Decisions

The Mayor invited the Democracy and Governance Specialist/Clerk to read out the following statement:

Item 5 - Draft SWT Council Report - Community Governance Review for the Unparished Area of Taunton

The draft Council report on the Community Governance Review for the Unparished Area of Taunton originally timetabled to go before SWT Full Council on the 27th July sets out proposals from the Community Governance Review Working Group for a CGR in relation to Taunton. The Council is minded to pause an immediate decision on this report and instead bring a revised report back to Full Council in September. The reasons are set out below and have been discussed and agreed with the Acting Chair of the Working Group; The Council has received legal advice that it is required to formally consult the County Council on the intention to conduct a Review and of their terms of reference. Such formal consultation has yet to take place. Procedurally it would be better to undertake such consultation and take any representations into account before proceeding further. The Report should reflect such steps. In addition, a ministerial decision on local government changes in Somerset is due to be made this week. Such a statement has implications for an intervention by the Boundary Commission and a potential electoral review. The statutory guidance on CGR’s makes clear that councils should avoid starting a community governance review, if a wider electoral arrangements review, is being, or is about to be undertaken. It would be sensible to pause and consider the implications of paragraph 28 of the Guidance and whether, in the light of the ministerial statement, a preliminary discussion with the Boundary Commission would be beneficial. There may be no implications but, at least the report would be better to include such matters. Finally, the council needs to review the reasons for the extent of the planned review area and the terms of reference of the community governance review before it places such before full council. The reasoning for the extent of the review, or any variation of such, needs to be set out with clarity and follow the statutory guidance, or if not, set forth reasons for any departure. Mr Marcus Prouse Mr Kevin Williams Somerset West and Taunton Council.

The Mayor advised that statements or questions only in relation to the statement were allowed;

-        The Acting Chair of the Working Group had agreed to this action as it had been felt that there was no alternative. It had to be put on record that she was extremely unhappy with how this had been progressed. She agreed with Mr Orr’s statement that this Council had completely dragged its feet on this issue and this should have been in train 12-18 months ago. This had been a complete failure by this Council and this administration.

RESOLVED that the Charter Trustees for Taunton adjourned the meeting until the end of August until such time that this item could be re-considered.

The Clerk read out the following statement on behalf of Mr David Orr;

“Back in 2018, when John Williams proposed a Town Council based only on unparished wards in just half of the town, it was a subpar solution to a Town Council fit for our County Town in historic Somerset. In 2021, with a Unitary Council decision expected within weeks, it is parochial and expedient to carry on with an outdated half-a-town proposal like this. King Alfred had ambitions in Somerset that led to the formation of England and his cakes were over-baked rather than half-baked!  To those who say there isn’t enough time to do this properly, I say you have had two years to start earlier.

By direct comparison, David Fothergill for One Somerset says that they can carry out a fully-scoped Town Council project and meet the May 2023 timescale. On the one hand, we have councillors not wanting a new Tiverton and Minehead constituency taking Staplegrove and Norton Fitzwarren wards away from Taunton, while supporting a subpar Town Council project that only covers half the town. Within a few weeks the Secretary of State is expected to announce his preferred unitary solution.  I hope that within the Statutory Change Orders, he will decree a proper Town Council for Taunton, after 47 years without one.  This half-a-town project will then be obsolete and should be halted in favour of the Shadow Authority running a properly scoped project.

Q1. In the scoping paper for the Working Group it is stated that Taunton parishes adjoining the unparished ward will NOT be part of the remit. Will the Charter Trustees amend the recommendations to allow for early consultation with parishes within Taunton and for those in favour of joining a Town Council to be in-scope?

Q2. So that the work here isn’t wasted if a unitary council is announced, will the Charter Trustees consult now with the Boundary Commission for a whole of Taunton boundary review to determine a viable geography and the settlement boundaries?

Q3. What are the estimated annual running costs of a new Town Council? With the costs only falling on the unparished wards, then what is the estimated band D precept for a Town Council?

Q4. If the project remains narrowly scoped to only unparished wards, will the Town Council consultation be undertaken only with households within the unparished wards (as the future precept payers)? 

Q5. With a Town Council based on unparished wards only as a pre-determined option, will the consultation choice simply be between having the unparished wards individually parished or the unparished wards being amalgamated into a half-a-town Town Council? Would that pre-determined choice pass the test of being “a meaningful and genuine consultation”?

Q6. Will the Mayor for a half-a-town Town Council attend events for all of Taunton and will grants be issued to support causes and groups that are whole of Taunton in nature? Is it fair that only the residents in unparished wards will bear those costs for whole of Taunton events and causes?”

The Clerk advised that Mr Orr would receive a written response which would be circulated to all Charter Trustees. It is reproduced below;

Q1. In the scoping paper for the Working Group it is stated that Taunton parishes adjoining the unparished ward will NOT be part of the remit. Will the Charter Trustees amend the recommendations to allow for early consultation with parishes within Taunton and for those in favour of joining a Town Council to be in-scope?

It is not for the Charter Trustees for Taunton, as a separate body to SWT Council to amend the recommendations of the Council Working Group or their scoping documentation, although when the final report and Terms of Reference is brought back before the Taunton Charter Trustees for their consideration then the feedback of the Taunton Charter Trustees will be considered and should carry the appropriate weight in Councillors considerations at Full Council. I would refer you to the statement read out at the Charter Trustees on 20^th July 2021 which outlined how the Council and by extension the Working Group need to “review the reasons for the extent of the planned review area and the terms of reference of the community governance review before it places such before full council. The reasoning for the extent of the review, or any variation of such, needs to be set out with clarity and follow the statutory guidance, or if not, set forth reasons for any departure.”

