish sector authorities.

· Any proposal that effects a few Parish Councils should go directly to them

· no

· No

· no

· Unable to comment at this time

· The liaison meeting should be in person rather than on-line and need to rotate around geographies.

· Will Councillors still visit parish council meetings?

· A small Parish sub group would be useful. Remembering parishes have different needs.

· It would be helpful if the composition of the Joint Liaison Group could reflect and represent the wide geographical area of North Yorkshire, particularly for those Parishes which sit at the extreme edges of the New Authority and which share borders with other first tier Authorities

· It seems that Parish Sector membership of the group will be drawn exclusively from YCLA membership pool. This effectively disregards parish meetings where the majority are not members of the YCLA. This cannot be right. Are we really saying that participation in this consultation depends on fee paying membership of an association?

· Yes - Consider including more smaller parishes than the larger towns

· No

· meeting via Teams would be preferable where possible.

· The success of these meetings should be reviewed by NYC after each meeting so that smaller parishes feel that their concerns are being considered; parish representatives on this committee should not be the same as those who participate in the proposed regional networks, so that a broad range of opinions and ideas can be disseminated and discussed.

· Meetings should be local for the different areas of North Yorkshire. People do not wish to travel to York or Scarborough for a meeting.

· Work in progress

· We were not approached about the YLCA in the first instance so no opportunity to participate.

· No comment

· The phrase above “anyone interested” is ambiguous. The terms of reference are not clear as to whether agendas and minutes will be accessible/circulated to the parish sector or whether the public or parish sector may attend meetings of the Liaison Group. In our view, both should apply and be stated in the Appendix.

· Better information for all

· Representation - if Parish Councils raise a specific issue, they should have the opportunity to be able to make direct representations at Joint Liaison Group meetings. If issues raised are dynamic, the frequency of meetings may need to be more flexible and irregularly held than quarterly.

· It would be useful if some of the meetings could be held on Zoom to save travelling to a central location

· No

· Would travel expenses be offered to attend meetings? Could some meetings be held around the County rather than always at Northallerton

· Evening meetings, milage payments, good communication.

· The Council was concerned about the definition of ‘anyone interested’. Does this mean any Councillor or does it include members of the public? If so how would this work.

· See additional comments submitted by email.

· Hybrid Meetings • Chair should be from parish sector • Agenda items to be decided by consultation with parish sector

· The District Council worked well, why change it ?

· Dependant upon the agenda items, a local ‘expert’ could be invited to attend to give his/her view at the meeting

· Would request that the parish representatives feedback to the Parish Councils in a timely manor and give time for us to respond

· No

· Our concern is this is a huge membership and unyielding. The risk is that it is dominated by larger council issues and smaller councils like XXXX will not be heard and therefore will miss out on this vital communication link. Furthermore it is at risk of becoming a top down only method of communication from NY to the parishes with no clear method to share crucial information/questions back up to NY.

· None

· Involve county councillors as well as parish councillors rather than just officers.

· Nope

· Placing QR codes for people to scan to complete the form on the go in high-traffic areas like libraries and community buildings. Sharing in local newspapers, and on social media pages. A separate form for Town and City Council, separate from smaller parish councils

· Have to let Parish/Town Councils lead on any area committees, they are the key to local information

· Circulate agendas to Town/Parish Clerks as early as possible and provide a session at the start of the meetings for Cllrs/Clerks to raise questions/comments in respect of the business on the agenda

· We do not know how the YLCA is constituted, or democratically accountable, or what its branch structure is. Similarly, what is the composition of the PCNYSC? There needs to be a Table of Organisation to show how these groups are linked, and how they are populated.

· Hold meetings at different venues around the county. Northallerton is a long way for people from (what was) Craven to travel. Good communications to all the hubs Focus groups on specific topics

· Clarify the executive authority and representative structure on the YLCA side, so that it is clear how individual parishes access this arrangement.

· Offer Parish Sector workers travel expenses, otherwise how can they possibly afford to attend these meetings when they feel it necessary, and some will have to travel huge distances in order to attend.

· Also, such meetings should be held in all four corners (or more) of the North Yorkshire area on a rotation basis, or on a need to address local specific issues.

· It is unclear from the terms of reference how this will work. Will you look to divide into areas? Main issues are the needs of the Parishes that widely differ in geographical locations. Also needs of Town Councils differ to needs of the smaller rural parishes.

· How do we get involved? How and where do they meet? Can this be done hybrid so all can attend in different areas. Why should YLCA choose? What about the Parishes who are not in the YLCA they are instantly discriminated as not able to join. The chair should not be and Executive member of the Council as they have may have a biased view.

Will costs of the Parish Clerk be reimbursed as this will be expensive for the Town and Parishes. There should be more cllrs from areas allowed to be in this as 10 for the whole of NYC is simply not enough. You should have representatives from rural and high growth areas as they will all see things differently. There should be both female and male Cllrs and should be encouraging younger Cllrs who all have different ideas on what we should be focusing on.

· The time scale for NYC to get back regarding concerns is to long.

· Detail about how this work, terms of reference etc. How can Liaison groups be sure that they are being listened to?

· The Terms of Reference should be regularly reviewed and adapted as this group develops,

· The framework for the Joint Liason Group seems to be quite detached from actual Parish councils and their individual concerns. How are selected parish sector representatives supposed to know what is happening out in the parishes? Given the large number of Parish Councils within the new authority it would help to have local forums for related parishes (i.e. rural v urban v coast v moorland) in an area so that similar concerns could be discussed and issues forwarded onto appropriate representatives in the Liaison Group, otherwise it could appear to be too much of a top doen approach.

· In the first year of the Charter the meetings should be held bi-monthly. The Chair and Vice-chair of the should not have a unanimous discretion about agenda items

· The selection of group membership should be a sample of representatives across all 731 parishes to prevent localised decision making within the group.

· It’s good to have the framework but the council need to ensure parishes are made aware in order to achieve this. They need to reach out to all parishes and invite a number of local parishes to get together to get things going

· parish sector representatives – some PCs will have more involvement than others. This implies that YLCA member bodies can be represented by YLCA AND the parish sector spokesperson, but non members only by the spokesperson – so if you are a YLCA body you get 2 voices to everyone else's one.

· NA

· Historically XXXX has not been involved with this group but would welcome the opportunity to participate in the group and its procedures

Appendix 5.10 – other areas for inclusion (free text)

9. The draft charter sets out a number of key areas where North Yorkshire Council and parishes intend to develop more detailed working relationships, including and not limited to the following:

• Local Council Elections and Polls

• Financial Arrangements

• Planning

• Community Services including highways and lighting

Are there any other areas you feel should be considered? Please specify below:

Please do not include any information that could identify an individual.

· None at the moment

· Street furniture

· Many parishes are in the National Park who have for example their own planning rules. How does the Unitary council plan to work with the National Park Authorities?

· Health and Safety

· Development of the Parish Portal is essential if all highways issues are to be reported on it, this Parish Council does, but it is frequently not updated with relevant or useable information. Response time of 20 working days for response time is somewhat slow.

· Issues related to climate change and preserving the environment where possible.

· No

· None identified at this time

· So far there has been little for parish councils to work with. Perhaps this should be addressed before going forward. There should be special attention paid to smaller parish councils. They may not have the financial clout as an instrument of local government. However, with the increasing urbanisation of rural villages, there are many more residents who have the where with all to make their views felt in an effective manner.

· Issuing new "county" policies that all parishes can use, for example, the GDPR regulations that came in recently. A county wide approach would be appreciated.

· Councillors would like to see a commitment from the local NYC Councillor to engage regularly with the PC either by attending meetings or sending an update to be discussed at the meeting. Have one central data base for PC’s based around the .gov.uk email address for consistency and continuity. The new council should actively encourage all of its PC’s to use a .gov.uk email address for the clerk and offer support about doing this. (Possibly by offering a hosting service to the PC’s?) An ongoing commitment to maintain, develop and expand the Parish Portal to give a one stop place of contact. More support for PC around traffic calming measures. Training and support with Parish Plans and Housing Needs Surveys Provide regular drop-in sessions.

