– 165 –

CHRISTCHURCH BOROUGH COUNCIL

SCRUTINY AND POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 January 2017 at 6.00 pm

Present:-Cllr C P Jamieson – Chairman

Cllr Mrs L Dedman – Vice-Chairman

Present: Cllr J Abbott, Hon Freeman Cllr C R Bungey, Cllr D A Flagg, Cllr T Fox (10 January only), Cllr N C Geary, Cllr W Grace, Cllr P R A Hall, Cllr D C Jones, Cllr Mrs D Jones and Hon Freeman Cllr J Lofts

Also in attendance:

Councillors Bath, Mrs P Jamieson*, Mrs S Spittle* and Cllr R Bryan* (EDDC) (* 10 January only)

261. Declarations of Interests

There were no declarations received on this occasion.

262. Exploring Options for the Future of Local Government in Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset

The Chief Executive submitted a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.Members were presented with information on options for the future of local government in Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset and were requested to provide comments to Full Council to help inform their decision making on 31 January.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP – The Case for Change Following a question from a Member about boundary changes and extending them to include towns from other areas, it was advised that advice had been received from the Department of Communities and Local Government that unless a council had conducted a Boundary Review as a part of the reorganisation process, it should keep the existing boundaries. A full Boundary Review could take up to18 months to two years to conduct. Following a request from Members to see the minutes from the Dorset Leaders meeting, held on 15 December, the Chief Executive confirmed that he would circulate the minutes once they had been agreed at the next meeting, being held on 13 January 2017.There was a view from a Member that this document did not support the case for change.

– 166 –SCRUTINY AND POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

10 January 2017

Local PartnershipsMembers were advised that the report concluded that option 2B was the most viable option, in relation to financial savings, as it would produce the most savings, even though not the most even savings.In response to a question from a Member asking about Christchurch Borough Council’s financial status, it was advised that the Council was in a fairly unique position as it had no current funding gaps. However, Members needed to be mindful that services delivered by Dorset County Council were used by residents of Christchurch and those services were at risk. There was a collective responsibility for the residents.Members expressed concerns about the harmonisation of Council Tax, across the three current local authority areas, if option 2B was adopted. It was suggested by a Member that the new authorities should be able to set a new Council Tax rate on day one. However, it was recognised that the Department for Communities and Local Government referendum limit would need to be considered. It was advised that a 20 year harmonisation model had been suggested in the report but this was for modelling based on DCLG advice. It would be a matter for the new authorities to agree.It was suggested by a Member that the Council needed far more time to consider further alternatives. There had been an insufficient consultation response on which to make a decision.ORS ReportA Member asked why Members had not seen the resident’s survey, why option one was not on same page as the other options and what adverts had been circulated locally about the questionnaire. In response, it was confirmed that every effort had been made to tell residents about the survey, including full media briefing which led to articles in local papers and regional TV and radio coverage. The questionnaire belonged to ORS and was not produced by the Councils.Report of the Local Government Reorganisation Working PartyCouncillor David Jones introduced the report, as Chairman of the Working Party and thanked Members and Officers for supporting the work and report which had been produced. Members agreed with the findings of the report, that there had been no case for change identified in the reports circulated and that the report be appended to the Council Agenda.RESOLVED that the Committee supports and agrees to forward to Full Council, the report of the Local Government Reorganisation Working Party and makes the following recommendations:(a) Having considered the evidence presented to it by the Officers the

Working Party believes that whatever advantages there might be to other areas in the creation of a Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch Unitary Authority, there are also considerable disadvantages to Christchurch in intangible terms as set out in the Memorandum presented by Councillors Mrs Abbott, Mrs Dedman, Hall, Jones and Mrs Jones to Scrutiny Committee in March 2016;

– 167 –SCRUTINY AND POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

10 January 2017

(b) The Working Party regrets that no formal business case has been presented;

(c) The Working Party therefore presents its considered opinion to Scrutiny and Policy Overview Committee, to Policy and Resources Committee and to Full Council that the case for structural change has not been made;

(d) However, should structural change not go ahead, the Working Party accepts that there will be a need to continue to assess critically the ways of working in local Government in Dorset, and to examine further options for joint and partnership working, and therefore, in the interests of building a consensus in such matters urges the Council to work with members of all other Councils to investigate ways in which change, other than major structural change under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, might be successfully implemented. The Working Party also believes that such discussions could usefully take the form of a forum on which all shades of opinion on all Councils should be represented; and

(e) The Working Party also requested that if practical the Officers produce a revised set of financial figures taking into account i. The Government’s revised Council Tax limitsii. Assuming that no Town Council is created for Christchurch

