Budleigh Salterton - in East Devon is the entry to both the Triassic and Jurassic coasts
The Pepplebeds are a landmark feature of the World Heritage site
There have been two documents issued by the local authories that particularly affect us in East Devon.
In their document welcoming the Boundary Commission proposals Devon County Council make two telling points: there is no option to return to the status quo within the terms of reference and the proposals must result in a saving of cost to the public (which we take to mean the ratepayer).
In a highly critical paper the East Devon District Council completely rejects the proposals and the Devon County Council's comments and suggestions. The EDDC document is 'knocking copy' in the full sense of that description. Lacking balance and depth it howls with rage at what it sees as Devon CC's incompetence in financial matters, claims that the wealthy East Devon will be milked to help the poorer areas and wishes all to know what a fine body of administrators they (the EDDC) are.
Pity, then, that their Ward Councillors and champions did not seek to join the Town Council when they had the chance.
Both the papers are flawed and have the feel of being rushed out without proper attention to key areas such as education (schools) and housing stock. Clearly much the worst of them is that produced by the self-congratulatory EDDC.
What we have asked EDDC (and received no reponse) is: who paid for the negative printed leaflet and letter sent to all households signed by Sarah Randall Johnson? It had all the signs of panic filled screams about loss of councillors' paid and comfy employment prospects. if this is true the Boundary Commission may be on the right track!
Meanwhile, back in good old Budleigh Salterton, we have yet to make a contribution to the debate. It will not be long delayed, though, because the Town Council is about to issue a paper with ideas and more sensible proposals. They will be published here over the next 3 weeks.
*************************************************
The Boundary Commission has published its proposals (7 July 2008) for changes to local government and both Devon County Council and the East Devon District Council have rushed to add their comments
Summary of recommendations:
4 Draft proposal
4.1 This chapter of the report contains our draft proposal for Devon, which we
consider, based on the evidence received so far, to be most likely to achieve the
outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s five criteria.
4.2 We also considered that there was some merit in a two-unitary pattern of local
government for Devon. This is set out in the following chapter of this report. The
merits of our draft proposal can be assessed against this two-unitary pattern.
4.3 We wish to emphasise that we have not finalised our proposal for Devon and
would welcome views during Stage Three from all interested parties, including local
residents, before we submit our final advice to the Secretary of State.
4.4 On the basis of the criteria set out in the Secretary of State’s request for advice,
and the evidence available to us during the first stages of the review, our draft
proposal is for a Devon county unitary authority as set out in Table 5. A map
illustrating our draft proposal can be found at Appendix B. This draft proposal will be
subject to consideration of its affordability and whether it will receive a broad crosssection
of support.
Table 5: Draft proposal for Devon
Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001)
Devon county The county of Devon,
including all authorities
in the two-tier area
704,493
Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)
4.5 Our draft proposal for Devon does not include changes to the boundaries of
Plymouth and Torbay. We have considered the implications for both these authorities
of structural change across the two-tier area. We are satisfied that, in aggregate, our
draft proposal for Devon has the capacity to meet the outcomes specified in the
Secretary of State’s criteria. In reaching conclusions on our draft proposal we do not
consider that changes to the boundaries of Plymouth and Torbay are essential to
facilitate a pattern of unitary local government across the county as a whole.
However, this does not mean that we do not consider that some boundary
adjustments might be advantageous to the authorities concerned. Those boundary
adjustments could be promoted if a review under section 8 of the 2007 Act were
undertaken at a later date.
4.6 We consider that a county unitary authority would have the capacity to provide
strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership to all of two-tier Devon, taking
forward the role of the existing County Council in its current network of themed
partnerships through the Devon Strategic Partnership. We have noted the County
Council has outlined that a new authority could enhance the role of the Partnership
and bring partnership development and delivery into the mainstream of the new
organisation. There may, however, be a need to extend this network to include
further partners from the Exeter area in order to reflect more fully the city’s key role in
the county.4.7 A county-wide unitary authority would have a population of approximately
704,500, and be geographically one of the largest such authorities in England,
covering an area of 656,000 hectares. We consider that it would have the capacity to
provide the basis for effective representation of the authority, particularly in regard to
influencing and setting the agenda at regional, national and European levels.