· Environmental

· Resiliency planning/emergency response has also been mentioned in the draft charter and should be included.

· Preventative measures rather than reactive measures - regular cleaning of drains and gullys.

· No

· Ordering Bins

· None

· Highways and Planning are the areas which are of most concern to small rural parishes.

· Making it a key part of local county / district councillors role to physically attend parish council meetings in their ward areas.

· Planning for Richmondshire is biased towards Hambleton by nature of the representation. How will the Local Plan be taken into consideration together with engagement with the Parish/Town Council.

· Climate change especially fracking. Sustainable renewable energy.

· Work loads for small parishes like XXXX with 200 residents could become unmanageable

· No

· No comment

· North Yorkshire Council will have major responsibilities in local services (including waste and recycling), environmental health, health and adult services (including social services), and local transport policies. An undertaking to consult and work with the parish sector in each of these areas should be specifically referred to in the Parish Charter, even at this early stage in its development.

· Environmental Health , Procurement , Estates , Technology & change

· Resilience planning / emergency response. • Standards Committee and Monitoring Officer support to assist and advise members of the parish sector on standards issues and to monitor the operation of the Code of Members Conduct.

· Parks, urgent focus on climate & Biodiversity emergency.

· The most important subject in which we must ensure effective consultation and collaboration is planning

· None

· The impact of rural crime and stronger working relationships with the Police on particular issues of concern ie; fly tipping; speeding and robbery. The impact of reduction of service on the health and well being of the rural community ie; reduction in public transport

· Improving provision for young people and youth work. Proper consultation on planning issues especially with regards to local planning consultation.. Using 106 money/CIL to benefit the community in which the development has impacted; with improved systems to manage the pprocesses. More effective ways of communicating with the police, and better policing in rural areas.

· Treating Parish councils with more respect, after all they are the closest Councillors to the community they serve.

· Emergency Planning

· See additional comments submitted by email.

· Leisure facilities • Licensing • Economic development • Waste and recycling • Car parking •

· Community open spaces

· Communicate funding opportunities to PC’s to enable these to be considered against budgeted projects.

· No mention is made to the role the National Parks of North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales play in the planning and enforcement of developments in the region. More support needs to be provided by NYC into the valuable work done by the Communication Officers in the Highways Area Offices. Their liaison work is vital to efficient working relationships between PC’s and all agencies.

· No

· Public transport - especially bus provision linking villages and town hubs.

· No

· Communication 2) Strategic planning that affects communities 3) Alterations to public rights of way. The implications of changing pathways to bridleways and BOATS needs to be better understood by the council and the officers.

· None

· More weight should be afforded to parish councils’ opinions in the planning process. There are worries about the set-up of quango-like community groups where they have no powers but be a forum for self-interest groups.

· It is essential that Parish Councils should not be forced to take on any "devolved' responsibilities they do not wish to take on.

· Nope

· None

· It would be good to have a full contact protocol for notification of highways issues etc.

· environmental policy, economic policy, rural transport, the interface with the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the other national park which cover a significant area of NYCC

· Community events and celebrations – where the unitary authority can be the enabler of, road closures, street lighting, etc, while the local council can work with residents to design and deliver the local activity. Working together to facilitate discussion and action through network arrangements, including with other statutory and voluntary bodies.

· The above tells me NOTHING about your intentions. I need more specific details. This is like an ingredients list on a supermarket ready meal that says, "Ingredients: this and that"! Can you seriously not do better than this? This should have been worked out before a decision was taken on which model to go for with a new North Yorkshire authority. The fact it has not is a travesty!

· It is generally acknowledged that local services are best delivered locally. For parishes to take these on board the necessary funding needs to be available. Currently the only way a Parish can do this is to substantially increase their precept. Perhaps a different form of funding should be considered.

· Such areas would include Road sweeping/gully cleaning, both of which are sadly lacking at present.

· On a financial note, consider the payment of mileage for parish councillors to attend NYC meetings as opposed to being financed through Parish precepts.

· Planning for our area is biased towards a larger area who do not take into consideration the local plan. The local plan should be considered especially where large developments are due to take place.

· There is not enough time for small Parishes to feed back to planning as some don't meet for a couple of months. Planning in small growth areas do have an impact on the rural area and so this is why it is so important to have local knowledge. it would be nice to have an independent voice on the planning.

· Concerns about NYC elected Cllrs not attending meetings and feeding back information about what is going on. NYC Cllrs not addressing issues that are going on. This is putting more pressure on the Clerks who now are doing the Cllrs job.

· Community Services: Richmond previously had Area Partnership groups/meetings, these were not only informative about local issues but also had a small amount of money available for funding small, local projects. We feel these Area Partnerships should be retained as keeps decision making local and relevant.

· Fly tipping is a major issue in our area and beyond, would welcome detailed working relationships to tackle this.

· Transport. North Yorkshire is a very large, rural county yet public transport is on the whole poor. How can this be improved going forward particularly when the government is keen to push a green agenda on the country?

· Parking

· Countryside issues - hedges, trees, PRoWs Land management of areas within Parishes previously managed by district councils Waste services Emergency responses eg flooding, wildfires Allocation of 106 funds for local projects

· There are too many areas that need to be developed and so it is not yet possible to endorse the Charter in its current format.

· Environment and sustainability It would be appreciated if responses to planning applications could be accepted even outside prescribed time

· Social Care, Climate Change – EV charge point strategy, Town wide renewable energy strategy schemes, Waste strategy, Parks management – dog wardens, Tourism strategy, Economic strategy,

· Early years – Youth services, Health & wellbeing, Active travel and safer streets, Emergency planning

Appendix 5.11 – adopting the charter yes/no

Would your city, town, parish council or parish meeting choose to formally adopt (endorse) a final version of the charter, assuming it was based on the principles and details in this draft charter?

Appendix 5.12 – other feedback (freetext)

If there is other feedback you would like to give on the draft charter, please give details below:

Please do not include any information that could identify an individual.

· The principles of the Charter are sensible and my scoring above is more reflective of my relative inexperience as a Parish Councillor (in role , 6 months). I have little experience against which to compare the relationship between PC and NY pre and post proposed Charter implementation. I have limited knowledge & experience therefore of the circumstances / context in which it has been considered necessary to set out these principles.

· The Councillors appreciated the clear and concise language that was used in this Draft Parish Charter.

· 1.We will ratify only once we see the final version. 2.How will the Parish Meetings get their voice heard under the new charter ,bearing in mind we do not have the same facilities /access to finance?

· Section 2.1 and Appendix 1 Section 1.1: "All parish sector authorities are parish councils..." may suggest that parish meetings are not included in the parish sector. Please add "or parish meetings".

· Very concerned that the charter as drafted excludes parish meetings 2.1 – the definition of parish sector appears to excludes parish meetings. Parish meetings are not parish sector authorities

· XXX would like the new council to:- Engage with them, and to remember that XXX is here. Provide XXX with a fair service and not to forget that we are out on a limb at the edge of the County. Ensure that no matter where they are, North Allerton, XXX, Scarborough, Hawes, Leyburn, or Selby, that every area gets a fair amount of services, no matter what that is, bus services for example.

· No

· Officers need to commit to the charter especially on time frames in responding to parish concerns

· We are unhappy with certain of the centralisation aspects given the very large distances potentially involved. We are concerned about the disparity in size of individual Councils and thus the voice that smaller councils will have. We are interested in how the benefits will be measured is this purely financial? If so we would like the ability to see that the actual standard of service has not deteriorated and we are now merely getting "less for less".

