ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,982
|
Post by ColinJ on Sept 14, 2022 14:18:53 GMT
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,136
|
Post by WJ on Sept 14, 2022 15:10:42 GMT
Oh goody! An early Christmas present.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 27, 2022 9:47:34 GMT
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 27, 2022 10:43:24 GMT
This may seem like a simple, easy, and sensible principal area boundary alteration, but having knowledge of the development and process I can tell you it's taken years of negotiation and complex discussions to get to the point where both councils were happy with the details of the change.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 27, 2022 15:02:41 GMT
This may seem like a simple, easy, and sensible principal area boundary alteration, but having knowledge of the development and process I can tell you it's taken years of negotiation and complex discussions to get to the point where both councils were happy with the details of the change. On the LGBCE website map it looks a bit weird, but comparing it with a topographical map, the adjusted boundary does tightly follow the edge of the bit of Wharncliffe Wood west of the railway. I think there were initial attempts to push the boundary all the way to the railway, to make a "nice, neat" line, which I can see how attractive it would have been. Similarly to the accepted adjustment, there's a bit on the other side of Wharncliffe Wood that needs tidying up, but in the absence of any possible development making it an issue, it's probably never going to happen.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Sept 27, 2022 17:29:52 GMT
At the moment the LGBCE only considers principal area boundary reviews where both authorities agree. I imagine that in that example it might be felt that it would open a can of worms, as there must be a case for a more radical change than uniting a few developments, perhaps going as far as suggesting that both Broxtowe and Gedling districts should be abolished with all of the more urbanised areas (Beeston, Carlton, Arnold, etc.) being transferred to Nottingham and the rumps being merged with Ashfield and Newark & Sherwood respectively. In the parliamentary review submissions for Cambridgeshire, there were quite a few comments from residents of new developments on the edge of Cambridge complaining about the city boundary (and thus the constituency boundary) carving the developments in two. I'm sure the BCE will point out that this isn't really anything to do with them, but it's not hard to have some sympathy with the residents' complaints. And if it was as hard as ilerda says to get Sheffield and Barnsley to agree on this particular open and shut case, I imagine getting South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge to agree on new boundaries through Cambridge's northern suburbs and around Trumpington and Cherry Hinton is essentially impossible, especially if the former thinks it's losing a lot of its Council Tax base.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 27, 2022 18:15:41 GMT
I think the exceptional nature of lack of road connection and distance by road through Sheffield council area to even reach another bit of Barnsley council area was also a factor in this case.
This example isn't actually about tidying up a boundary to keep the whole of a development in one council area, as might be desirable in places like Nottingham or Cambridge. It's about ensuring residents aren't completely cut off from services because they are so isolated from the rest of the borough their house has been built in.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,341
|
Post by ricmk on Sept 27, 2022 19:40:32 GMT
At the moment the LGBCE only considers principal area boundary reviews where both authorities agree. I imagine that in that example it might be felt that it would open a can of worms, as there must be a case for a more radical change than uniting a few developments, perhaps going as far as suggesting that both Broxtowe and Gedling districts should be abolished with all of the more urbanised areas (Beeston, Carlton, Arnold, etc.) being transferred to Nottingham and the rumps being merged with Ashfield and Newark & Sherwood respectively. In the parliamentary review submissions for Cambridgeshire, there were quite a few comments from residents of new developments on the edge of Cambridge complaining about the city boundary (and thus the constituency boundary) carving the developments in two. I'm sure the BCE will point out that this isn't really anything to do with them, but it's not hard to have some sympathy with the residents' complaints. And if it was as hard as ilerda says to get Sheffield and Barnsley to agree on this particular open and shut case, I imagine getting South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge to agree on new boundaries through Cambridge's northern suburbs and around Trumpington and Cherry Hinton is essentially impossible, especially if the former thinks it's losing a lot of its Council Tax base. I don't know how different the policies are in Scotland but if you're interested in this, take a look at what happened in Cardowan: boundaries.scot/reviews/cardowan-stepps-2019A council area boundary change where BOTH the Councils opposed the change - but the public support was so overwhelming it was passed against their will. I don't think there's anyone close on the ground but it strikes me as a rare example of forcing the pace of change where councils are dragging their feet. Would that have got passed in England?