Voting: UnanimousStandard Report A Member raised concerns regarding equalities and the Council Tax harmonisation. Specifically that in Section 1 of the Equalities Act 2010, the Council should not take action that would put a group at a socio economic disadvantage. Also, in relation to Part 1, Schedule 1, item 1 of the Act; section 2, the Council must take into account guidance from a Minister. Therefore, the Council may be acting in contravention of the Equalities Act 2010, by actively agreeing to merge the Councils. The Monitoring Officer advised that they would seek clarification and respond to Members accordingly. Members were advised at 8.50pm, that in accordance with Standing Orders, they must vote on whether to suspend Standing Orders and continue the meeting, as at 9.00pm, the meeting would have been running for three hours.Following a brief discussion, it was agreed to adjourn the meeting and reconvened at 6.00pm, on Monday 16 January 2017.RESOLVED that, in accordance with Standing Orders, the meeting be adjourned at 9.00pm and the meeting be reconvened at 6.00pm, on Monday 16 January 2017.Voting: 11: 1 (Councillor Lofts voted against the proposal).Members expressed their thanks to Democratic Services for their work in collating the information which had been sent to Members.

– 168 –SCRUTINY AND POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

10 January 2017

The meeting adjourned at 9.00 pm on Tuesday 10 January 2017, reconvening at 6.00pm on Monday 16 January 2017.

Councillor Fox had sent his apologies for absence.The Chairman advised that items E and then B on the Agenda would form the Committee’s business for the evening.Comments received on the alternative options proposed by Full Council on 13 DecemberA Member raised concern that the Council Tax setting for 2019/20 would be begun in late 2018. This would be worked on by an appointed executive and not elected Members. It was confirmed that the responsibility for setting any council tax for a new authority would be the responsibility of either an implementation executive or a shadow council. If this was in the form of a shadow council, it would be formed of Members from the current council areas, so Members would be setting the new council tax.Members were advised that there had never been any transformation funding available to the Council from Central Government and this had been the case all along. There had been an ambition to seek transition funding from Central Government but there was none and this was further confirmed only last week.The Monitoring Officer advised that she had a response to the issues raised regarding Council Tax Harmonisation and equalities, and read out the concerns and response, as follows:Issues Raised: The current proposal to harmonise Council Tax over a 20 year period is in contravention of the Equality Act 2010 and does not have due regard for the outcome of socio-economic disadvantage as set out in Part 1, schedule 1, item 1 (of the Act).Furthermore, that in accordance with Part 1, Schedule 1, Item (2) (of the act) this authority seeks written guidance from the designated Minister in respect of ensuring compliance with the socio economic requirements of the protected characteristics as set out Part 2, Chapter 1, Schedule 4:Response: The Equality Act 2010 largely came into force on 1st October 2010. There are however elements of the Act that even now are not yet in force. One of these is section 1 and the public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities. The section when in force will apply to strategic decisions and require an authority to have due regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.As the section is not in force at this time, there is no legal requirement to have due regard to the desirability of making decisions on local government reorganisation in Dorset in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. Notwithstanding this, other provisions of the Act will be relevant, and in regard to the proposals currently in issue an Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken. The model as set out in papers attached to the report, to illustrate the potential financial implications of the process (which I am aware is for illustrative purposes only) is to harmonise Council Tax over

– 169 –SCRUTINY AND POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

10 January 2017

a 20 year period. The effect of harmonisation would be equally shared amongst whole sections of the population in broad areas, and not specifically on any particular protected group. Furthermore, specific decisions will need to be taken in accordance with the legislation applicable at the time of the decision. The EIA anticipates further impact assessments taking place as decisions are made about a range of matters by any new councils established.The Member who raised the concern advised that he would still want this forwarding to Full Council. It was advised that it would be, as part of the minutes of this meeting. The draft report for consideration at Full Council on 31 JanuaryIt was suggested by a Member, that as it was likely that there would be support for no change at Full Council, that this paper was premature and it would be more appropriate to postpone a decision on whether to keep the function of mayoralty in Christchurch. One Member suggested that they could not support the recommendations in the report as there had not been a powerful response to the consultation exercise. The ORS questionnaire, in their opinion, was quite flawed and misleading and how could Members make a decision on a 2% response rate. It was also asked, as it had been reported in the local press that a local businessman was seeking a Judicial Review on the Reorganisation process, would this affect any Member or officer? The Monitoring Officer advised that she had been informed by Mr Somerville – Ford on 12th January 2017 that he intends to make an application for a Judicial Review in relation to the Consultation process. The Partnership has not received a Pre-action Protocol letter or Claim form. She would like to clarify the position and state that legally the Council is able to continue on with discussions and meetings relating to Local Government Reorganisation in Dorset.Members were advised that if they wished to retain a Mayor for Christchurch following reorganisation they could seek to establish either a Charter Trustee or a Town Council. A Charter Trustee being typically established for historical and ceremonial purposes only and allows for the election of a mayor. If a new parish council was formed for Christchurch with an initial status of Town Council, it could subsequently apply to the Privy Council for Borough status. The establishment of a parish council would permit other services to be provided.Members were advised that it was fair to assume that other councils in Dorset would make a submission to the Secretary of State to reorganise how local government would be delivered in Dorset. If Christchurch Borough Council, did not agree with a case for change, it would then be in a period of uncertainty, and would have to discuss what to do next. A draft memorandum was circulated to Members by Councillor Jones, as a submission from this Committee to Full Council. This was proposed and seconded.

