This meeting was to receive an update on the Community Governance Review (CGR), which is a legal process for reviewing and changing the way local communities are represented by parish and town councils. It included a summary of the responses received to a consultation on the proposed changes, and a recommendation from the council officers that the CGR be concluded, with no changes made.

Community Governance Review

The Boundary Review Committee were asked to note the outcome of a public consultation on the Community Governance Review.

This consultation was the second such consultation. In the first consultation, which ran until 18 December 2023, 79 submissions were received from the public. These submissions contained a variety of suggestions, ranging from no changes, to have three Town/Parish Councils covering the entire Borough.

Based on these initial responses, the council officers proposed that, in the second round of consultation, no changes should be made to the current electoral arrangements for Town and Parish Councils.

At the time of writing, the second round of consultation had seen 11 submissions received, with the majority coming from parish and town councils:

The consultation responses themselves covered the following parish areas:

A summary of the submissions received was included in the report pack. This summary is reproduced in full below.

Proposal to make no changes to current arrangements

Chetwynd Aston & Woodcote Parish The Parish Council made a submission which set out:-  A desire to maintain the boundaries as they were at the 2023 elections;  That investment has been made by the Parish Council to cover the Parish as it is and residents will benefit from that investment;  That the Station Road development should not form part of Newport Town Council with a high precept whilst residents of the development do not access many of those services funded by that precept.

Church Aston Parish Church Aston Parish Council’s representations were:-  To agree to the “no change” proposal put forward at the last meeting of the Boundary Review Committee – this was unanimously supported;  That they felt merging Church Aston with Lilleshall and Muxton created unnecessary upset and confusion;  That an autonomous parish was essential for preserving community identity, effective representation and providing high-quality services to residents;  That they would like to put forward proposals on how any future review should be undertaken.

Donnington & Muxton Parish The Parish Council’s submission which:-  Stated that it was supportive of the proposal to make no changes to the current arrangements for the Parish;  Set out that the proposals presented to the last meeting of the Boundary Review Committee were not in line with government guidelines; and  Putting forward suggestions for the conduct of any future review.

A resident made a submission which:-  Strongly agreed with the decision of the Boundary Review Committee to make no changes to the present boundaries of Town and Parish Councils for the time being;  Set out that there is no reason to make any changes in the future;  Raised the fact that there had only been 76 representations made in the first round of consultation which ran until 18 December 2023 but that this was probably due to a lack of awareness of the scale of changes that could be made;  Expressed the view that consultation responses were ignored;  Expressed concern about how much awareness there was of the CGR;  Stated that financial impacts of any changes must be considered;  Raised the fact that budget setting for 2027 will need to take place by January 2027 at the latest;  Raised questions on how the merging / dissolution of Town / Parish Councils is dealt with e.g the splitting of assets and reserves etc;  Suggested a need to consider the impact of changes on Neighbourhood Development Plans; and  Set out expectations for consultation in any future CGR.

Hollinswood & Randlay Parish The Parish Council made a submission which:-  Supported the Committee’s recommendation to make no changed to the present Parish & Town Council boundaries for the time being;  Expressed the view that more information could have been shared with Town and Parish Councils; and  Raised suggestions for how a future consultation should be conducted.

Lilleshall Parish The Parish Council submitted representations which raised a number of points, summarised as follows:-  The Council unanimously agreed to support the proposal of no change to the existing arrangements;  Raising concerns that they felt there had been a lack of consultation;  That the original proposal was not supported and merging with Church Aston and Muxton would lead to upset and confusion;  Maintaining autonomy is crucial for the community’s identity, effective representation and providing high quality services to residents;  Setting out that merging with others would erode Lilleshall’s unique historical and cultural identity and lead to a loss of local character;  Merging with other Councils would dilute representation for residents and impact the sense of community in Lilleshall;  A merger would result in increased bureaucracy and administrative complexity;  Raising issues around the financial implications for the Parish and how resources would be allocated; and  Making suggestions on how any future review should be conducted.

Little Wenlock Parish The Parish Council made a submission which:-  Welcomed the proposal of the Boundary Review Committee to maintain the status quo;  Highlighted the distinct identity of the village of Little Wenlock and surrounding hamlets;  Repeated a request for seven councillors and hope that this is accommodated in any future review; and  Stated that any changes need to take into account the strong sense held by rural communities of belonging in their parish.

Newport Town An individual made representations summarised as follows:- That 800 Novaportians signed a petition in 2016 for the boundary to be moved to the A518 to bring it in line with the “voting boundary”; That there are a number of dwellings being built in the area of Hutchison Way which are being advertised as being in Newport when they are not – although they should be; The residents of those properties, and some previously built, have the advantages of living in Newport but do not contribute to the precept, for example, attending Newport schools, attending events in Newport, using the library – all services which are paid for by Newport residents; and That there should be a cohesive Newport community that is not divided by an invisible line.

Priorslee Parish An individual made a submission which covered a number of areas:-  Priorslee;  Muxton;  Worckwardine Wood & Trench;  Oakengates

In essence, this submission set out the following:-  That the Borough has done a good job, overall, in the initial proposals presented to the Boundary Review Committee;  That the area of Redhill in which they live has no affinity with Muxton or Priorslee but should form part of a revised “Central Parish” (with a different name);  That polling districts TPs, TSG, TSP, TSE and TSW should be merged with WMM, WMH, WDG, WDE, WDO and part of TWR to form a new “Central Parish” with the remainder of TWR and TWW joining Oakengates Town Council;  That both Muxton and Priorslee parishes should be represented by their own Parish Councils with Lilleshall merging with Church Aston and Chetwynd Aston.

Stirchley & Brookside Parish A Parish Councillor submitted a response, summarised below:-  Thanking the Committee for proposing no changes to the current boundaries;  Setting out that the initial proposal put before the committee did not consider the impact on communities and setting out that the process had been unfair; and  Setting out that it is not acceptable to change any boundaries.

Waters Upton Parish The Parish Council made contact to confirm that it supported the proposal for there to be no changes.

The report noted that, because a Community Governance Review must be completed within 12 months of being started, this meeting would be the final opportunity for the council to make changes to the arrangements for Town and Parish Councils until the next review.

Given the responses received, the Boundary Review Committee were asked to conclude the Community Governance Review and retain the existing electoral arrangements for Town and Parish Councils. The Committee was also asked to delegate responsibility for publishing the outcome of the review to the Director: Policy & Governance, Anthea Lowe.