· It requires a lot more substance and a lot less waffle. This caused a lot of upset it does not apply to small parish councils. Question is not clear enough What do they propose to make our role more effective Too prescriptive and takes no account of the (small) parish sector works Planning notices should go to each parish councillor as well as the parish clerk. This style of consultation and feedback is too rigid. There is no discussion. This new unitary council should be an opportunity to make parish councils more influential and [not] simply an opportunity for them to be swallowed up by a bigger unnecessarily bureaucratic regional government.

· The hosting of parish documents, such as AGAR, that are legally required to be accessible online. Some parishes are too small for their own websites. XXX currently offer this service, minutes and important documents are hosted.

· Agree in principle with a charter but with more structure and details. Also question 5,6,7, are not applicable to our parish, and consideration that our parish wishes to remain as we are must be taken into account.

· Consideration should be given to the availability of time, finance and resources for the very small parishes; to their ability to purchase and use often expensive technology; and to the great distances which some Parishes find themselves from the seat of the New North Yorkshire authority. There are significant sub cultural differences across the vast distances and geography of North Yorkshire which need to be considered and the impact of sitting on a boundary between North Yorkshire and other surrounding Authorities should also be considered.

· The principles of partnership,liaison & communication in the draft have much to commend them, although they are couched in general terms.I believe a further draft is needed before we would be happy to endorse the draft fully, for the following main reasons which I have shared with our village residents before returning this completed questionnaire: I attended a dropin session today 9 Feb at HambletonDC,attended by around a dozen parish sector representatives including myself.I understand that over the course of the next 12mths the draft charter is to be developed in detail by the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Liaison Group which at this time seems not to be likely to include Parish Meeting representatives. If this in not the case, the draft should be developed to be explicit in this regard. It is curious that the draft cannot state the number of Parish meetings existing in the county, although I have received verbal assurance that there is no intention to persuade mergers of parish meetings with nearby parish councils, this too should be explicit in the draft. The draft is couched in terms which are relevant to Parish Councils with precepts, and should be developed again as a draft to be more inclusive towards Parish Meetings. The discussions at the drop in session centred around the potential devolution of those services to the parish sector which the County is not obliged to deliver itself (where the parish sector expresses a wish to do so, and can present an acceptable business case – i.e. not more than, and preferably cheaper than the County budget for those services ) It is worrying that with potentially diminishing County budgets for services its not obliged to deliver,services expected by communities may be delivered poorly/not at all by County, and Parishes may be obliged to consider self delivery of some services. This might mean County might offload services it didn't wish to deliver. Perhaps some assurances against this potential eventuality can be given?

· We would consider after sight of the final draft.

· The Parish Council disagrees with the 20 working days to receive a response on matters from NYCC. This is almost an entire month and does not align with the Council’s aim of offering improved efficiency and effectiveness of local government services or/ and empowering the parish sector. In order to serve its community effectively, a Parish Council needs collaboration and a proactive approach from NYCC. Parish Clerks (who are paid for only a few hours per week) are expected to be ‘on call’ to answer any resident or Councillor queries, yet they have to wait a month to get a response from a district Council. The Parish Council strongly recommends that queries from Parish Councils are given priority for responses, especially given that the Parish Council is comprised of volunteers who give up their time for free for the benefit of the community as a whole.

· The Parish Council would love to see a website developed where Clerks can log on and communicate with the council for all aspects of their role e.g - ordering bins, requesting precept, downloading new Councillor documents, updating Councillor details, etc. The biggest barrier between the council and the parish council is communication and not being able to get hold of the right team directly to get things done. One easy way to do this would be to develop the Parish Portal - incorporating all District Council activities onto the NYCC portal.

· The decision to not adopt this parish charter was RESOLVED at the meeting of the parish council on 2 March 2023.

· It would have been beneficial to have shown clear comparisons between current and proposed services. The Charter is trying to control parish councils day to day management NB note the hardcopy questionnaire sent out is different to the online questionnaire

· Highways: NYCC already commits itself to replying to parish councils in 20 days and rarely meets that target; the Parish Portal has never been fit for purpose and has not improved - in contrast to the NYCC website which is excellent in providing comprehensive and clear information. Parish councils' concerns are often as basic as gullies /salt bins/ refuse / road repairs / footpaths etc and prompt and accurate communications,rather than principles and strategies.

· We feel that more emphasis on remote meetings is crucial, especially for those in remote settings, or for the elderly in Winter.

· I clerk several Councils. Each of them has had the document since 17/1/23. None has been able to put together cogent replies to the questionnaire. All have found the document very confusing to read, too long and in dire need of being translated into plain English. All have commented that if this is a sign of what is to come with the new unitary authority then it is not being looked forward to. Several have said the document implies that failure to accept the charter will result in a parish council being marginalised. It only looks at things from a North Yorkshire Council point of view. Councillors have commented that 1] things are about to become more difficult; 2] network contacts we have now are likely to be lost; 3] communications between NYC and parishes appear not to be prioritised over those from the public; 4] the way the document is written is indicative of the fact that NYC just doesn't "get" parish councils; 5] if this is what we are to be faced with then it's not why I signed up to be a parish councillor; 6] it's just more red tape that we don't need; 7] it's far too long, get it down to two sides of A4.

· There is little mention of double devolution in the document – limited to the reference in paragraph 2.6 where NYC recognises the potential for the devolvement of appropriate services and decision-making responsibilities by mutual agreement where the parish sector has the ability to discharge the function, where it is cost-neutral to NYC, and where it is appropriate. There is a form of double devolution in operation in the Scarborough parishes where those parishes receive Model Agreement funding for looking after a range of assets (seats, bus shelters, clocks, burial grounds and grass verges). This arrangement was set up in recognition that in the unparished area of Scarborough town, these assets have always been maintained out of the borough council budget by council employees in its parks and gardens operation. The future of the Model Agreement is now in question with NYC only agreeing to fund the arrangement for the first financial year of the new council. One possible option is to discontinue the Model Agreement from 1st April 2024. In that case, we think that NYC needs to engage with the Scarborough parishes to discuss the implications of the policy change. It might be helpful to carry out an exercise to establish what current arrangements apply in the other six former districts. If the former district council maintained these local infrastructure assets (which seems likely, as in some parishes, there is no indication that they have been paid for by the parish), then presumably the unitary authority will continue to fund the work. If that is the case, then in fairness, the unitary authority should be arranging to adopt and fund the local infrastructure of the Scarborough parishes. A second option is to engage with the parishes throughout the county to establish whether there might be scope for them to manage local infrastructure with funding from the unitary authority on a per capita basis. Some parishes might welcome the extra responsibility

· North Yorkshire is geographically the largest area with one local authority. Meetings need to take place near at hand in order for communication, engagement and representation to operate successfully and effectively. Reads well “in principle” but concern if there is a breakdown in communication between NYC and parish from which the residents would suffer. Not enough local information or engagement to adopt this. Needs 100% more work, too many loopholes.

· Possibly would adopt

· Use of electronic communicate will not be possible for all Councillors and Clerks. Will not be possible for Clerk to have access to Council owned computer and Council email account. Group chats using messgaging apps, village magazines and flyers not possible. Will not be able to report non-urgent highway defects via Parish Portal online reporting system.

· With regard to this draft plan: 1. If the main principle seems to be bringing all the N. Yorks councils together, there does seem to be a lot of groups being set-up. It seems contrary to the whole idea of creating the amalgamation of all the seven councils. 2. In section 1.1 of the appendix it does mention parish meetings being joined to another parish council. To use XXX as an example - the nearest parish council is at XXX - a totally different scenario to XXX. So it is difficult to see how amalgamation could possibly work. Some years ago, XXX wanted XXX to integrate with their PC, the villagers here were against this and preferred to stay as we are - it's "self-regulating" so what's wrong with that? 3. Agree with having consultations on planning matters etc. especially bearing in mind the diversity of each area.