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,130
|
Post by maxque on Sept 27, 2022 22:17:59 GMT
At the moment the LGBCE only considers principal area boundary reviews where both authorities agree. I imagine that in that example it might be felt that it would open a can of worms, as there must be a case for a more radical change than uniting a few developments, perhaps going as far as suggesting that both Broxtowe and Gedling districts should be abolished with all of the more urbanised areas (Beeston, Carlton, Arnold, etc.) being transferred to Nottingham and the rumps being merged with Ashfield and Newark & Sherwood respectively. In the parliamentary review submissions for Cambridgeshire, there were quite a few comments from residents of new developments on the edge of Cambridge complaining about the city boundary (and thus the constituency boundary) carving the developments in two. I'm sure the BCE will point out that this isn't really anything to do with them, but it's not hard to have some sympathy with the residents' complaints. And if it was as hard as ilerda says to get Sheffield and Barnsley to agree on this particular open and shut case, I imagine getting South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge to agree on new boundaries through Cambridge's northern suburbs and around Trumpington and Cherry Hinton is essentially impossible, especially if the former thinks it's losing a lot of its Council Tax base. I don't know how different the policies are in Scotland but if you're interested in this, take a look at what happened in Cardowan: boundaries.scot/reviews/cardowan-stepps-2019A council area boundary change where BOTH the Councils opposed the change - but the public support was so overwhelming it was passed against their will. I don't think there's anyone close on the ground but it strikes me as a rare example of forcing the pace of change where councils are dragging their feet. Would that have got passed in England? The LGBCE would not have considered it at all.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 28, 2022 10:47:37 GMT
At the moment the LGBCE only considers principal area boundary reviews where both authorities agree. I imagine that in that example it might be felt that it would open a can of worms, as there must be a case for a more radical change than uniting a few developments, perhaps going as far as suggesting that both Broxtowe and Gedling districts should be abolished with all of the more urbanised areas (Beeston, Carlton, Arnold, etc.) being transferred to Nottingham and the rumps being merged with Ashfield and Newark & Sherwood respectively. In the parliamentary review submissions for Cambridgeshire, there were quite a few comments from residents of new developments on the edge of Cambridge complaining about the city boundary (and thus the constituency boundary) carving the developments in two. I'm sure the BCE will point out that this isn't really anything to do with them, but it's not hard to have some sympathy with the residents' complaints. And if it was as hard as ilerda says to get Sheffield and Barnsley to agree on this particular open and shut case, I imagine getting South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge to agree on new boundaries through Cambridge's northern suburbs and around Trumpington and Cherry Hinton is essentially impossible, especially if the former thinks it's losing a lot of its Council Tax base. There were some agreements about 20 years ago to look into moving the boundaries for certain new developments, but they never went anywhere (and incidentally I suspect the issue was less Council Tax and more business rates, given where most of the Science Parks are located.) These days enough of South Cambs and Cambridge's functions are shared and enough stuff goes through the Greater Cambridge Partnership that it'd make less difference day-to-day.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,985
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 6, 2022 18:08:11 GMT
Somerset County Council voted yesterday to create a new Town council for Taunton, covering a current unparished area ( + a bit of a land grab of the new housing on the edge of Taunton that is in surrounding parishes at present)
The first election will be in May 2023 for 20 councillors in 12 wards - 6 electing two councillors each and 8 electing one councillor. They will largely be using the existing district wards with the exception that they have borrowed an idea,which i proposed to the LGBCE during the last District council boundary review prior to 2019, but which was rejected by the LGBCE.
This is namely to split the current 3 member Priorswood ward into 3 single member wards. At the time this pretty sensible split was rejected as one of the wards would be outside tolerance, and to make it in tolerance I had to move a boundary a bit to a not ideal place, but I note that we will indeed have the 3 wards Based on my suggestion now for the TC, one of which has an electorate of 2800 and one which has an electorate of 1000- both one member wards- no tolerances used now!
