Agenda item

To consider the report of the chief executive on behalf of the Community Governance Review Working Group (report attached).

Council considered the report of the chief executive on behalf of the Community Governance Review Working Group on revised terms of reference and draft recommendations in respect of the community governance review of South Oxfordshire.

Mr Rickeard addressed Council on the proposal to amend the boundary of Didcot parish to incorporate that part of the Millbrook estate that is currently in East Hagbourne parish (CGR 9). The current arrangements should remain unchanged – Millbrook should not be absorbed into Didcot as proposed by Didcot Town Council. This view was supported by a majority of Millbrook residents during a recent survey. Of the 31 per cent of residents who responded to the survey 93 per cent opposed the transfer. This result echoed a similar survey undertaken in 2000.  The current boundary was longstanding and understood. The residents of Millbrook have close family, social and community ties with

East Hagbourne. No such affinity existed with Didcot.

Mr Anthony Yeates, Holton Parish Council, and Mr Kevin Heritage, a Holton resident addressed Council on the proposal to amend the northern boundary of Wheatley parish to align with the A40 incorporating land currently in Holton parish (CGR 28).

Mr Yeates stated that the existing boundary was well established. There was no local support for change or expressions of dissatisfaction with the current boundary and nothing to be gained from the proposal.

Mr Heritage reiterated that the proposal had no local support.  The existing boundary along the Old London Road was well defined and had had existed for at least 900 years – well before the A40. Wheatley and Holton residents worked well together within the existing arrangements.

Mr Philip Collings, Sonning Common Parish Council Clerk, addressed Council on the proposal to amend the boundary between Sonning Common and Rotherfield Peppard (CGR 20) and the proposal to increase the number of councillors from 12 to 15 (CGR 23).  He expressed concern that the draft proposal recommended no change to the boundary which currently divided the built settlement and passed through gardens and commented that in relation to other proposals the objections had been set aside but in the case of CGR 20 had been given greater weight. The proposal put forward by Sonning Common met the criteria and reflected the area used by the planning department to calculate housing need under the neighbourhood development plan. In respect of CGR 23 the parish council had been awarded the general power of competence and as such required additional parish councillors to address the increased workload.

Ms Lynn Lloyd thanked the speakers who had addressed Council and assured them that the views expressed would be taken into account. She introduced the report on behalf of the Community Governance Working Group. She advised that the report proposed a package of proposals for consultation with parish councils and residents. Originally Council agreed a consultation period running from this meeting until 4 April. However, the working group now proposes extending the consultation period until the end of May to allow more time for people to respond and more time for the working group to carefully consider all the responses and make final recommendations to Council in July.

She emphasised that Council was being asked to agree proposals for consultation. It was the start of the process. During the consultation period all those residents directly affected by a proposed boundary change (i.e. their property would move from one parish to another) would be consulted to seek their views.

Ms Lynn Lloyd moved and Mr F Bloomfield seconded the following motion:

That Council:

1.            agree the revised terms of reference for the review set out in Appendix A to the report of the Chief Executive to Council on 20 February 2014;

2.            agree the draft recommendation in relation to each item under review as set out in schedules CGR1 to CGR 29, which form Appendix B to the report of the Chief Executive to Council on 20 February 2014.

A number of councillors spoke on the specific proposals set out in the report.

Ms A Purse moved and Mr M Gray seconded an amendment to delete proposal CGR 28. On being put the amendment was declared lost.

RESOLVED: to

1.         agree the revised terms of reference for the review set out in Appendix A to the report of the Chief Executive to Council on 20 February 2014

2.         agree the draft recommendation in relation to each item under review as set out in schedules CGR1 to CGR 29, which form Appendix B to the report of the Chief Executive to Council on 20 February 2014