Town Meeting Minutes 30th July 2008
Minutes of a TOWN MEETING of TAVISTOCK held in the Town Hall, Tavistock on WEDNESDAY the 30th day of JULY 2008 at 6.35 p.m.
Present: Cllr R Pike – Mayor as Chairman
Cllr Mrs M Govier Deputy Mayor
38 Members of the public (Electors)
14 Members of the public (Non-Electors)
In Attendance: Town Clerk
Deputy Town Clerk
Mr Peter Doyle Head of External Affairs, DCC
Mr David Incoll Chief Executive, WDBC
1 member of the Press
1. MAYOR’S INTRODUCTION
The Mayor welcomed all present and gave a brief introduction by confirming how he had called the Meeting, and how it would be run. Mr Doyle had been delayed so Mr Incoll spoke first.
2. WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL VIEWPOINT
Mr Incoll covered the concept of the Unitary Authority, the consultation procedure and timetable, and the costs question. The Government target was to have any new authority in place by April 2010, with elections probably May 2010. The WDBC concerns were:· Timetable was too short (he quoted the Cornwall model problems),
· The cost,
· The bureaucracy,
· The lack of democratic representation (WDBC had 31 members, while the proposed Unitary had only 100 for the whole of Devon’s 750,000 population),
· The fact that the 100 would be ‘professional’ councillors.
· West Devon might not have any ‘executive’ members in county hall (executive panel of 6),
· The community boards would be a mix of unitary, town and parish councillors with representatives from police, primary care trusts etc.
· They needed to have the ability and authority to take decisions.
· There would need to be delegation of services to be managed by local boards. · Services in the South were better than those in the North. The merging of all could force compromises.
· There could be problems with planning applications. Three ‘spacial boards’ were suggested located on a travel to work basis.
· The planning concept was too big, with no local knowledge and inconvenient to the public should they wish to see their local planner.
· Revenue collection might be a problem, merging 8 systems into one.
He ended by saying that WDBC would make it work if change came.
3. DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL VIEWPOINT
Mr Doyle had arrived, and defined the Boundary Committee position. While we all wanted to improve the existing system, the Committee remit was to find an alternative. Options other than a Unitary Authority (with or without Exeter) were off the table. DCC had been given just 6 weeks to produce a simple model of how a unitary might work. The only model they could see working was a single unitary with no changes to Plymouth and Torbay. The Boundary Committee had then found in favour of the single unitary concept as it would work for the whole county, and they felt none of the other proposals would. He felt they had put up the idea of a greater Exeter unitary to encourage debate. The DCC view on services was that they all had to be raised to the level of the best. He emphasised that the Boundary Committee was consulting on the two options, not on the status quo. Responses might be on the line of ‘we would rather have no change, but if we have to have change then we prefer ……’
He ran through the timetable, and said that if people really wanted no change then the only way to get that into the system was to make representations to the Secretary of State after the Boundary Committee had reported to her on 31st December. There would be a 4-week window when she would take direct representations before making the Order within 6 weeks from 31st December. The concept of the Community Boards had been an attempt to find a model of unitary control that was close to the local people. They had looked at other unitary proposals (Cornwall, Wiltshire, Shropshire, Northumberland, Durham) and the French system of Communes. The town and parish councils were the building blocks and untouched by the unitary proposals,. The Community Boards solved the problem of local democratic deficit, and would be the local committee of the Unitary Authority. The Town and parish councils would have a seat on the Board, and it would vote on all matters affecting the Unitary Authority in that area.
There would be savings from merging services, and money would be devolved to Community Boards to spend on local priorities. He said that DCC would look at the community board concept regardless of the unitary outcome.
4. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
a. Cllr P Sanders. As strategy would be set centrally by the Unitary Authority how could the Community Boards act locally? They would need to be a body corporate to account for public money, and would thus be another tier of local authority.
Response. The body corporate legality would come from the Unitary Authority. Devolution of money would be subject to audit and accounts would be kept. For example, county councillors had funds to spend locally at the moment. It was agreed that the Unitary Authority would be responsible for overall strategy and standards. The Community Boards would be the local consultative body with the Chair as ‘leaders of place’ and in touch with the community. There would be devolved budgets, local charters and a voice on the LDF formulation. The actual detail of the Community Boards was open for debate now.
b. Cllr Mrs Sellis. The Unitary Authority would have common standards of customer care, yet Tavistock Town Council had problems with DCC decisions at the moment.
Response. The Community Boards would not be able to overturn Unitary Authority decisions, but they would be in at the start of policy making to mould outcomes. Decisions would be bottom up with consultation first.
c. Mr Taylor What about planning decisions?