– 170 –SCRUTINY AND POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

10 January 2017

As recommendation one included mention of the resolution made on 13 December 2016, which had now been acted upon, it was agreed to remove mention of this resolution.It was also agreed to add to the end of recommendation one: ‘and that this Council remains a sovereign Council’. Councillor Jones presented the rest of the Memorandum to Members. Members raised the following issues:

Concern with recommendations three and four – if a case was made for 2B or C surely this Council would need to argue a case for our needs within those submissions and would need to be involved with discussions. Councillor Jones explained that it did not preclude conversations, for example about option 2C, it just blocked option 2B. Officers advised that they would possibly be required to be involved with some future discussions about how an agreed option may work and would be duty bound to participate. Members should also be careful not to exclude themselves from every subsequent conversation, as members of staff could be disadvantaged.

Some Members felt confused, as the Committee had already resolved other recommendations and were keen to ensure that changes were not made to anything already voted on.

Recommendation five had already been in the previous resolution.

Recommendation two and three were not supported.

Recommendation one should read: affirms its decision that reorganisation, particularly on the basis of the establishment of a Unitary Authority incorporating the areas of the Boroughs of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, would not be in the interests of the Borough and people of Christchurch and that Christchurch should remain a sovereign council.

Members were advised, that as there were contradictory recommendations in the previous resolution, in comparison with the current proposal, Members could rescind the previous resolution and adopt the revised recommendations. Following further debate, it was agreed it would be better to rescind the previous resolution and vote on the amended proposal.RESOLVED the original resolution of the Committee be rescinded. Voting: Unanimous

RESOLVED that:Having scrutinised the evidence put before it by the Officers (on behalf of the Leaders and Chief Executives of the nine Dorset Councils) and by Members individually and collectively. Scrutiny and Policy Overview Committee recommends the following resolution to Council

– 171 –SCRUTINY AND POLICY OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

10 January 2017

(a) This Council believes that on the basis of all the evidence at present available to it the case for reorganisation of local government in Dorset has not been made and therefore, affirms its decision that reorganisation, particularly on the basis of the establishment of a Unitary Authority incorporating the areas of the Boroughs of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, would not be in the interests of the Borough and people of Christchurch and that Christchurch Borough Council should remain a sovereign council;

(b) Council however notes that the situation is fluid and that developments which could be disadvantageous to this Borough could emerge rapidly. Council therefore re-establishes the Local Government Reorganisation Working Party as a task-and-finish group with the mandate to monitor the situation and to consider and if necessary agree any appropriate action, such as a separate submission to DCLG, such submission to be approved by Full Council;

(c) Believes that should structural change not go ahead, the Council accepts that there will be a need to continue to assess critically the ways of working in local Government in Dorset, and to examine further options for joint and partnership working, and therefore, in the interests of building a consensus in such matters urges the Council to work with members of all other Councils to investigate ways in which change, other than major structural change under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, might be successfully implemented. The Working Party also believes that such discussions could usefully take the form of a forum on which all shades of opinion on all Councils should be represented; and

(d) Council believes that the matter has been far too hastily proceeded with and there has been too little time and opportunity to consider the matter thoroughly and to investigate alternatives. Council therefore believes that there should be no further steps taken towards the establishment of unitary authorities in Dorset until after there has been an opportunity for the County’s electors to be thoroughly and appropriately consulted in the next local elections in May 2019.

A recorded vote was requested and seconded.The votes cast in favour of the motion were as follows: Councillors Mrs Abbott, Bungey, Mrs Dedman, Flagg, Geary, Mrs Grace, Hall, Jamieson, Jones, Mrs Jones and Lofts. There were no votes against the motion or abstentions.Voting: Unanimous

The meeting ended at 8.40 pmCHAIRMAN

This page is intentionally left blank