· XXX parish would struggle to pay for elections as our present precepts are to low we only have 225 chargeable residents at this time. What funding could be available for small parish councils to support voting responsibility

· Whilst there is nothing in the principles of the Draft Charter to disagree with the problems of actually working with Council Departments are immense with all cards held by the County Council. For example the Parish Council has, over the last four years attempted to work with Highways to increase the gritting in the village. There are two roads in the village facing East-West which become ice rinks in cold and wet-windy or snowy weather. The Parish Council offered to pay for additional gritting which was declined. They have looked at outside contractors but this was opposed as they are not approved contractors. They have now found an approved local contractor who ploughs roads for Highways willing to do this work however the hurdles put in place by Highways make it impossible to take forward. How is this Charter different to the existing Charter to make this type of approach change?

· ‘Yes’ to Q10 would only apply if the points made in Q8b, Q9 and below are addressed. Section 1.7 of the Charter stresses that it will be developed and expanded by regular reviews. If Parish Councils will be asked to formally adopt the Charter, then it should be made clear (in section 1.7 or in section 5.0 “Consultation and engagement” that there will be full consultation on all proposed amendments to the Charter at all times in the future. Re communication with Highways Department (section 4.0 and Appendix 2), there is a contradiction. The wording requires all non-urgent communication by the Parish Sector to be conducted through the ‘Parish Portal’. However, Appendix 2, whilst repeating this, also recognises that this can/should be done “via email to the local highways area office”. This latter route is currently a valuable and effective means of communicating between Highways and Parish Councils and more weight should be given to it throughout the wording of the Charter.

· Q2. Have not yet had visibility of the NYC Council Plan, to which Paragraph 3.3 refers. Q3. 4.1 Note, membership of YLCA is not mandatory for the parish sector. 4.3 The contact details of the North Yorkshire Parishes’ Joint Liaison Group should be recorded within the groups Terms of Reference, at Appendix 1, in order to facilitate the mechanism of raising issues. Q4. 5.1 Historically, briefing and training sessions delivered to Parish Councillors by District Councils or NYCC have been extremely rare. 5.2 The volume and detail of information and documents forwarded to parish councillors on occasions is substantial. It should be recognised that the average parish councillor may not have the time to read and understand them all now. If greater parish council engagement is intended, then this needs to be recognised and mitigated for. Q5. 6.2 Surely, the only election costs to which the parish sector are expected to pay or contribute towards would be a parish sector by-election? Clarification required. Q6. 7.2 Typically smaller parish councils do not have the resources or expertise to take on additional delegated responsibilities which are current the responsibility of District Councils or NYCC. Any transfer of locally based services or assets to the parish sector must be mutually agreed. Clarification required. However, there are inevitably situations where a greater degree of local involvement may be preferrable and may not involve undue additional work for the parish. Q7. 8.2 The detailed practical support for the parish sector is very welcomed, providing they are accessible and not costly. Q8. 4. Is the YLCA the only route of securing parish sector representation on this group. Why not directly from parishes?

· Effective communication is crucial Local Planning Authorities have failed to implement paragraph 40 of the revised NPPF requiring them to encourage applicants to submit plans to Parish Councils before submitting application. Highways are not required to attend local planning authorities committees - but should be.

· Comment about the question about managing and maintaining local services and assets (Q6) - This question did not reflect the item in the Charter.

· Openness, transparency and an effective two- way communication process Treat Parish councils with more respect, value their comments, we cannot have, same old, same old. Things have to change. This document should not be static but needs to be dynamic and be changed as the new system becomes embeded. The 6 old district authorities should not be allowed to dominate!

· The Parish Council would like to raise several points with regard to the NYC and Parishes Joint Liaison Group: The Parish Council is concerned about the membership of the Liaison Group in that it might not be representative of all areas of a very large and diverse parish sector. You mention that there are 731 parishes in North Yorkshire, but there are only seven branches of YLCA, a proposed representation of less than one percent. We would suggest that membership should be exteneded to include additional parish representation from within each of the two National Parks, where issues can vary widely from those affecting parishes within the YLCA branch areas. There is no indication of how the Parish representatives are appointed. How democratic will this process be? The Council is also concerned that it is not clear from Annex 1 of the draft Charter as to whether the Liaison Group has any decision making powers and if so, if Parish Councils will be bound by these decisions. Within the Charter there appears to be no specific role for the locally elected North Yorkshire Council representatives. This would normally be the first port of call when parish councils are seeking assistance. North Yorkshire is the largest, and possibly most diverse, county in England, and there is a danger here that the ‘local’ voice will be subsumed within a ‘one-size-fits-all’ bureaucracy.

· At the meeting of the 6 March 2023, the parish council resolved the above responses. Additional comments are that: - the charter does not apply to smaller parish councils - very biased towards larger town/parish councils - largely irrelevant - fails to recognise difference environments/demographics within the county

· Additional comments have been submitted by email.

· Lack of consultation on the preparation of the document. • Capacity of parish sector (all volunteers) to implement the Parish Charter. • Lack of financial support for parish sector to implement the changes. • Discriminates against working people. • Document does not contain sufficient detail. • All power resides with NYC, which has not understood the role of the elected parish sector. It is not clear how the parish sector can raise local issues with respect to Planning and Licensing. The parish sector should have representation on Planning and Licensing Committees.

· Members of XXX Parish Council attended the drop in session at Stonecross. No one on the panel introduced them selfes and one member of the panel sat with his back to the councillors through out the session. Poor attempt at persuasion.

· The Parish Council is concerned that you are mandating the use of the Parish Portal to report Highways issues. The Parish Council tried to set up access to the Portal when it was first launched but could not do so and raised this problem with the team at the time but got no response. It has also be raised several times since, yet despite some assurance that it will be resolved, it has not been. You cannot expect a system to be used when you do not even give access to it, or resolve issues promptly?

· We would agree ot the charter however there are someparts which we do not agree with, these are listed below and we would like ammending before signing to agree: * Responses required within 28days is not practical since our meetings are held bi-monthly so we would not always be able to discuss in that time frame * Would need more information on the issues involving boundaries and what that would require us to do * We are worried that this gives North Yorkshire Council the ability to give us tasks and jobs which we aren't able to perform like gritting our own highways * We are happy to have the opportunity to manage our own assets however we would want to make sure that if we do not want to do this we have the opportunity to say no rather than being forced to manage assets that are not within our capacity.

· The Council’s intention to formally adopt a final version of the charter, is based on resolution of the following issues: Concerning Q3 relating to the principles of communication and Q4 relating to the principles of consultation and engagement, the Council’s responses reflect a need for further clarity concerning methods of attendance ie in person, virtual or hybrid and, if in person, the likely distance to venues and funding for city/town/parish council or parish meeting representatives’ attendance. Concerning Q5 relating to the principles for financial arrangements, the Council’s response reflects its concern at the proposed parish sector responsibility for “the full cost of any parish sector by-election within their parish”. Concerning Q8. a) relating to the proposed Terms of Reference for the Joint Liaison Group, the Council’s response reflects an apparent duplication of Yorkshire Local Council Associations (YLCA) branch and accompanying Parish Clerk, and YLCA and Society of Local Council Clerks representation, respectively, at Sections 4 & 6.

· We think that it is a good thing to have clear lines of responsibility, communication and support mapped out in a charter. As stated above we do not think that the communication and support is fully thrashed out yet to be workable and that this is important. More is required to define the roles of the six locality committees and their relationship to local parishes, both in communications, responsibilities, support etc. it is not clear what any of these or the local customer access offices do. Where is our first point of contact for support? We think that planning is an important issue that affects local communities and that this has not been covered fully in what the role is of the parish in reviewing planning applications. It is currently woolly, is open for interpretation and requires further work to define roles and responsibilities. Parish councillors and communities need clarity in order to be effective and not duplicate North Yorkshire can support local parishes in developing training programmes to support local councillors and clerks to boost our understanding of our roles, develop local councils effectiveness and empower local communities effectively.

