1

Kingsley, Paul

From:

Sent: 08 September 2014 12:18To: Kingsley, Paul; Bowden, Tim; Reviews@Cc:Subject: FAO Paul Kingsley and Tim Bowden - Combined Opposition Group submission on

future Council size of Nottinghamshire County CouncilAttachments: 20140908 Final Version of Opposition Group Council Size Submission

Document.docx; 20140908 Final Opposition Group Submission on Council Size - Appendix 14.docx

Importance: High

Dear Paul / Tim,   Thank you for your invitation to put forward a case for the future size of Nottinghamshire County Council.   The Opposition Groups on Nottinghamshire County Council do not support the Council’s official draft case to retain the current Council size of 67, which I understand is being sent to you today and will be subject to a vote at Full Council on 18th September.     The combined Opposition Groups instead propose an increase in the size of Nottinghamshire County Council from 67 to 71 councillors. I attach two documents setting out the Nottinghamshire County Council Opposition Political Groups’ (Conservative/Liberal Democrat/Independent) case for 71 councillors. A hard copy will be posted to you today, complete with full appendices.   Below are copies of the emails received from Councillor Jason Zadrozny, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, and Councillor Gail Turner, Leader of the Independent Group, confirming their support for this Opposition Group submission.   Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information. My Research Officer will contact you tomorrow to check that the hard copy has arrived safely.   Regards,   Kay   Councillor Mrs Kay Cutts Conservative Group Leader 

  

  

 

         

From: Sent: 08 September 2014 10:37

2

To: Subject: FW: Amended Opposition Case for the Boundary Commission       

From: Sent: 06 September 2014 12:09 To: Subject: RE: Amended Opposition Case for the Boundary Commission   Dear Carl    As I am away I am unable to sign the opposition submission to the Boundary Commission.   Please accept this e-mail as confirmation of support for the opposition submission from the Independent Group.   Yours Councillor Gail Turner   

  From: Jason Zadrozny Sent: 08 September 2014 09:54 To: Carl Bilbey Subject: Fwd: Amended Opposition Case for the Boundary Commission   All fine with me 

Councillor Jason Zadrozny.  Leader of the Opposition ‐ Ashfield District Council.  Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group ‐ Nottinghamshire County Council.  Nottinghamshire County and Ashfield District Councillor for Sutton North Division.  Tel:  

  

  

  

  Begin forwarded message: 

From: Anna Vincent   Date: 8 September 2014 09:15:58 BST To: Cllr Jason Zadrozny   Subject: FW: Amended Opposition Case for the Boundary Commission 

Dear Carl,   Please accept this e-mail as confirmation of support for the opposition submission from the Lib Dem Group. 

3

 Regards,   Councillor Jason Zadrozny    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The following message has been applied automatically, to promote news and information from Nottinghamshire County Council about events and services: FREE family fun at the Major Oak Woodland Festival, 13-14 September at Sherwood Forest Country Park. www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/sherwoodcp

Emails and any attachments from Nottinghamshire County Council are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the email, and then delete it without making copies or using it in any other way. Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the contents may have to be disclosed in response to a request. Although any attachments to the message will have been checked for viruses before transmission, you are urged to carry out your own virus check before opening attachments, since the County Council accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by software viruses. Nottinghamshire County Council Legal Disclaimer.