4.8 We consider that the proposed county-wide unitary authority would have the
capacity be able to plan and act strategically in tackling the social and economic
challenges facing Devon, through having the necessary critical mass and resources.
4.9 A number of authorities in Devon proposed a variety of leadership models
reflecting the governance arrangements suggested in their concepts. The County
Council proposed a leader elected by the Council (the leader and cabinet executive
model) with a proviso that a directly elected leader (mayor and cabinet executive
model) could be introduced if support emerged for it (this model of political leadership
is described earlier). We consider that political management structures including the
size of the cabinet, the manner of leader appointment, the length of term served by
the leader and portfolios held within the cabinet should be determined by those
forming the unitary authority. However, in our view, the leader and cabinet executive
model proposed by the County Council would be sufficiently strong and provide a
stable mandate for the local governance of Devon.
4.10 We consider it an advantage that our draft proposal does not seek to divide the
county area and create what might be regarded as artificial boundaries. Rather, we
see the role of a single unitary council as bringing together the various communities,
both rural and urban, and building a cohesive response to the challenges facing the
county as a whole.
4.11 The County Council proposed that a new authority could establish an assembly
which would bring together key representatives from Devon, including MPs and
chairs of the Community Boards (discussed subsequently), in order to bring a
stronger community and local voice into the new council. We welcome this proposal
as a vehicle for seeking to ensure that the new unitary council maintains a strategic
focus on the issues and challenges facing the whole county area.
4.12 One of the most important challenges facing the proposed unitary county
authority would be to demonstrate that it was not too large to engage with and
empower citizens and communities. We have already noted that a Devon unitary
council would be one of the largest unitary authorities in population terms and cover
a large geographical area. We recognise that it would represent a range of rural and
urban areas which differ markedly in socio-economic make-up. Additionally, Devon
has many sparsely populated and remote areas which suffer from difficult
communication links, plus two National Parks (one of which is partly in Somerset)
and several Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).
4.13 We consider that the proposals set out by the County Council in its concept
have the capacity to address these concerns. It envisaged a neighbourhood
empowerment scheme that would create 28 Community Boards based around the 28
market towns of Devon, together with a City Board for Exeter with broader
responsibilities. The Council envisaged Community Boards would include the
following members: town mayor, town and parish councillors, unitary councillors and
representatives from key public service partners. The neighbourhood empowermentarrangements envisaged seek to build upon the identity and ties people currently
have with their market town.
4.14 The County Council proposed that Community Boards would be chaired by
unitary councillors, who would focus on leading and championing their community
areas. Community Board chairs would contribute to the decision-making and
strategic leadership of the unitary authority to ensure that local considerations are
rooted in the development of policies and priorities that affect the whole county.
4.15 We also note that the Community Boards would require dedicated officer
support in order to oversee their functions, provide support to the unitary councillors
in their leadership and aid in the facilitation of community and partner organisations’
engagement.
4.16 The 28 market towns identified to us are listed in Table 6.
Table 6: 28 market towns in Devon
Ashburton &
Buckfastleigh
Axminster
Barnstaple
Bideford &
Northam
Braunton
Crediton
Cullompton
Dartmouth
Dawlish
Exmouth
Great Torrington
Holsworthy
Honiton
Ilfracombe
Ivybridge
Kingsbridge
Lynton & Lynmouth
Moretonhampstead
Newton Abbot
Okehampton Ottery
St Mary
Seaton
Sidmouth
South Molton
Tavistock
Teignmouth
Tiverton
Totnes
Source: www.devon.gov.uk
4.17 We accept that Community Boards are not envisaged as service delivery bodies
and that the County Council’s proposal would include a substantially stronger role for
parish and town councils, but that it has not yet defined their role. We consider the
role of parish and town councils requires further definition and we welcome views on
this during the representation period. However, we recognise that a stronger role for
parish and town councils would be dependent on the resources, capability and
enthusiasm expressed by that tier of local government to take on further
responsibilities. We wish to be satisfied that an effective two-way relationship
between parish and town councils and the Community Boards could be facilitated
under these arrangements and that their respective roles and responsibilities are
clear. This challenge may be particularly acute where parish and town councils have
achieved Quality Parish status and are keen to take on further responsibilities. We
welcome the views of parish and town councils on these matters.