· The Parish Council would wish to adopt this Charter as it gives a structure for working with the new North Yorkshire Council including the vital requirement of communication. This could also encourage Parish Councils to work together.

· There is a risk that attendance of members of the North Yorkshire Council and Parishes Joint Liaison Group over time becomes patchy, or that delegates/alternatives invariably attend. This would adversely impact on its effectiveness. To address this, records of attendance by members should be published on an annual basis, so that members can be held to account.

· Nope

· More could be included on working relationships between town councils and large parishes instead of lumping us all together.

· We could not formally agree with the Charter at present as some issues have been raised and these would need addressing first

· This is a very positive document that we welcome and support. However we would like to understand better how the Parish Sector representatives will be agreed/elected at the Joint Liaison Group and Local Area Committee. Furthermore, we would also like to see a more locally focussed mechanism for engagement with Town and Parish Councils and perhaps other community organisations – this could work at an NYC Councillor level and/or at a Service Centre Town plus local Parishes level – akin to the previous XXX and Villages Forum – but supported by and represented at/by NYC Councillor(s) and Officer (s).

· 6.3 appears to require that parishes must finance and organise local elections for parish council posts. We have a zero precept, and don't maintain a parish meeting. This means that we couldn't finance elections, and don't require them anyway. 1.1 appears to suggests some sort of amalgamation with other small parishes - we would not welcome outside influence from a larger body, and hope that any such arrangement would be voluntary and subject to regular review.

· We are concerned that there is no mention of the role of the two National Parks which cover a large area of NYCC. In XXX the Yorkshire Dales National Park is our planning authority, and their environmental, economic and community policies provide the main policy framework within which we operate. 4.2. – 20 working days is too long a (max) period for NYC to respond to communications from the parish sector. 4.3. – will NYCC supply parish clerks with a council owned computer? XXX Parish Meeting could not afford to do this itself. Not a well designed survey. Q.11 should have a d/k option – this is our position. We don’t know what the implications are of formally adopting the Charter. We have answered ‘somewhat agree’ to the questions, as there isn’t yet enough detail to take a stronger position. There should have been an opportunity for respondents to say why they might have agreed or disagreed with an aspect of the charter – respondents might have very different reasons behind what is apparently the same answer, and these need teasing out.

· Revised text suggested sent separately.

· The lack of detail here is staggering. How can Parish representatives make informed decisions on proposals that are simply not explained in any meaningful way? This is an utter disgrace.

· Well worded document but actions speak louder. Currently parishes believe this is a tick box exercise regardless of the requirements/requests of Parishes. Communication is key to the success of the partnership (sadly lacking with the District Councils). Can we expect this to improve? It is important that a similar questionnaire is repeated in 6 months to monitor the changes. Our responses are generally sceptical - specifically Q2 where more detail is required- Q3 the point relating response in 20 working days is critical- will the Parish have any redress if time limit not kept - Q4 Consultation & Engagement are good words but if they end up like Planning as a tick box they mean nothing - Q5 as Q4. Q7 Practical support sounds great but is it realistic, only time will tell. Q8 see above. Q10 We would only agree to adopt the formal charter subject to much greater consultation with NYC and Parishes. A substantial amount of work is still required for us to consider adopting such a policy

· Not enough local information or engagement to adopt this. It needs 100% more work. It has to many loopholes which can be interpreted in different ways. Not enough engagement from Town and Parishes as only a few selected Cllrs were chosen by the YLCA without consultation. This document was highlighted to be one of the most important documents for the LGR and was late in arriving and then the consultation was rushed. What about the Parishes that are not in the YLCA or only meet every 3 months they probably wont have time to complete this.

· Parish Portal: Thank you for retaining this valuable service for Parish Councils.

· Probably.

· The PC is keen to see the final version of the document and hope that there is more clarity about this will work. The draft was quite aspirational with little detail. Our PC is very willing to engage with NYC going forward and looking forward to a positive and collaborative working relationship.

· Paragraph 6.2 - can it read 'the precept will be paid in a timely manner' as currently we often do not receive the payment until the very end of April and September which is not a problem in XXX but I do believe could be an issue for smaller Parishes.

· It would be helpful to provide a Directory for Parish Councils with details of all the services now being managed by the new Council, to identify for each service what is covered, which body has the primary responsibility, who had the previous responsibility, what the Parish Councils are responsible for currently and potentially in the future. Details of the departments, contact details and best means of communication, as for example provided Appendix 2 for Highways. This could be provided in outline to begin with and more details added as new Council evolves and arrangements and procedures are finalised. Additional comments related to questions in consultation: Q3 Section 4 Communication + Clerks should be provided with a dedicated mobile phone or landline for Parish Council business to be able to manage communications with residents, which can occasinally be abusive, without disrupting their personal phone lines. + Other communication methods such as Parish Noticeboards and websites should not be forgotten. Messaging apps and group chats are open to abuse by the public and could require too much of a Clerks paid for time to the detriment of parish business as everyone expects an instant response which is not achievable. Section 5 - Consultation and Engagement + It would be helpful if Parish Councils were consulted on other issues as raised in Q9 above

· 20 working days is a long time to wait for a response, given that not all parish councils meet monthly. A parish should be given a dedicated person to respond to correspondence and contact

· There is support for a Charter of this nature but more detail is needed, coupled with a period of running new systems so that areas of concern and the opportunities for improvements can be agreed. There are too many areas that need to be developed and so it is not yet possible to endorse the Charter in its current format. The questions in this questionnaire do not match the references to the Charter and the design of the form/nature of the questions are poorly conceived

· Under 3.4 it is considered that parish councils should be stakeholders Under 4.2 it is considered that 20 working days is an excessive timescale Under 4.3 it should be noted that this will provide extra workload for Parish Councillors

· Q5 Section 6: Whilst we realise the parish sector includes both Town and Parish Councils/ Meetings, we would ask for clarification regarding the annual detailed breakdown of election costs. Information is required as to who will be expected to contribute towards this within the Parish sector. Q6 Section 7: Concern regarding proposals for the transfer of some locally based services and assets. Small and rural parishes do not have the funds to cover additional expenses within their current remit. Q 10, In Principle we feel that the charter is an excellent idea. However we think that clarification in some of the areas outlined is required for smaller parishes

· Good communication with the Parishes by all branches of North Yorkshire Council is paramount in order for the Charter to be workable and achievable. We need to know who the appropriate contacts are within NY Council and contact details of who is supporting the Parishes. Clarification is needed on Section 4.3 paragraph 4 …..”all clerks to have access to a council owned computer and council (rather than personal) email account”. This infers that all parishes will have a council owned computer and an allocated council email account.

· The Parish Council have asked that I share the following in response to the consultation: 1. Are there clear points of contact for issues raised at council meetings? 2. They are setting up a North Yorkshire Joint Liaison Group. With 731 parishes in North Yorkshire this appears to be an impractical way to feed parish issues into this body. I would have thought there should be more local groups which could raise issues for their area and feed into the Joint Liaison Group.

· Whilst XXX feel this is a good start we feel it is not relevant to larger council’s such as ourselves. Perhaps a separate charter or a different package could be developed that would be more suitable for larger councils. National Association of Local Councils (NALC) provide a good example of separating Larger Councils (The Larger Councils Committee represents the needs of larger councils, defined as those with an electorate of over 6,000 and/or an annual budgeted income of £600,000. It develops, formulates and responds to the policy issues affecting larger councils within NALC's overall framework) and Smaller Councils (The Smaller Councils Committee represents the needs of smaller councils, which are defined as those with an electorate of under 6,000).

· XXX Parish Council would like to see more details in this Charter. Councillors feel that in order to comment on it they need more information. They feel it is a very vague document and lacks any core information.