1

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Submission on Council Size by THE OPPOSITION GROUPS of Nottinghamshire County Council Introduction This submission sets out the unanimously agreed response of Nottinghamshire County Council’s Opposition Political Groups (Conservative/Liberal Democrat/Independent) to the Local Government Boundary Commission’s (LGBCE) invitation to put forward a case for the future size of Nottinghamshire County Council. We welcome the current review, because the previous Boundary Review resulted in a significant discrepancy of representation in favour of urban areas (i.e. over-represented), at the expense of rural communities (see Appx 1). This discrepancy existed even in the original forward projections from the 2002-04 review (Appx 2), and has increased since. We take account of the Commission’s stated purpose for this boundary review, to achieve ‘Electoral equality for voters’. We propose an increase in the size of Nottinghamshire County Council from 67 to 71 councillors, to facilitate more equal representation across Nottinghamshire, and to maintain the current ratio of 1 councillor to circa 9,000 electors up to 2020. Opposition Groups DO NOT support the Council’s case for retaining the current council size of 67 None of the three Opposition Groups support Nottinghamshire County Council’s official proposal to retain the current council size of 67 members. A cross-party Member Project Steering Group of 7 councillors, including the Leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent Groups, was agreed by Full Council in September 2013 to consider preparation of the Council’s submission (Appx 3). However, in light of a full briefing about the review by the Boundary Commission at County Hall in May 2014, the Opposition Group leaders expressed concern that the Steering Group would not be of sufficient size to accommodate a full range of Opposition councillors’ views from across the whole county. A request was made to increase the size of the Steering Group and assign membership on a politically proportional basis, but this was refused by the Majority Group. Opposition Group leaders were not satisfied with the Council’s case for maintaining a council size of 67, deciding instead to prepare and agree this alternative submission.

2

Overview of the Opposition Groups’ Proposal for a Council size of 71 The Opposition Groups support an increase in Council size to 71 on the grounds that:-

The Council reviewed its governance arrangements in early 2012, deciding to transfer (from May 2012) to a Committee system as permitted under the Localism Act 2011. Elected Members felt that a committee system offered more transparent, accountable and democratic arrangements within which ‘backbench’ councillors could play a greater role (Appx 4). The move from a Cabinet/Leader model to a committee system has seen non-executive members become fully engaged with the decision-making process, which is welcome in terms of representative democracy but has increased the amount of time councillors spend in committee meetings compared to time spent in their constituencies/divisions. A small increase in the number of elected councillors would redress this balance;

The County electorate is projected to increase by 42,000 from 603,000 in 2014 to 645,000 in 2020 (Appx 5). An increase of 4 councillors would therefore help to maintain the current councillor:elector ratio of approximately 1:9,000 which has proven effective and manageable in divisions of average size;

A small increase in the number of councillors would be an appropriate response to the fact that the Council has taken on very important and significant new responsibilities (for example) in relation to Public Health (under the Health & Social Care Act 2012), with the establishment of a 9-Member Public Health committee and changes to its health scrutiny processes (Appx 6);

Nottinghamshire is currently placed 8th amongst its 15 comparator Councils (ranging from 53 to 84) in terms of Council size. An increase of 4 councillors, taking the council size to 71, would place Nottinghamshire 7th amongst its comparators, meaning it would remain a middle-ranking, efficient authority with 13 fewer councillors than the four largest comparator councils which have 84 councillors (including Norfolk, which agreed in April 2014 to change to a committee system) (Appx 7);

Whilst we broadly agree with the Summary of Justification included in

the Council’s business case (Appx 8), we believe the conclusion it reaches is inconsistent with the evidence presented. In our view, the text highlighted below in bold, extracted from the Council’s submission, actually supports our case for an increase in council size from 67 to 71 councillors. We also offer some further observations, shown below in italics:-

3

(1) “The most recent external assessments demonstrate that the Council

performs well, for example the audit of the 2012/13 accounts issued an unqualified audit opinion. The Council requested a Corporate Peer Review in 2012 which highlighted the progress which the Council was making with its significant change programme, whilst underlining the need for further progress to be made at pace. This review also highlighted the crucial role of Members in giving strong political direction around such change and the work of the Council overall.”

(2) “Governance arrangements – the Committee system has provided a truly democratically accountable way of working, enabling councillors to perform their roles more effectively, and is generally supported by the public at large.”

(3) “Community leadership and partnership – Members’ roles as community leaders and the need to work in partnership is expected to continue to increase. Such roles become even more important within the current financial climate, with Members expected to consult communities around budget options, assist communities in accessing alternative funding streams and to develop more innovative ways of partnership working.”