Q2. So that the work here isn’t wasted if a unitary council is announced, will the Charter Trustees consult now with the Boundary Commission for a whole of Taunton boundary review to determine a viable geography and the settlement boundaries?

I have not been instructed by the Charter Trustees for Taunton to consult with the Boundary Commission on their behalf, however I can confirm officers from Somerset West and Taunton Council have been and are in discussions with the Boundary Commission on the review.

Q3. What are the estimated annual running costs of a new Town Council? With the costs only falling on the unparished wards, then what is the estimated band D precept for a Town Council?

This estimation work is currently being undertaken by Officers of SWT Council, and will necessarily be determined on the nature of the activities that any successor body would wish to precept for and its geographical scope.

A balance has to be struck between providing any created body and Somerset West and Taunton Council with stability and allowing any new council autonomy to make its own decisions. The long-term funding and service agreement will be the mechanism to strike this balance.  The decision about the precept will be linked to the budget set for the new Council which will, in turn, be driven in significant part by the proposed funding and service agreements to be entered between SWT Council and any new Parish/Town Council.

Q4. If the project remains narrowly scoped to only unparished wards, will the Town Council consultation be undertaken only with households within the unparished wards (as the future precept payers)?

Yes this would be correct if this was the exercise that is ended up as proposed, as from reading the Guidance, which states that;

“Under the 2007 Act principal councils are required to consult both those local government electors in the area under review, and others (including a local authority such as a county council) which appears to the principal council to have an interest in the review.”

Q5. With a Town Council based on unparished wards only as a pre-determined option, will the consultation choice simply be between having the unparished wards individually parished or the unparished wards being amalgamated into a half-a-town Town Council? Would that pre-determined choice pass the test of being “a meaningful and genuine consultation”?

I would refer you to the statement read out at the Charter Trustees on 20th July 2021 which outlined how the Council and by extension the Working Group needed to “review the reasons for the extent of the planned review area and the terms of reference of the community governance review before it places such before full council. The reasoning for the extent of the review, or any variation of such, needs to be set out with clarity and follow the statutory guidance, or if not, set forth reasons for any departure.”

The first stage of the consultation exercise as evidenced in the draft documentation did not set out any potential options so was intended to be as genuine and meaningful as possible in taking on as many views as possible on the future of this area.

Q6. Will the Mayor for a half-a-town Town Council attend events for all of Taunton and will grants be issued to support causes and groups that are whole of Taunton in nature? Is it fair that only the residents in unparished wards will bear those costs for whole of Taunton events and causes?

I would consider it far too early to comment on the scope of a role that is yet to be created, although I can see your line of argument I don’t think I can comment on the fairness or otherwise of such a system. It will be for the two councils to negotiate on such matters and to take in consideration when the Community Governance Review is underway as part of the issues around geographical scope.

The District Council would no longer need to raise a Special Expenses precept on the ratepayers of the former unparished area if the area became a Town or Parish Council. It would be for the successor body to determine whether to operate any form of grants scheme out of the precept it levied if possible, however the existing scheme is designed to support those types of things that a town or parish council usually would, so it would presumably do this through the precept rather than through a grants scheme this would be done.

This had been added to the Agenda on 25^th June 2021 when received - Under Access to Information Procedure Rules “Where there are special circumstances requiring an item to be added to the agenda after publication, the revised agenda will be open to inspection from the time the item was added to the agenda.”

The purpose of this item was to receive and note the Annual Internal Audit Report 2020/21. This was not mandatory but was recommended by the External Auditors in their review last year. There were some suggested improvements that were to be recommended and these were going to be addressed now identified.

During the discussion of this item, Members made comments and asked questions which included:-

·       A concern was raised that these matters had not been addressed by the Finance Team.

·       Officers worked closely with the Finance team at SWT in terms of extracting a statement of accounts.

·       Why had the Charter Trustees not engaged South West Audit Partnership?

·       They were emailed and did not respond to a request to quote.

·       It was stated that an Action Plan to address these points needed to be put in place.

·       This was a good idea and it was considered that nothing in this report could not be addressed.

·       The discussion on risks to the Charter Trustees had felt to be considered but this would need to be formally recorded in a Risk Register.

·       It was suggested that looking at what other Charter Trustee areas did in this regard would be a good idea.

RESOLVED that the Annual Internal Audit Report 2020/21 was received and noted.

The Mayor of Taunton advised that the Draft Accounting Statements for 2020/2021 had been circulated as part of the Agenda.

RESOLVED to approve the Draft Accounting Statements 2020/2021 for submission to the Charter Trustee’s external Auditors, PKF Littlejohn LLP.

The Clerk advised that the report had been circulated and it was a requirement for the Charter Trustees to acknowledge certain statements as part of the Annual Governance Return. The Clerk advised that part of the requirements for a Charter Trustee body, which had been established in the Unparished Area in 2019 by Statutory Instrument, was an offer to become part of the Small Auditors Appointments Regime (SAAA), which the Charter Trustees had accepted previously to be a part of. Every year the Charter Trustees needed to submit an Annual Governance Statement and Accounting Statements for audit, to ensure that the proper use of public funds was being discharged.

RESOLVED to approve the Annual Governance Statement 2020/2021 for submission to the Taunton Charter Trustees External Auditors, PKF Littlejohn LLP.

No Charter Trustees requested to ask a question under Standing Order 8.

(Minutes of the meeting of the Taunton Charter Trustees held on 25^th May 2021 circulated with the agenda)

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Taunton Charter Trustees held on 25^th May 2021 be confirmed as a correct record.