· Q3 the draft Charter section starts with reference to YLCA – an organisation that not all Councils are members of, and the whole section gives a strong impression that communication is going to reach us at third or fourth hand – it is still to be seen whether YLCA will communicate with or take any account of the views of non-member organisations. We do not see a need for YLCA to be an intermediary in communications between NYC and Parish Councils. Q 6 – the second bullet point states that NYC will consider outsourcing some operations to PCs – but appears to have no recognition that PCs may not be in a position to take these on – because it is either impractical or against the wishes of the community. It reads as if there is a possibility of these being forced upon us.

· XXX Council supports the principles as set out in the Charter. Given our history, over many years, with lack of engagement from Harrogate Borough Council we are very much looking forward to a massive change in North Yorkshire Council approach to developing strong partnership relationships with Town and Parish Councils. - Access to officer expertise - Complaints procedure - Improved definition of relationship to area committee - Community network group - Community anchor organisation - List of departmental names to contact – not just communication via the service desk, - Highway – improvements by demonstrating best practice developed by one area office across all offices.

Appendix 6.0 Drop in session Feedback

Appendix 6.1 Hambleton

Hambleton District Council: 9 February 10 am – 1 pm

Number of visitors: 20

Feedback theme	Ref	Details
Councillors attending parish council meetings	5.1	· To enable effective communication · Include a ‘protocol’ with ‘best practice’ such as recommendations · attend a particular number of meetings (e.g., one per year, half of all meetings etc.) · expectation that Cllrs accept or decline invitations so that parish councils can plan meetings
Parish meetings	2.1 and app 1	Feeling that the charter wording does not include parish meetings or is not appropriate for parish meetings: · Refine wording in paragraph 2.1 and same for appendix 1 · Chair of the parish meeting is not a Clerk (parish meetings do not generally have clerks)
Consultations	5.0	Suggestion to undertake a consultation with parishes after transition, seeking feedback about LGR (Local Government Reorganisation)
Escalation	4.3	Request for details of how to escalate when responses are not received through the normal channels – e.g., specific contacts for different matters
Communications	4.0	A desire to avoid duplication and the roll-out of generic information (feeling that sending out too much information led to important info being missed and disengagement)
Parish plans	8.2	The parish charter references that NYC (North Yorkshire Council) will support parishes to develop parish plans but does not explain what they are (also how does a parish plan interact with a neighbourhood plan, how do these interact with a local plan)
Parish councillors/clerks using dedicated council emails	4.3	· Could include info about how a parish can apply for a .gov.uk email address https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-your-govuk-domain-name · Lack of clarity regarding the references to “council-owned”
Parish portal		· Better updates to say the work has been done
Training	5.1	Popular, would like to see NYC involving parishes in training sessions, some areas suggested included: · Clerking (incl. ‘the basics’) · Finance and audit · Planning matters (including how to write effective responses to consultation, local plan, NPPF)
Reference in charter to parishes attending meetings at the local authority	5.2	Parishes need as much advance notice as possible of meetings (more than one month) Would like an idea about how many meetings this is likely to be in a year
Length of time for responses from parishes	4.3	28 days was included in the draft charter – view that this might not be achievable “Unless there is an exceptional reason” - re-word to something where there is more flexibility
Accountability	Appendix 2	Query around reporting in App 2: · Concerns around whether the parish would be accountable or not accountable for reporting – e.g., reporting a non-urgent highway defect · What is the definition of urgent or non-urgent defects
Planning matters	1.6	· Details of any changes (e.g., committee decisions etc) · Include an explanation of how parish consultation responses are considered in planning decisions · Planning portal unsatisfactory, not set-up to enter a Parish Council response (format is first name/surname)
Double devolution	2.6	· Concerns that NYC will try to force services and costs onto parishes · More detailed information about the types of services/assets and how to progress expressions of interest
Grouping of parishes	2.1	· Concerns that NYC will try to force this · What are the benefits, how does it work?
Parish liaison group		· Views about how parish reps should be nominated (not through YLCA (Yorkshire Local Councils Associations))
General (questions/comments)		· Parish charter (what is in it, why is it being developed, how will it be revised) · Unitary council/reorganisation · ACCs and the parish liaison group · Changes/lobbying around 20mph zones · Planning – any changes · YLCA response to draft
General (concerns/criticisms)		· Planning – view that parish consultation responses not considered when decisions are made · Responses and requests for information left unanswered or poor responses (from NYCC) · Poor communication (NYCC)

Appendix 6.2 Ryedale

Ryedale District Council - 10 February 2023 from 2pm until 5pm

Number of attendees:

Feedback theme	Ref	Details
Highway		Potholes Query over ownership/responsibility for a grass verge with a damaged/dangerous step Potential relocation of road signs (visibility)
Grass cutting		Closed churchyard - Ryedale maintains this – approx. x2 grass cuts per year, deal with any repairs. Queries around continuity, contact methods (communityteam@ryedale.gov.uk) Extent of grass cutting (safety cuts on bends)
Planning		Query around consultation with parish councils about planning applications

Appendix 6.3 Craven

Craven District Council - 13 February 2023 from 11:30am until 2:30pm

Number of visitors: 8

Feedback theme	Ref	Details
Councillors		· Importance of relationship of NYC Councillor with Parish Councillors – can this be included in the draft Charter i.e., role to act as a conduit · Harder job for new Councillors as now covering a larger area – REDACTED mentioned there will be a review of boundary areas before the next elections in 2027
Double devolution		· Questions about pilots · Taking over running of the car parks · Conditions of assets potentially being transferred ( REDACTED asked about taking over car park and using the income to keep the toilets running) · Discussed difference between community asset transfer as opposed to double devolution. Is there the need to distinguish between the two in the parish charter? · Question re closing of services whilst pilots still running – how will decisions be taken; would parishes be able to step in to run those services? · Question re lease of the car park and would this continue? 5 years into a 20-year lease. Interested in a Community Asset transfer. In conversation with REDACTED – sent a form in?
Planning		· How will this work in the new authority? What happens if not happy with decision making process?
Settle Town Council		· Actions plans for market towns and a £100K fund allocated from New Homes Bonus and would this continue in the new authority. Gave assurances that it would and would continue to liaise with same officers in Economic Development team as do now · Issue of itemised invoices for street light repairs. The invoice often comes after they have set the parish precept and as one lump sum with no breakdown. Is there a better way of invoicing for this work to help with record keeping? · Interested in developing a neighbourhood plan. Can they go ahead or should they wait for the new local plan. They were told to go ahead if this is something they wanted to pursue.
Community networks		Queried why no mention of community networks in the draft parish charter and should there be a reference to what the relationship would be between the parish council and the network

	Finance		6	Specific projects ongoing. Confirmed budget allocations already agreed will continue after vesting day Finance clause focuses on precept. Needs to look at other services. Eg street lighting - system of reporting and invoicing is difficult as invoices received after they have set their budget and there is no breakdown. Suggest clause inserted in PC.
	Locality			Requested clarity re district offices. Confirmed based on existing district/Borough offices and local teams What are TOR for Area Committees? Explained Constitution going for full Council consideration on 24 February. Intention is to base on parliamentary boundaries due to size and population allocation. NYC Councillors will sit on area committees but public can attend. Will be held in area constituency but will move between main towns but may be held in more local venues if appropriate. Also makes sense to have connection with local MP. Understood.
	Transition			Hold ups in transactions due to LGR. Ongoing matters being stopped.
	Escalation		4.3	· Request for details of how to escalate when responses are not received through the normal channels – e.g, specific contacts for different matters
	Communications		4.0	Poor communication from NYCC generally. Responses not received in a timely fashion. Want to see the new management structure at NYCC.
Planning matters		1.6		Will these be devolved to Area Committees? Explained Local planning committees and range of delegations Query local plans. Will work to district ones for a while until within five years new overarching local plan is developed. When should they apply to have a new neighbourhood plan? Now or wait until new local plan is in place? Uncertainty is holding parish and town councils back on this. queried with planning policy officers and will forward on reply. Details of any changes (e.g., committee decisions etc)  Include an explanation of how parish consultation responses are taken into account in planning decisions  Concerned about non-local decision making Lack of meaningful consultation Area planning committees too big
General (questions)				Parish charter (what is in it, why is it being developed, how will it be revised)  Unitary council/reorganisation  ACCs
General (concerns/criticisms)				Concerns less local, less democratic and removing decision making away from local communities. Planning – parish consultation responses disregarded  Responses and requests for information left unanswered or poor responses (from NYCC)  o Poor communication (NYCC)