(4) “As noted in the submission, evidence is presented which indicates a growing complexity and volume of work facing elected Councillors. In addition, electorate forecasts show that by 2020 the Councillor: elector ratio will have increased by over 6% since the last Council elections. For these reasons, the Council is of the view that any reduction in current Council size could not be justified as it would lead to a further increase in the number of electors which each Councillor represents and present significant difficulties in servicing the current governance and representational arrangements.”

The Opposition Groups contend that the increasing complexity and volume of work facing councillors, coupled with the increase in the councillor:elector ratio and additional responsibilities for the Council (e.g. extensive new responsibilities and budget for Public Health) support the case for an increase in councillors to 71. Councillors representing rural areas are currently overstretched compared to those representing urban areas, not only by having a larger electorate, but by having larger distances to travel and many more community groups, parish councils and schools to service and represent.

(5) “Whilst the workload and electorate increases could give rise to an

argument for a larger Council size, it is the Council’s contention that it would not be appropriate to do so as the increased use of modern

4

technology (as noted in the detail of appendix 1) enables Councillors to absorb some of this increase without affecting efficient local government. In addition, any increase in size would give rise to some additional costs, which public consultation was clear would not be appropriate at a time of reducing budgets. For these reasons, therefore, the Council is of the view that the existing council size would suffice without seeking an increase as it enables Councillors to engage, represent and lead their communities as individual Councillors and to respond effectively to the electorate’s concerns on emerging issues. On this basis, and subject to re-warding for electoral equality purposes, it is felt that the current allocation of Councillors between Districts is appropriate.”

On the contrary, the Opposition Groups do not believe an adequate case has been made to prove that the use of modern technology enables Councillors to absorb the increased workload. Indeed, modern technology has increased public expectations of faster, if not instantaneous responses from councillors, thereby increasing the demands on elected Members. The availability of modern technology also does not alter the necessity for councillors to attend committees in person as well as meetings in their community. The Opposition Groups point out that the Council’s official submission (Appx 8) refers to councillors’ extensive, effective and increasing involvement in community leadership and representation, described as “particularly relevant in light of the Council’s new Member- led ‘Redefining Your Council’ transformational change agenda”.

Opposition Groups are concerned over the reliability and accuracy of the electorate forward projection figures for 2020 obtained from the boroughs and districts The Opposition Groups have evidence (Appx 9) that Nottinghamshire County Council encountered some difficulty in obtaining accurate, consistent and timely data from the borough and district councils in order to inform this review. The Council was still pursuing information from some councils within a week of the deadline for submissions on council size (9th September 2014) and revised proformas were still being prepared and issued by district and borough authorities during that final week. The Opposition Groups draw the attention of the Boundary Commission to some anomalies in the final data for the 2014 electorate received from the borough and district authorities, compared with the electorate figures for 2012 provided by the Boundary Commission at its briefing to councillors and officers in May 2014 (Appx 10):-

5

The 2014 total electorate figure for Nottinghamshire of 602,769 is 6,478 down on the 2012 electorate figure given by the Boundary Commission of 609,247 (Appx 11);

The 2014 electorate figures provided by the boroughs and districts for several other divisions across Nottinghamshire vary by more than 500 electors from the figures given by the Boundary Commission for 2012, with significant increases and decreases both evident (Appx 11).