4.18 We consider that the community governance arrangements set out by the
County Council go some way to addressing how local people can influence the
delivery of local services. We note that the County Council’s proposals state that the
new unitary authority Community Boards would have a role in the scrutiny of the new
unitary council and the service delivery of other public sector organisations. The role
of the Community Boards would also facilitate engagement at a local level within the
Local Area Agreement (LAA) process. We are concerned, however, that the extent of
devolved funding may be limited to supporting community initiatives. Extending
further the proposals for budget delegation could provide greater flexibility ofapproach
to tackling the differing needs of and challenges facing the people of
Devon.
4.19 The County Council proposed that a new unitary authority could establish a
separate Community Board for the city of Exeter area and that this City Board should
have extended powers. In its concept, the County Council considered that these
arrangements should reflect Exeter’s importance and the special contribution it
provides to the county. We note that some of the arrangements proposed included:
• city centre management
• oversight and management of the city’s leisure and cultural offerings including
the Exeter Festival
• management of public realm (i.e. the management and maintenance of public
assets including streetscene) issues in an integrated way across the city
• transport and congestion
• integrated parking strategy
• development and delivery of a sustainability strategy for the city
• oversight of educational and skills improvement arrangements within the city
• targeting investment to address issues of deprivation within the city
• managing grants and other investments, such as the Hele’s Trust
These responsibilities would be supported by devolved budgets.
4.20 We agree that the arrangements for Exeter should fully and properly recognise
the particular role of the city both locally and sub-regionally, and we welcome views
on this issue.
4.21 We note that Exeter City Council is currently undertaking a pilot scheme for
neighbourhood arrangements within Exeter – ‘My Neighbourhood’. The County
Council proposed that a community governance review be undertaken, which would
build on the pilot scheme in order to establish a pattern of locality governance for
Exeter. We welcome further details on the neighbourhood arrangements for the city
of Exeter and their workings.
4.22 At present, the County Council delivers upper-tier local authority services to the
people of Devon. The creation of a county-wide unitary authority would amalgamate
the services provided by the County Council with those provided by the eight district
councils. While Devon has differing economies, and areas of inherent poor
communication, we consider that our draft proposal would provide the economies of
scale that are considered necessary to deliver value-for-money services effectively.
4.23 However, further consideration is needs to be given to how a new unitary
council would integrate county and district services into a coherent whole for the
benefit of Devon service users and council tax payers. We welcome views on how an
area-based model for the delivery of the full range of unitary authority services would
relate to the proposed Community Boards.
4.24 We consider that the provision of services across the county-wide unitary
authority would need to be flexible in approach in order to tackle the differing needs
of the residents of Devon. For this reason we have been persuaded at this stage of
the necessity to retain Exeter within the unitary county to provide improved
opportunities for the new unitary authority to cross-subsidise service costs between
the urban and rural areas and to reduce the possibility of disadvantage to any group
of citizens. We are also persuaded that the inclusion of Exeter offers potential
advantages in terms of strong and effective economic leadership. However, we
would welcome further informed commentary as to the way in which this potential
could be converted into positive action.
4.25 A county-wide unitary authority would not require the disaggregation of uppertier
local authority services currently provided by the County Council – as previously
mentioned, county council services account for some 80% of local government
expenditure in the county. We recognise that there will be the need for an
aggregation of district council services. This may have a transitional impact on
service delivery but over a longer time-frame there would be opportunities for
economies of scale and for developing consistent, high-quality, county-wide service
standards.