Appendix 6.4 Scarborough

Scarborough Borough Council - 14 February 2023 from 2pm until 5pm

Number of attendees: 10

Appendix 6.5 Harrogate

Harrogate Borough Council - 17 February 2023 from 2pm until 5pm

Number of attendees: 7 (from 5 parish councils)

Feedback theme	Details
Parish Charter (general)	Well thought through and a positive step forward (there is no current charter with HBC). View that it is delivery of the commitments within the Charter that was key. · ‘Living’ document that will be developed is a good approach · Confirmation that draft charter and consultation info was sent to all parish clerks (as conduit to obtain a singular agreed view of that parish council)
Double devolution	· One attendee reported was enthusiastic to be as actively involved as possible and looking forward to exploring associated opportunities (local services/asset management), parish councils are working with local community groups who are also engaged · Potential of operating market (other town councils already doing this) – consideration of practical arrangements including site for storage (possible other uses). Noted that wanted to include plan for improving performance of market and consideration of things like electricity supply that would be required to deliver improvements – confirmed these matters should be included in a bid/expression of interest · Potential impacts of devo schemes on precept and need to consult residents
S106, commuted sums and CIL	Queries about future changes – confirmed no change in short term, will depend on the development of a new Local Plan (5 years) · Discussed process for agreeing staged payments
Trade waste	Query about changes to billing/payments (for trade waste for a village hall) post-vesting day, has been followed up with HBC trade waste who have responded · Noted that CAF bank can help charities set-up online payments
Elections	· Confirmation that no changes to elections teams and polling stations in short term · Confirmation that constituency boundaries will change and if the next general election is after Autumn 2023 likely to be new boundaries
Planning	Information provided about how/who will take planning decisions in NYC: · Strategic planning committee and Area Constituency Planning Committees · Applications will be determined in line with the relevant local plan for the application site Views about new builds being carbon neutral/low carbon through local planning policy: · Agreed to follow this up and provide a response directly to attendee with info about what is in existing local plans Concerns about planning matters/processes in specific areas - suggested to contact Monitoring Officer if serious concerns
Highways	· Area 6 teams will continue to be based on existing district boundaries · Any criteria for siting of 30 mph (flashing) signs – not where they could be damaged, visible, where they have most impact · Prior contacts about visitors parking and a lack of restrictions, potholes, 40mph signs
Environmental	Concerns around how to address climate change/environmental issues, energy use (including alternatives like solar), littering, concerns over EV charging points
National and Yorkshire Local Councils Association	Discussion about their process for handling queries including feedback that queries are referred back to own parish clerk: · Confirmed that newsletter is fortnightly and covers many topics, specific queries will be given a ticket number and responded to
LGR	Information provided about key principles: · Safe and legal approach – not possible to update all systems/processes in time for day 1 · Same people and teams in place on/after day 1 – future reorganisation and efficiencies Concerns about local knowledge and relationships being ‘lost’ · Knowledge will be transferred, acknowledge that it is a period of change and some individuals will move on/retire Query about policy/changes for NYC around staff working from home
Communication	· Feedback that customer services teams do not understand the role of a parish clerk/parish council · Will there be a specific/dedicated line of communication for clerks to NYC – desire to reduce bureaucracy and improve ease of communication · Feedback/suggestion that NYC provide seminars for parishes explaining how council services/departments worked
County Councillors	Attendance at Parish Council meetings: · Suggested parish clerk sent an invite to the meeting they wanted them to attend
Streetlighting	Lack of streetlighting - provided contact details so this could be looked into
CCTV	Had already engaged with the police: · Suggested to engage with area office and electrical engineering, was linked to above street lighting query/location

Appendix 6.6 Selby

Selby District Council - 27 February 2023 from 2pm until 5pm

Attendance: 12

	Feedback theme
Parish Portal		Why do we not use portal more? E.g., to order bins request precept Parish portal enables you to pinpoint where incidents are happening How do you enrol onto the portal?
LGR		What happens to websites? Need reassurance on local presence What happens to existing Council reserves? Transfers to new Council
Consultations		Consultation on green bin payment in Selby – comms not good enough – residents not being engaged in consultation Drop-ins for parish charter consultation difficult to attend for some people as drop ins during the day
Communication		How will we communicate changes Communication is key Communications tool for clerk and Council? Increasingly difficult to get hold of people. Concerns over contacts and existing relationships and what happens after vesting day. Concerns over continuity of ongoing work e.g., existing planning applications
Planning		Town and Parish councils need training on planning matters How can we improve the role of the town and parish councils in relation to planning decisions Town and Parish Councils feel ignored when it comes to planning decisions
	Community networks		Concern over community networks taking over from town and parish councils – different ways of working on the ground
	Grants (application support)		Grants – how will parish councils expect a fairer share of the grant? Smaller parish councils are not as able to access grants in the same way as larger town and parish councils with a greater capacity eg national grants – more support – training to complete applications
	Area Constituency Committees		Should consider sending area committee agendas and other relevant meeting agendas to parish and town councils direct
	Double devolution		· Friends groups – can they take things over · no compulsion to take on assets and services
	Harmonisation		What about licensing policies and taxi fares – will these be harmonised?
	Working together		Concern that the voice of the parish councils are not given enough weight
	County Councillors		Will there be any change in the way the new county councillors interact with the parish councils? On what basis do County councillors attend town and parish councils? Is this optional?

Appendix 6.7 Richmondshire

Richmondshire District Council - 23 February 2023 from 2pm until 5pm

Number of attendees: approx. 12

Feedback theme	Ref	Details	Charter	Other
Parish councillors using dedicated emails	4.3	Lack of clarity - see Hambleton notes
Finance		Concerns that not all parish meetings have a bank account and therefore difficult to work at the same level/have same opportunities as parish councils who do (see Harrogate could CAF be a solution?)
Community Networks (CN)		· What officer support with CNs have? View that this is essential (especially initially) to drive these and with things like agenda circulation etc. and because parish clerks are overwhelmed and could miss the significance of CN meetings and info · Concerns over too much reliance on volunteers · Concerned that parishes have not thus far been able to input into development of CNs and concerns over (lack of) parish representation – suggested workshops with parishes to help develop CN proposal · “As you acknowledged, there is much work to be done on the development of community networks/partnerships. In Richmond, I am aware of many community 'activists' who are skilled, willing and able to contribute to a long-term economic development plan for the town, but they are not elected representatives on the Town Council. Much work needs to be done to educate communities and councillors on how to develop plans so that they can be agile in responding to funding pots when they become available. There is a clear role for Stronger Communities in facilitating these partnerships and networks to work on these development plans”
ACCs		· Scepticism about community action plans/common causes and links to ACCs (good theory but will it work?) · Content that there will be ACC planning committees/local decisions · Content that parishes can attend and address Cllrs directly at ACC meetings
Disparity amongst parishes		View that work needs to be done to bring all parishes up to a basic level of competency so they can have similar opportunities
Parish liaison group		· Further consideration needed about representation of parishes · “The role of the YLCA in the NY Parishes Joint Liaison Group is potentially problematic. I appreciate that NYC will need some way of getting parish sector representation on this group, and the YLCA would seem a logical choice. However, many of the 731 parishes have little interest in or involvement with the YLCA, so the issue of how the YLCA appoints representatives on the Liaison Group means that the parish sector's relationship with the YLCA suddenly becomes much more important. I also mentioned that there is a contradiction between the YLCA branches being based on districts v the NYC area constituency committees”
Environmental		REDACTED agreed to facilitate follow-ups on specific climate change queries (one attendee was expecting the session to be focussed on climate change briefing/consultation)

· Lack of understanding re LGR and how is it going to affect people.

