Agenda item

To receive a presentation on the process involved in setting up a Town Council from Justin Griggs, Head of Policy and Communications for the National Association of Local Councils (NALC).  Katrina Evans, Chief Executive for the Local Association of Local Councils (LALC) will also be in attendance.

Justin Griggs and Katrina Evans introduced themselves and explained their roles within the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and the Local Association of Local Councils (LALC).

Members’ debate began with the role of Mayor and their desire to preserve it along with its artefacts and charters.  The Assistant Director confirmed that an inventory would be drafted at the appropriate stage if Members decided to begin the process towards setting up a Town Council.

The Chairman explained that if the Council remained as it was, the role of Mayor would remain with the Council.  The only decision the Committee could make that evening would be whether to ask the Council to trigger the Community Governance Review (CGR) process.  The cost of the CGR process was not known at this stage.

A Member stressed that if Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) did not affect the Council then they would not support BTAC becoming a Town Council. However, if a unitary authority took over, then they would support the formation of a Town Council.

Other Members spoke in full support of forming a Town Council and asked for costs, direction and plans.  They were concerned about the strategic alliance, considering that, even without LGA, the Council merging with East Lindsey meant that Boston needed a Town Council to retain the town’s identity. 

Mr Griggs advised the Committee that undertaking CGR and setting up a new Town Council was a process for which they would need guidance. NALC could connect Members with other Town Councils and good practice, and outline the main issues. They would try to demonstrate what good community engagement looked like, making local decisions and having local influence. They would support Members, help navigate them through the process and advise on costs.  LALC would also give advice, guidance and training.  Members of the public could present a petition to the Council to trigger a CGR or the Council could decide itself to proceed with a CGR and consult the public on the matter.

Members still felt they needed more details: an idea of finances, the officer team, where they would be situated, how independent the Town Council would be, what Members roles would be on the Town Council, what the mayor’s role would be, etc.

Mrs Evans gave details of local areas where Town Councils had been established:

·         Stamford, with a population under 18,000 with an electorate of 15,000. Had a precept of £538,033, with responsibilities including cemeteries, allotments and recreation grounds.

·         Skegness, with a higher population, had a precept of £498,000. There was a £1.5 million transfer of assets and they took on responsibilities including car parks, the Tower Pavilion etc.

·         Mablethorpe had a lower population, but a precept of £614,000. They received a good income from beach huts and were therefore able to deliver more.

Mrs Evans advised Members to look at the websites of these Town Councils along with those of Gainsborough, Sleaford and Louth Town Councils and see what services they delivered and their level of precept and budgets. Members needed to carry out investigatory work and they would help them with the process. A Town Council would have its own proper officer, finance officer etc. and was its own legal entity, responsible for itself. Its duties and powers were set out in legislation though its general power of competence would be a matter to look into another time.

Mr Griggs added that a Town Council was “permissive” with respect to duties and powers, i.e. it had few duties that it was obliged to carry out, but had a range of powers that it could carry out if it wished; therefore, this gave them the power to innovate. The national average cost of a Town Council was £1 per week. Details of staff, officers etc. were all part of the CGR.

Some Members were keen to get the process started. However, some were concerned about whether it was the right time due to the current pandemic and the worry of people losing their jobs etc. It was essential to have the support of the public and they would have to set out exactly what they wanted to do to explain it to people in order to get their support.

One Member spoke strongly against setting up a Town Council if the Council remained as it was. However, CGR could be triggered and they could make the decision once they had a better understanding of what local people wanted.  Then, if the process did go ahead they would be ready.  CGR would take a year so it would help to have an indication of the timeframe after that.

Some Members felt they needed to be convinced now that establishing a Town Council would be beneficial and whether it would save or waste money. It was difficult to see how to compare like-for-like, it was not the best time to proceed and they did not want to spend a significant amount of money considering it.  There was no need to rush the process.  A working party of Members could be set up to look into it.

Mr Griggs advised the meeting that CGR gave them up to 12 months to look into the process and get people on board and they would help with this. They could help them understand what was in the forefront of people’s minds, e.g. the provision of public toilets, most of which were run by town and parish councils, and give them information about value for money examples from around the country. A working group was often how CGR work was undertaken.

It was then proposed by that BTAC request the Council to trigger a CGR to begin the process of finding out the facts to put before the public and then let the public decide.  This was seconded carried unanimously.