4.26 All structural change has a cost. However, we are of the view that those costs
would be minimised by the creation of a county-wide unitary in Devon. In
comparison, the creation of two, three or more unitary authorities in Devon, with its
particular geography and communication links, could put at risk the delivery of value
for money in service provision and potentially have higher transition costs. For
example, a multi-unitary pattern would require the disaggregation of the services
currently provided by the County Council as well as bringing together the local
services delivered by the district councils within each new unitary authority. It has
been argued that a multi-unitary pattern may go some way towards mitigating the
problems arising from some of the difficulties in working across the whole of Devon,
such as population sparsity and poor communications. However, we have significant
concerns that a multi-unitary pattern in the county of Devon, which would result in
small rural unitary authorities without a significant economic centre, could struggle to
provide value-for-money services and economies of scale. It is also probable that this
model would require a number of joint arrangements for the delivery of upper-tier
services. Our concerns about the need for such arrangements are discussed in
chapter 2.
4.27 Proponents of a county unitary have told us that the inclusion of Exeter would
assist the city’s continuing growth and development. Although we recognise the
importance of Exeter in developing the economy of Devon, we welcome during this
representation period further evidenced views on whether a county-wide unitary
authority would be able to establish the necessary infrastructure to support and
spread the effects of Exeter’s growth. Additionally, we would welcome views on
whether the inclusion of Exeter in a county-wide authority would foster economic
growth in the rural parts of Devon.
4.28 An important consideration we have taken into account in formulating our draft
proposal is the recognition of other economic drivers in Devon. We note the current
importance of the economic area which encompasses Plymouth and its hinterland.
We note that the cities of Plymouth and Exeter have spheres of economic influence
that affect the economies of the areas surrounding their current boundaries as well
as the economy of the wider county area and beyond.
4.29 We acknowledge that the County Council’s present performance and capacity
to deliver effective services can only provide a broad indicator of the future
performance of a county-wide unitary authority. However, it already delivers the
upper-tier local authority services in Devon described in Table 2 and received a 3-
star rating from the Audit Commission in its 2007 CPA. We noted in particular that
the Audit Commission reported that the County Council was working with partners
and improving the economy and environment.
4.30 A county-wide unitary authority would mean that the area of Dartmoor National
Park Authority (DNPA) would fall within the area of one authority as opposed to the
current situation, where the area of the DNPA covers parts of several district council
areas. Similar considerations apply to the part of the Exmoor National Park that falls
within the Devon area. The proposal for a Devon unitary authority will have
implications for the national park authorities, for example, in terms of their
membership and roles as planning authorities, as well as their outsourcing of certain
functions and services.
4.31 Several proponents have made suggestions about the council size of the new
unitary authority. Some proponents went further, providing ratios of this to population.
In its concept the County Council envisaged 100 unitary councillors for the proposed
county-wide unitary authority. Using this figure, East Devon District Council
calculated this ratio as 1:7,460, concluding that this would represent a democratic
deficit.
4.32 If a new unitary authority (or authorities) were to be established by the
Secretary of State following our advice to her, the Electoral Commission is obliged by
law to consider the need for an electoral review of the new authority. If it considers
that such a review is necessary, as it has done for the new unitary authorities
established by Parliament in 2008, it would direct us to conduct an electoral review.
We would start by determining council size. In that event we would seek further
evidence as to why a given number of councillors would be required for the
administration of the council and the representation of the electorate. We therefore
urge all respondents to give serious consideration to how any model of governance
employed by the new authorities might be reflected in the number of councillors on
the whole council.