· Lines of communication need to be clear and efficient. Need names and numbers

· Concern about working relationships with officers and services getting worse

· 5 working days to respond to emails too long should be 48 hours. As soon as possible. maybe longer in early days but needs pinning down

· Joint Liaison Group – concerned about how parish reps are appointed.

· Where will joint liaison group meet?

· Confusion over role of community networks

· YLCA needs to revisit its boundaries to align with the new area committees

· Parish sector spokesperson powerful role

· Political dimension at top of Liaison Group chair should be Parish sector spokesperson – concern its not democratic

· YLCA can be a facilitator

· Joint liaison group should not be led by YLCA

· Planning involvement is critical for parish councils.

· Planning meetings – need to ensure PC feedback is taken and spoken - how will these work with potentially so much more on the agenda with larger committees. Will their views have the same bearing?

· Community networks not democratic – sounds good but how is it effective- strong negative view on community networks

· Concerns over two tier system where assets powers have been devolved,

· Rights of nomination around access to care setting in village

· 53 page climate change policy needs a synopsis – too long

· How often will area committees meet?

· When will the customer charter be ready

· Statement of community involvement

· Planning delegations to Town and Parish Councils – could be clustered

· How many Councils are in the YLCA – not all Councils are part of the YLCA

· Concern over local planning decisions – lack of involvement/engagement

· Where and when will meetings be held

· Needs to identify Ridings – historically important

· Concern that not all Councils will respond to consultation

· Expenses for parishes travelling to meetings

· Joint Liaison group should not be YLCA dominated. Ten members is not enough. Big growth areas – contrast in rural and urban growth areas. Substitutes? What do the parishes suggest? – how does the communication work between the reps and the town and parish councils in the area

· Like the fact the document is evolving. Can’t see many problems with it.

· Parish meetings worried they will be pushed into clusters

· Too much information - very confusing

· Day to day contacts

· Need a dedicated officer for each area

· Need virtual meetings due to the size and scale of the area

· Concern over ICT – not everyone has access to computers – public library

· North Yorks email address – need to be clear that this will not be provided to Town and Parish councils

· When do we pay the precept to the PCS – is there a mechanism for collecting additional expenditure – timing of budget setting – suggest November

· More training eg highways training to help clerks and parishes to interface

· Need to be clear where responses go

Appendix 7.5

Appendix 7.6

From: *REDACTED*
Sent: 06 April 2023 10:36
To: *REDACTED*
Cc: *REDACTED*
Subject: Re: FW: Draft parish charter

Hello *REDACTED*

Thanks for the reminder about the Charter consultation. *REDACTED* PC discussed this at the meeting last month and were generally supportive. It is useful to set out the responsibilities of the new North Yorkshire Authority and Parish Councils.

The Charter adequately covers the wide range of topics which are of mutual interest and incorporates the main points in the previous charter with the County Council. We have no detailed comments at this stage. Given that we are dealing with a new authority it seem sensible to treat this as a working draft and review it in 6 months. At some stage could you circulate details of the people who are involved in this process.

We don't think the survey approach is a particularly useful form of communication with Parish Councils so we agreed to send this e mail.

Of course the important issue is the extent to which Authorities implement the statements in the charter - whether Parish Council views are respected and final decisions are clearly explained. As you know the Authority's decision to impose the largest rate increase on Hambleton residents was, in our view, unnecessary, particularly when the Authority has emphasised that this reorganisation will save £30m - £70m. Local residents were not impressed!

We look forward to working with you positively and constructively in the future.

*REDACTED*
Chair, XXXX Parish Council

Appendix 7.7

Appendix 7.8

Appendix 7.9 T

Appendix 7.10

From: *REDACTED*
Sent: 06 April 2023 14:44
To: *REDACTED*
Cc: *REDACTED*
Subject: RE: Draft Parish Charter Consultation

Dear *REDACTED*

*REDACTED* has resolved its response to the Parish Charter questionnaire and that response has been made via the web portal. We were not able to submit the detailed comments on the draft agreed by members and I attach an annotated copy of the draft containing these for your consideration.

A particular concern is that a figure of 731 ‘parish councils’ is being used – including on the northyorks.gov.uk website. Although this is the number of civil parishes, there are far fewer with a council and, in 2022/23, the DLUHC data (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1076207/Council_Tax_Statistics_for_Town_and_Parish_Councils_in_England_-_2022_to_2023.xlsx) suggest that 509 parishes or groups raised a precept, which is a closer approximation of the number of councils.

Regards
*REDACTED*

*REDACTED* annotated draft on following pages;

Draft Parish Charter

A Charter for Partnership Working and Understanding between North Yorkshire Council and the parish sector in North Yorkshire

Contents

Table of Contents

Foreword/Welcome

FOREWORD: REPRESENTATIVES FROM PARISH COUNCILS INVOLVED IN THE CO-PRODUCTION OF THE DRAFT CHARTER

FOREWORD: LEADER OF NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNCIL

I am delighted to support this Charter and look forward to working closely with our Parish and Town Councils and Parish Meetings as leader of the new North Yorkshire Council.

Councillor Carl Les

Leader of North Yorkshire County Council (will lead North Yorkshire Council)

1.0 Context – Local Government Reorganisation

1. The new unitary North Yorkshire Council ~~will be~~ was formed on 1 April 2023, following Local Government Reorganisation, ~~which will result in~~ on the abolition of North Yorkshire County Council and seven District/Borough Councils.

2. The new Council has set out its aim to work in new ways, offering:

· Improved efficiency and effectiveness of local government services

· Reduced duplication, bringing together services and making savings

· A local office in every district area

· A range of local customer access points across North Yorkshire

· A council of 90 councillors, representing 89 new divisions

· Six local area committees

· New community partnerships to support the needs and aspirations of towns and surrounding areas

· New ways of working with, and empowering the parish sector

· Parish Sector Elections and Polls

· Financial Arrangements

· Planning

· Community Services – such as highways, street lighting, grass cutting, local assets

· Resilience planning/emergency response e.g., flooding

2.0 Introduction

2.1 At the time of writing of this Charter, there are currently 731 parishes in North Yorkshire. Of these, 507 parishes (or groups of parishes) raised a precept in 2022/23¹. The majority of these parishes have ~~There are also a number of parish meetings without~~ a parish council. In some areas small parishes may work together with neighbouring parishes to run a grouped, joint or common parish council. Parish councils may be created in accordance with legislation and local community demand. All parish sector authorities are parish councils but can choose to alter their style (e.g., town or city council) but they all have the same role. In this document the term the ‘parish sector’ is used to encompass all these various arrangements.

2.2 The parish sector is the first tier of Local Government in England, with Members elected every four years. They have a range of powers and are principally funded by an annual precept. The total council tax raised by North Yorkshire’s parishes in 2022/23 was £9.3 million.

2.8 The parish sector will ensure that North Yorkshire Council is informed about relevant local issues of which they are aware to support its decision-making as appropriate.

3.0 Partnership Working

3.2 North Yorkshire Council recognises that the parish sector across North Yorkshire are:

· Key providers of some local public services, as authorised by statute

· Facilitators and supporters of action by the wider community, providing resources, encouragement and a ‘stamp of approval’ to community initiatives

3.2a North Yorkshire council recognises the community leadership role and responsibilities of the parish sector in response to ultra-local priorities set out in a range of plans and programmes.