Community Governance Review

Community Governance Review

Written for the Blog by a Preston resident

We have been asked by email where we expect this Blog and it’s efforts to lead, do we have a set plan for achieving it’s aims and objectives and what steps are we able to take to challenge the Parish Council?

We do not have a hard and set plan in place we have an initial outline of what we would like to achieve and what steps might be included but we are also hoping to attract other residents to join us and become involved. With that in mind it would be wrong to predetermine a set plan at this stage, which ultimately must be drawn up and developed by all those involved.

Although we have some main aims outlined, which include achieving a more open and transparent Parish Council, which actively welcomes the involvement of residents in their activities. We would also hope to be in a position for the next Local Elections in 2015 to field a number of candidates that are like minded and have the best interests of Preston at the forefront of their minds, if that were to be successful we would then be in a position to make some very desirable and much needed changes to how our parish is managed.

We are prepared to seriously consider the option of petitioning East Riding Council for a Community Governance Review, the timing of which would need to be carefully considered.

Having put this proposition (along with others) forward to a number of residents who have posed the above question, it is this particular item that we have been asked to clarify, as they are unaware of such an option.

A petition for a Community Governance Review could well be considered as a drastic step to take and must be carefully considered before any progressive action is taken. This post is meant to outline the requirements and process for such a review purely to inform residents of the option, we hope it is a relatively clear outline, it is not meant to be a definitive analysis.

Community Governance Review (CGR)

The requirements for CGR’s are listed in a number of pieces of legislation which we will not go into here but if anyone would like the details of the legislation we would be happy to guide you in its direction.

The carrying out of such a review is the responsibility of the County Council in this case East Riding County Council. CGR’s can be carried out following a successful and valid petition for a number of reasons including changes in population or in reaction to specific or local issues such as a councils poor performance and management, illegal actions by a parish council, council size etc. and is meant to ensure that community governance arrangements continue to reflect local identities and facilitate effective local government. There is a mechanism in place to implement any recommendations that may follow a CGR mid term between Local Elections if needed, in this case the term of councillor’s would be the remaining time left before the next local elections.

Council Size

Some of the reasons for a petition may well be ‘local issues’ and ‘council size’ which describes the number of councillors to be elected to the whole council. The 1972 Act as amended, specifies that each parish council must have at least five councillor’s, there is no maximum upper limit. There are no rules relating to the allocation of those councillors between parish wards but each parish ward must have at least one parish councillor.

In practice, there is a wide variation of council size between parish councils. That variation appears to be influenced by population. Research by the Aston Business School Parish and Town Councils in England (HMSO, 1992), found that the typical parish council representing less than 500 people had between 5 and 8 councillors; those between 501 and 2,500 had 6 to 12 councillors; and those between 2,501 and 10,000 had 9 to 16 councillors. Most parish councils with a population of between 10,001 and 20,000 had between 13 and 27 councillors, while almost all councils representing a population of over 20,000 had between 13 and 31 councillors. It is well documented that although the research above was carried some time ago there is no reason to believe that this pattern of council size to population has altered significantly since the research was carried out.

Preston Parish Council Size

A Parish Council size of 13 comes within a size more appropriate to an electoral roll of  2,501 and 10,000 (9 to 16 councillors). 13 councillors is also a starting point for parish's with over 20,000 electors, Preston is less than 10% of that figure so why do we have as many as 13?

If we take Preston Parish Council’s Electoral Roll which contains approx. 1,850 (April 2010) electors a more appropriate size for Preston Parish Council would be 6 to 12 councillors. With 13 councillors we have more parish councillors then might be considered necessary.

My personal view in light of the control exerted on the council by relatively few councillors and the mismanagement that has resulted in, along with the unnecessary cost to the public purse, I would consider nine councillors a much more appropriate size for Preston Parish Council. This would make it much easier for residents to be elected onto the council and be in a position to exercise a democratic influence, the numbers split between Preston North and Preston South would need to be determined by consultation.

In my judgment there is a compelling case for a governance review with regard to Preston Parish Council for a number of good reasons not just on the question of size.

Local issues

There is lots of evidence that the current and previous Preston Parish Council, have actively alienated residents from the democratic process. The council have willfully wasted many, many thousands of pounds of public funds taken from the residents of Preston, the council act in an unlawful way whenever it suites their purpose, from convening illegal council meetings and conducting council business to refusing to observe the legal provisions of legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act. In this category we would include legislation that the council abuse and misinterpret for their own purposes of withholding information from the public and residents such as The Public Bodies (access to meetings) Act 1960.

Many councillors have displayed gross dishonesty not only to residents but also to official bodies such as the Standards Committee by giving intentionally false written statements.

We don’t intend to list everything here but we shall at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.  Simply put, there are many ‘local issues’ that we feel would warrant a CGR.

The trigger for a CGR

For a petition to be valid it must meet certain conditions. The first of these conditions is that a petition must be signed by the requisite number of local electors based on the most recently published Electoral Register.

The thresholds are, for an area with less than 500 local electors, the petition must be signed by at least 50% of them. For an area with between 500 and 2,500 local electors the petition must be signed by at least 250 of them. For an area with more than 2,500 local electors, the petition must be signed by at least 10% of them.

Clearly, for a CGR to be triggered in Preston it would require at least 250 signatures, I happen to believe that obtaining such a number is quite possible given due consideration and planning.

It we are able to focus this Blog on Preston and thereby make as many Preston residents aware of the situation as possible it will boost the chances of gaining the required number of signatures, if that is the desired outcome.

If a CGR were to be actioned we would work towards restricting its recommendations to council size and achieve any objectives via that route. There is always the possibility that other considerations are taken under the umbrella of the review such as Preston South and we cannot predict the outcome.

Any recommendations as a result of a CGR and their adoption would be a matter for East Riding County Council to consider and implement as they see fit. Once a successful petition has been validated my understanding without going off to check is that East Riding is obliged to act on it and carry out the review, the cost I believe would fall to Preston Parish Council.

I said at the beginning of this post that careful consideration must be given to such an action and if that point arises, that is the time to collect all pertinent information relating to the subject to enable full consideration and plans to be finalised.

If sufficient residents of Preston gather together and decide to take any action we will be prepared to collate the information necessary to enable good decisions to be made.

We do hope this post has outlined CGR’s and is of help to anyone interested.

Thanks for your E-mails.