4.33 We have identified several issues, set out below, on which we welcome views
supported by evidence:
• our view on the necessary inclusion of Exeter in a county-wide authority,
particularly whether it will support the city’s economic growth and promote the
growth of the county
• whether there is a need to extend the membership of the Devon Strategic
Partnership to reflect more fully Exeter’s key role in the county
• further information on the community governance model envisaged for the city
of Exeter as part of a county unitary authority
• further evidence that a county-wide unitary authority has a broad cross-section
of support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens
• considered views from parish and town councils in regard to their envisaged
role in the proposed Community Board arrangements • the roles and responsibilities
of the proposed Community Boards, particularly as
they are perceived by parish and town councils and other groups likely to be
involved as Board representatives
• how the County Council’s proposed community governance structures will be
constituted by the new authority in order to ensure clear accountability for
matters such as service delivery
4.34 In light of further evidence received, we may decide that our draft proposal
should be refined or otherwise varied, and we may change the proposal before we
submit our final advice to the Secretary of State.What the Devon Councy Council thinks of the
proposals from the Boundary CommissionCounty welcomes Boundary Committee plan to keep Devon united
Devon County Council has today welcomed the Boundary Committee decision that
a single unitary council for Devon is the preferred option to go forward for consultation
as part of its ongoing review into the feasibility of creating a unitary local government
structure in the county.Committee says a County Unitary offers stronger role for Towns and Parishes
County pledges to work with partners on co-design of Community Boards
Briefing by Phil Norrey, Chief Executive, Devon County Council<<INTouchReview.doc>>
To read the Boundary Committee's full report and proposal for Devon click here:
http://www.devon.gov.uk/report-on-devon-review-web.pdf
What the EDDC thinks of the proposals
from the Boundary CommissionTHEY CLAIM IT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT -
DOES IT SOUND MORE EFFICIENT TO YOU?
By Councillor Sara Randall Johnson, Leader of EDDC
EAST DEVON District Council strongly opposes today's recommendation by
the Boundary Committee that local government in Devon should be managed by
one debt-ridden council delivering services and managing local government
processes across the county. This at a time when the Credit Crunch means we
need sound financial management, especially in the public sector.
I would urge the people of East Devon to register their protest at every
available opportunity, starting with the Boundary Committee's website or
through the post.
With Plymouth and Torbay already responsible for all council services in
their respective areas, the Boundary Committee is suggesting that the best
solution would be for the rest of Devon to be run by one council - broadly
equivalent to Devon County Council in its present form.
The new authority would take on responsibility for all district council
functions - for example waste collection, street cleaning, council housing,
planning and building control, in addition to the functions already handled
by Devon County Council.
EDDC is debt-free
In putting forward its proposal, the Boundary Committee suggests that a
single unitary county would be MORE EFFICIENT. However, their solution would mean East Devon (and the other district council areas in Devon) being run by an authority that is currently over HALF A BILLION POUNDS IN DEBT*. That's the equivalent of nearly £2,000 owed for every household in Devon. In fact, Devon's debt has risen steeply from £365 million in 2003 to £614 million now - a staggering £250 million increase in five years - averaging £50
million a year! Does that sound efficient to you?
By comparison, EDDC has no debt and has a sizeable sum of money in the bank to keep it solvent. The money that EDDC has set aside for contingencies and to help keep YOUR council tax bill down, would be swallowed up overnight in the massive debts owed by the new council. It would be dwarfed by Devon's overdraft and EDDC's carefully gathered savings would disappear paying the new Devon council's interest charges.
Too big, too remote
Council Tax payers in Devon are entitled to the best services their money
can buy. But they also want to be served by a local authority with a sound
financial record and a reputation for keeping council tax down.
We can only wonder whether council tax payers in East Devon - and across the rest of the county - really want a council whose efficiency can be counted in massive debts to be responsible for the totality of service provision and management of local government finances in Devon.
In selecting the single Devon unitary option, the Boundary Committee has
flown in the face of submissions from a number of local councils, including
EDDC, which contended that the single unitary option would mean the majority of Devon being run by one monolithic, remote council too big to be efficient and too distant to be accountable to the widely dispersed urban and rural communities it serves.
* Devon County Council's annual statement of accounts records that their
long term outstanding debt at 31 March 2008 was £614 million - over half a
billion pounds.