Response. Residents wanted easy access to efficient and professional planning process. Perhaps one-stop-shops with access to all Unitary services were the answer. Video conferencing with planners was also suggested. Town and parish councils must feel they have sufficient say in planning decisions, but it could be wrong to be too local as there could be vested interests. The Community Boards would have a stronger say in the development framework of their area. Spacial and economic boards based on travel to work areas would have coherent decision-making ability over wide areas.
d. Mr Mathew. How should we respond? Mr Doyle had suggested that responses come after the Boundary Committee had reported to the Secretary of State. Should we defer any major public response until after December 31st?
Response. Mr Doyle felt the time to lobby was after the Boundary Committee had submitted their report and the Secretary of State had indicated if she was minded to accept their recommendation or modify it. She had to allow a formal 4 weeks from 1st January 2009 to allow representations to be made. The Boundary Committee had set a target for 19th December for the receipt of financial data on the changes.
There was an interruption about a point of order and speakers being given more than 5 minutes floor time. The Mayor said it was an information gathering exercise and Mr Doyle and Mr Incoll had to be given a fair hearing.
e. Mrs Stewart. How much would all this cost the taxpayer?
Response. No one knew. It would have to be done with the minimum disruption. It should all be about improving services. The Boundary Committee felt that a simple single Unitary Authority would cost the least. Financial details would be published on their web site when they were available, probably from September on. The Government have said that the changes must pay for themselves within 5 years.
f. Mr Andrews. Might responding in the last 4 weeks be too late?
Response. Use the period between now and September 26th to think about what representations ought to be made.
g. Mr Eberlie. As decisions ought to be made as locally as possible, what differences were there between Community Boards and District Councils?
Response. The Unitary Authority needed the views of the whole county. Community Boards could add local services on top of county provided services. Town and parish councils might also like to take on extra services.
h. Ms Laithwaite. Somerset had applied for unitary status some time ago and been turned down through lack of support from the populace.
Response. That had been a different process, and was politically driven. Local politics were responsible for the result.
i. Mr Josey. We had seen a plethora of local boards set up lately, all costing £1 million each. The Community Board concept seemed worthy of support. How would it evolve?
Response. They would improve local democracy, and the hope was a better local election turnout would result.
j. Cllr P Sanders. The Boundary Committee had to look at 5 tests. One was a broad measure of support. If it could be demonstrated that there was no support over Devon would they go to the Secretary of State saying they could not find the broad measure of support? Perhaps we should put in effort now to show broad presence of opposition?
Response. The rules entitle the Committee to make that decision. However it would take Government effort to accept that decision. The problem is over the Greater Exeter unitary idea. If there is support there, then the Secretary of State might bow to political pressure and go with a two unitary model. That would loose 20% of the taxpayers from the DCC model. Perhaps the response should be ‘we didn’t ask for this change, and don’t think it will be better, but if we have to have it then this is the one we want’.
k. Cllr Whitcomb. Asked that all note that councillors would be greatly reduced in number. We would need more representatives.
5. DEBATE.
The Chairman then asked the floor if there were any proposals.
a. Mr Mathew thought we needed a two-branch approach. The Boundary Committee had five tests, and had defined the proposals very tightly. Status Quo was not an option. A parish poll should create enough noise in Devon to frighten the Government. He was worried about timing, eight weeks now and then four weeks after Christmas. How could the rest of Devon be turned out? He thought the reply to the Boundary Committee ought to be the single unitary concept fails to respect the fact that one size does not fit all Devon. A multi-unitary would not achieve the savings, so the rest would be rendered unviable by having a separate Exeter. It was up to individuals to make such representations. Could be a case for using a parish poll now on that basis. There would be time for the rest of Devon to respond.
b. Mr Eberlie questioned the Community Board concept again, and said we needed to know more details. They could be District Councils under a new name. We did not know which concept would suit Tavistock best, and had to wait to see. Mr Mathews wanted to see if the meeting was convinced by the notion that a Devon unitary was an appropriate form of local government for this part of Devon and in particular Tavistock. He proposed that a vote be taken on the motion ‘do you support the proposal to abolish West Devon Borough Council as recommended by the Boundary Committee in July 2008?’
c. The Mayor said that any vote at the meeting was advisory only, and would be put before the Town Council who would take their own decisions. The meeting was not representative of the Town, as there were too few non-councillor electors present.
d. A vote was then taken on Mr Mathews’ proposal. At the time of the vote there were 35 electors present. No one voted for the motion (in favour of abolishing West Devon Borough Council), and 16 voted against it (to keep West Devon Borough Council). 13 abstained, and the following asked that their abstentions be recorded by name:
Cllr P Sanders
Cllr Mrs Sellis,
Cllr Sellis,
Cllr Whitcomb,
Cllr Connelley,
Mr Andrews,
Mrs Andrews,
Mr Podmore.
The Mayor and Deputy Mayor took no part in the vote.
e. The Mayor closed the meeting at 8 40 pm thanking everyone for coming
………………..................................
Town Mayor
Date...........................................................