Issue - meetings

Councillor King was present and spoke until Council Procedure Rule 24.1.

Glenn Back the Council’s Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager outlined the report. He thanked Justine Wingate the Council’s Corporate Information Manager for her hard work relating to the door to door canvass drop. He indicated that the consultation had indicated support for a Westgate Parish Council, but not for a Margate Town Council. Further to this he explained that there were cases in the past where small numbers of people has responded to consultations of this sort and they had still been legally binding.

Matthew Sanham, the Council’s Finance Manager (Service Support) added that he expected the cash income of Margate Charter Trustees to stay approximately the same going forward and that Westgate Parish Council would have a year one precept of approximately £36 which would then drop to about £25 in the following years.

After further discussion Matthew Sanham confirmed that it wouldn’t be possible to produce an accurate final precept figure until it had been decided to move forward and decisions regarding staffing had been finalised.

In response to comments raised by Councillor King, Glenn Back confirmed that he would look in to the issue of transfer of assets from Margate Charter trustees to Westgate Parish Council.

The Working Party discussed whether it was possible to recommend the creation of a Margate Town Council despite the consultation response. The Working Party were reminded of the written advice from Peter Reilly, TDC Litigation Solicitor which confirmed that the consultation results had shown there was no evidence of the people of Margate wanting a Town Council.

Councillor M.Tomlinson proposed and Councillor Duncan seconded and it was AGREED that:

The Boundary and Electoral Arrangements Working party recommend to Council the creation of a Westgate Parish Council, but that the remainder of the area retains Charter Trustees.

Annex 5 – Possible Precepts for new Town / Parish Councils, to follow

The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager introduced the report on proposed second-stage public consultation arrangements and details of the precepts that might be set by the new town/parish councils.

He then introduced the Corporate Information Manager and Finance Manager who both spoke on their respective elements of the consultation document.

Public consultation (Stage 2)

Members asked that the proposed online questionnaire be kept as clear as possible and easy to follow.

With this in mind it was agreed to amend some of the questions to make the online form easier to complete.

On the grounds that the full range of governance options had been offered for public consultation in Satge 1, it was decided to remove the second part of question 3, so that the question is closed:

“Do you agree with the proposal above for two new Parish/Town Councils (Margate Town Council and Westgate-on-Sea Parish Council)?”

Furthermore, it was agreed to add the following question to the end of the online form:

“Do you have any other comments about the proposal for the above for the future governance of Westgate-on-Sea?”

The Corporate Information Manager informed Members that a paper copy of the consultation document would be made available to people that requested one.  The Working Party agreed that the consultation document needed to be made “attractive” in order to generate interest.

Hyperlinks would be used throughout the online consultation document.  Due to the restrictions of the web publishing software it was not possible to have “dialogue boxes” which would provide further information when a cursor was moved over certain words.

Some members raised concerns that the consultation wouldn’t be seen by those with no internet access.  The Corporate Information Manager informed Members that as budgets were limited, targeting all residents was impossible.  The Communication Implementation Plan detailed the proposed methods of reaching residents within the budgetary constraints.

It was agreed that the consultation document would reiterate the different roles/powers between the Charter Trustees and town/parish councils so that residents could make up their own minds.

Proposed precepts

The Finance Manager gave a summary of the possible precepts for the town and parish councils based on a number of assumptions.  However, he stressed that these figures were based on existing levels of service provision and functions that must transfer from the Margate Charter Trustees to the new town/parish Councils. Any additional services the town or parish councils would like to deliver would increase the precept.

Some Members discussed the possibility of using the existing reserves of the Charter Trustees to pay for the inaugural elections but were advised against basing projected precepts on that basis.  The decision of what to do with the reserves would be down to the newly created town and parish council.

The Working Party agreed that the Finance Manager’s assumptions would not be included in the public consultation document in detail because there were best guesses based upon the limited information currently available; however the precepts for a Band D property would be included (but without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14

Councillor Mrs Johnston spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1

The Democratic Services & Scrutiny Manager introduced the report, the results of the first stage public consultation and the decisions the Working Party needed to take in order for the community governance review to progress to the second stage consultation.

Members were concerned about the low level of responses to the first stage consultation but recognised that it might not have been easy for members of the public to respond when presented with such a wide range of options for the area. The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager explained that the Stage 2 consultation would be different, because the Working Party needed to agree very specific proposals at this meeting, which it was hoped would elicit a larger response.

Despite the consultation responses largely only drawing a distinction between Westgate and the rest of the un-parished area of Margate, it was suggested by some Members that Westbrook may have more in common with Westgate, and that option should be a specific part of the Stage 2 consultation.

The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager commented that a good deal of such specific options could be included in the Stage 2 consultation, but there would be a difficulty drawing the line as to which specific options to present. It would be simpler, and easier for the public to understand, if one specific set of proposal were put forward, but the consultation explained the choices available; those choices would include agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal, or suggesting a different proposal with, for example, different boundaries.

Members agreed to attend residents’ association meetings etc. to engage the public more and ask them to get involved. It was noted that the public needed to know any difference between a Parish and Town Council and understand what Parish councillors and Town councillors can and cannot do.

The Finance Manager said he would come to the next meeting with possible precept figures for any new Town/Parish Councils for 2015/16, but at this early stage they would only be indicative and based on a set of assumptions, although he did comment that the precept for Ramsgate had risen by 111% since it was set up. He also told the Working Party that it could cost the council £25k to hold an election for Margate if it coincided with another election or £50k if it were to be on its own (although such a scenario may be unlikely). Members agreed that in Stage 2 of the consultation the public should be made aware of the possible costs for a Margate Town council and a Westgate Parish council in terms of a possible precept.

It was proposed by Councillor W Scobie, and seconded by Councillor E Green that the following be the subject of the second stage public consultation; that:

1. A “Margate Town Council” be created for the un-parished area of Margate excluding the District Ward of Westgate on Sea; with the same number and distribution of Councillors as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager outlined the proposed review of community governance arrangements in Margate.

The area to be reviewed was currently an area having Charter Trustees[1].  Although the Charter Trustees covered the whole un-parished area of Margate , statutory guidance states that consideration must be given to the possibility of smaller community interests/identities should a desire for that emerge from the consultation.

Some Members suggested that Westgate-on-Sea residents may identify themselves as a separate community identity (i.e. separate from the rest of Margate), therefore it was imperative that the consultation document contained details of all options  that are technically possible as a result of the community governance review.

Therefore, it was agreed to arrange another meeting of the Working Party to discuss the formal consultation document prior to it being published.

Proposed by Councillor K Gregory, and

Seconded by Councillor Hornus that:

1.  The terms of reference (including the area to be reviewed) as set out in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of the report are approved, together with the review timetable; and

2.  Another meeting of the Working Party be arranged to discuss the formal consultation document prior to it being published.

RESOLVED