The Constitution and Governance Committee were scheduled to meet to discuss a review of scrutiny functions, community governance in Huish Episcopi and Langport, and the government's strategy for modern and secure elections. Also on the agenda was a review of community governance in Ansford and Castle Cary.

Community Governance Review: Huish Episcopi and Langport

The committee was scheduled to consider a report on the consultation undertaken as part of the Community Governance Review (CGR) for Huish Episcopi and Langport.

The report set out the findings of a consultation undertaken between 13 June 2025 and 8 August 2025. According to the report, the consultation was part of a CGR in the parishes of Langport and Huish Episcopi. It gave residents of both parishes an opportunity to express their opinions on the proposed abolition of the current local government arrangements and the formation of a new town council covering the current parishes of Langport and Huish Episcopi that also contains a number of adjacent villages.

According to the report, 559 responses were received, with 363 from Huish Episcopi, 125 from Langport, and 71 from other areas. Of those who responded, 52% were in favour of the proposal. However, the report stated that there were divisions between the parishes: 94% of Langport residents supported the proposal, while only 33% of Huish Episcopi residents were in favour, with 63% opposed.

The report stated that those in favour of the merger believed it would lead to governance efficiency, financial equity, and better shared services. Those against the merger were concerned about the loss of identity, financial impact, democratic deficit, governance integrity, and development concerns.

The committee was scheduled to consider an amendment to the recommendations, proposed by Councillor Mike Stanton and seconded by Councillor Tim Kerley:

1. That it is clear that this merger is needed, that both Huish Episcopi Parish Council and Langport Town Council wish the merger to proceed, and that the elected members for the Curry Rivel and Langport Division wish the merger to proceed, therefore this committee is invited to recommend that Full Council approves the dissolution of the two parishes and the creation of a single parish.

2. Should clause 2 above be approved, that an officer-led review be conducted to determine what number of councillors should be elected from each predecessor community to the merged single council, proportionate to the populations of each.

3. That the new council shall be called Huish Episcopi & Langport Council.

The rationale for the amendment stated that Langport is entirely surrounded by the parish of Huish, and that residents of Huish naturally use the facilities available in Langport. It also noted that the council tax payers of Langport pay one of the three highest tax rates in the country, whilst the taxpayers of Huish pay a middling level.

The rationale also stated that the consultative process indicated that 84% of the combined communities did not express a view, and of those who did, 52% wished the merger to proceed. It also noted that both parish councils and both Somerset councillors approved of the merger.

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Sean Dromgoole, Chair of Langport Town Council, Councillor Julia Gadd, Chair of Huish Episcopi Parish Council, and Councillor John Wood of Huish Episcopi Parish Council submitted statements relating to the agenda item.

Councillor Sean Dromgoole stated that he was one of the prime movers of the proposed merger, and thanked the officers for their diligent and detailed work. He also asked the committee to bear in mind that the actual village of Huish Episcopi, is but one of several villages within the HEPC boundaries, and that the new name for the merged parish is Huish Episcopi and Langport in recognition of the special concerns of the residents of Huish Episcopi.

Councillor Julia Gadd stated that she was puzzled as to why there were separate Huish Episcopi and Langport councils when it was obviously sensible economically and administratively that there should be one council.

Councillor John Wood stated that both councils have gone about this in totally the wrong way, and that there has NOT been ONE identified ADVANTAGE FOR HUISH EPISCOPI'S RESIDENTS.

Scrutiny Function Review

The committee was scheduled to note the Scrutiny Function Review findings and recommendations.

The report provided a summary of the work undertaken by the Scrutiny Review Working Group and the Scrutiny Review which was considered and agreed at the Scrutiny Committee for Corporate and Resources meeting on 27 August.

The review was led by the Scrutiny Review Working Group with support from officers and was conducted in partnership with the Local Government Association and the Centre for Governance & Scrutiny (CfGS). The Centre for Governance & Scrutiny's findings and recommendations are set out in Appendix B - CfGS Scrutiny Review Report.

The Scrutiny Review Working Group was making 11 recommendations to improve the council's scrutiny function and arrangements:

1. The council needs to continue work to develop its shared vision and understanding of good scrutiny which everyone owns, ensuring members, officers and other stakeholders understand and support the scrutiny function.
2. Introduce a comprehensive and timely programme of ongoing training for all councillors and officers in undertaking good scrutiny, which could include work programming, making recommendations as well as coaching for chairs.
3. Develop a Scrutiny Protocol to guide the scrutiny process, clearly articulate the roles of all parties in the scrutiny function and effective scrutiny practices.
4. Review the level of corporate and service support for its scrutiny function.
5. Rebalance overview and scrutiny arrangements and methods used to achieve maximum effectiveness and how the public can be involved in areas of scrutiny.
6. Review and enhance the scrutiny work planning process, ensuring a member led work plan for each scrutiny committee that includes early involvement in policy development and budget process.
7. Review and update the Scrutiny Terms of Reference, Task and Finish Group Protocol and proposed new Scrutiny Protocol in the Constitution to set out the aim for good scrutiny and to reflect the new scrutiny committee arrangements.
8. Refresh the Task and Finish Group Protocol and Procedures to ensure focused and effective scrutiny on specific issues.
9. Enhance the process of asking the Executive, external partners and other stakeholders for change through SMART recommendations that are impactful and supported by a formal process to track the implementation of outcomes.
10. Re-focus annual scrutiny reporting by each scrutiny committee to highlight the impact and difference made by scrutiny activities, and the areas of focus for the forthcoming year.
11. That the transformation of the Council's scrutiny function is included as a priority within the Council's Transformation Programme - Phase 2

Community Governance Review: Ansford and Castle Cary

The committee was scheduled to consider a report and approve the Terms of Reference for the CGR for Ansford and Castle Cary Parishes.

The report stated that petitions were received on 22 July 2025 from electors of Ansford Parish and Castle Cary Parish effectively to dissolve their existing parishes and create a new parish combining the two areas.

The report stated that as the petitions are valid the council will have to consider the proposal and make recommendations on:

• whether a new parish or any new parishes should be constituted
• whether existing parishes should or should not be abolished or whether the area of existing parishes should be altered or
• what the electoral arrangements for new or existing parishes, which are to have parish councils, should be

The first stage in the process is for the Council to publish Terms of Reference under which the review is to be undertaken.

Strategy for Modern and Secure Elections

The committee was scheduled to consider and note the report on the Government's Strategy for Modern and Secure Elections.

The report set out the main features of the government's strategy document as they affect the future administration of election and electoral registration.

The strategy includes detail on the government's plans for expanding the democratic rights of young people and working to create a system of automated voter registration, reforming voter identification and paving the way for digital voter identification, strengthening the political finance framework and its enforcement, as well as protecting those who work and stand in elections against harassment and intimidation.

The main proposed changes were:

• Voting at 16
• Creating a system of automated registration
• Improving Voter ID
• Delivery of elections
• Harassment and intimidation
• Candidate identification
• Ensuring safety at polling stations and count venues
• Rules around political donations