Of course the Town council will usually ( nearly always) have a Lib Dem majority, and there is Defitnely an element that that party wishes to be in control of something in Taunton in the years when they don’t have control of the Unitary council.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 6, 2022 18:24:02 GMT
I could have sworn Taunton already had a town council. I thought it was always one of those places that come up in discussions about the most populous parishes (or did before Sutton Coldfield became one)
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,985
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 6, 2022 18:29:48 GMT
I could have sworn Taunton already had a town council. I thought it was always one of those places that come up in discussions about the most populous parishes (or did before Sutton Coldfield became one) It will have an electorate of 43,500.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,985
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 6, 2022 18:32:20 GMT
Also worth noting that 2 of the parishes suffering to lose land and people to the Town Council have said that they will take the decision to judicial review.
The Conservatives and Independents abstained on the vote saying they support the Town Council but not the incorporation of any land or population from current parishes.
|
|
|
Post by westmercian on Oct 6, 2022 18:47:06 GMT
I could have sworn Taunton already had a town council. I thought it was always one of those places that come up in discussions about the most populous parishes (or did before Sutton Coldfield became one) You may be thinking of Weston-super-Mare just up the M5?
|
|
|
Post by westmercian on Oct 6, 2022 18:48:39 GMT
Also worth noting that 2 of the parishes suffering to lose land and people to the Town Council have said that they will take the decision to judicial review. The Conservatives and Independents abstained on the vote saying they support the Town Council but not the incorporation of any land or population from current parishes. That's just ridiculous. The town's parish should encompass the town as it exists. Actually, I would have gone for a bolder expansion, as it still won't encompass all the recent suburban growths.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 6, 2022 18:50:09 GMT
My understanding is that town councils, like parish councils, only have powers that are specifically derogated to them by the principal authority, and they can only raise a precept with the specific agreement of the principal authority. Mostly they are just talking shops. However with the increasing tendency to create large unitaries like Somerset, there is clearly a place for a lower level of decision making, and thus the creation of these new large town councils, which are not far off old district councils in size.
I’d welcome more information about their powers from people who know more than me about these things.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,985
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 6, 2022 18:55:32 GMT
Also worth noting that 2 of the parishes suffering to lose land and people to the Town Council have said that they will take the decision to judicial review. The Conservatives and Independents abstained on the vote saying they support the Town Council but not the incorporation of any land or population from current parishes. That's just ridiculous. The town's parish should encompass the town as it exists. Actually, I would have gone for a bolder expansion, as it still won't encompass all the recent suburban growths. It is tricky where to draw the line in some places particularly around Monkton Heathfield and Norton Fitzwarren. But yes you could certainly go for bigger still. Bishops Hull is staying outside of the TC, which looks like a bit of an anomaly to me.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,985
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 6, 2022 19:05:09 GMT
My understanding is that town councils, like parish councils, only have powers that are specifically derogated to them by the principal authority, and they can only raise a precept with the specific agreement of the principal authority. Mostly they are just talking shops. However with the increasing tendency to create large unitaries like Somerset, there is clearly a place for a lower level of decision making, and thus the creation of these new large town councils, which are not far off old district councils in size. I’d welcome more information about their powers from people who know more than me about these things. There’s a currently a debate/ argument going on about which District council assets might be transferred to the Town Council. Things like car parks ( and associated revenue), parks and gardens, the Town centre manager, the Crematorium, cemeteries, the TIC are likely transfers from the district council to the Town Council. They have agreed a precept with the principal authority so I believe I’m going to be paying about £120 next year for the priveledge. Taunton is, I believe, following the recent model of Salisbury City Council. You can see what services they run here www.salisburycitycouncil.gov.uk
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Oct 6, 2022 19:36:04 GMT
That's just ridiculous. The town's parish should encompass the town as it exists. Actually, I would have gone for a bolder expansion, as it still won't encompass all the recent suburban growths. It is tricky where to draw the line in some places particularly around Monkton Heathfield and Norton Fitzwarren. But yes you could certainly go for bigger still. Bishops Hull is staying outside of the TC, which looks like a bit of an anomaly to me. iirc in one of the reports somewhere about the later round of consultation, they mention that they received a bunch of suggestions that Bishops Hull should be included, but that the committee felt they'd tied their hands by excluding it earlier in the process.
|
|