The Opposition Groups express concern that these factors cast some doubt over the reliability of the data provided, beyond what might reasonably be explained by the potential effects of the new laws on voter registration. The Opposition Groups also believe that the projected 2020 electorate figure from Rushcliffe Borough Council (96,437) is an under-estimate of the electorate growth that can reasonably be expected from housing developments approved in that borough. The Boundary Commission’s Electoral Reviews Technical Guidance April 2014 states: ‘We expect officers preparing forecasts to reflect ONS subnational forecasts and to consider the impact of likely housing’. By 2026, it is expected that at least 13,000 new houses will be completed in Rushcliffe, between 5,000 and 10,000 of which will be completed and occupied by 2020 (Appx 12). Even if the lower figure of 5,000 new homes is assumed, this could add approximately 10,000 more electors to the register, supporting a forecast of at least 97,857 electors by 2020. The Opposition Groups stress to the Boundary Commission the particular importance of accurately projecting electorate growth in Rushcliffe, given evidence that an under-estimation was made during the previous review (2002-04). Rushcliffe is currently under-represented on Nottinghamshire County Council by 7% overall and 15% in the town of West Bridgford (Appx 1). The district of Bassetlaw is also under-represented by 7% overall, including under-representation in the rural divisions of Misterton (+26%) and Tuxford (+14%). Latest figures received from all boroughs and districts in Nottinghamshire are attached as Appendix 13. Detailed assessment Nottinghamshire County Council’s official submission includes an Appendix answering the questions posed by the Boundary Commission on the Council’s Governance & Decision-making Procedures, Scrutiny procedures, the Representational Role of Councillors and challenges facing the authority in the future. The Opposition Groups therefore attach a document in the same format, retaining the Council’s comments where we agree, but adding our own evidence and comments in support of our proposal for a council size of 71. This is attached as Appendix 14 and contains reference to various supporting documents and evidence identified in alphabetical order.

1

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Submission by Nottinghamshire County Council Opposition Groups on Council Size

Governance and Decision Making – How does the Council manage its business and take decisions across its full range of responsibilities?

Leadership 1.1 What kind of Governance

arrangements are in place for the Authority?

The Council operated Executive governance arrangements with a Leader/Cabinet model from January 2002 (having effectively trialed the new arrangements from July 2000 onwards) in keeping with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2000 (Document A). In May 2012, the Council exercised its entitlement under the Localism Act 2011 to change its governance arrangements to a modern version of the committee system it had previously operated prior to July 2000 (Document B). Where the Leader/Cabinet model attracted criticism for sidelining non-executive/backbench councillors, the new committee model re-engages all elected representatives directly in the voting and decision-making process. Committees make decisions, rather than individual Cabinet Members, and there is greater transparency, with meetings held in public and reports normally available five clear working days prior to those meetings. A report to Full Council in May 2014 (Document C) confirmed the current committees in operation, ranging in size from five to nineteen county councillors and appointed on the basis of political proportionality. Most committees are required to operate a twelve-month rolling work programme which is reviewed regularly. Committee meeting cycles are reviewed periodically to reflect workload, with the Full Council of 67 councillors meeting 7- 8 times a year.

APPENDIX 14 (and supporting sub-documents in alphabetical order)

2

There are also Joint Committees (Health Scrutiny; Strategic Planning & Transport) where County councillors sit alongside City councillors to discuss and co-ordinate these cross-cutting service areas. During the previous boundary review 2002-2004, the Conservative Group presented a submission arguing for a 55-seat council, based on an anticipated future reduction in county councils’ statutory duties and arguing that backbench/non-executive councillors had been reduced to a ‘peripheral role’ under the new Cabinet/Leader arrangements (Document D). However, the return of a committee system of decision-making from May 2012 has increased significantly the influence and workload of backbench/non-executive councillors and in our view necessitates an increase in the number of elected representatives from 67 to 71, to maintain a healthy balance between the time a councillor spends in committee meetings and on their constituency work. Averaging out responses from opposition members, we have established that the typical opposition councillor spends approximately 25 hours per week attending to council-related matters outside County Hall, broken down approximately as follows:-

3.5 hours per meeting outside County Hall, with residents, Residents’ Associations, Parish Council meetings, School Governor bodies and pressure/special interest groups and other outside bodies;

1 event each weekend on average, daytime or evening – approximately 5 hours (including local events, concerts, carnivals, etc);

Surgeries and meeting residents – average 5 hours per week; Telephone calls, emails outside County Hall – average 3 hours per week; Viewing planning applications/complaints (mostly highways) – average 3 hours per

week; Political meetings and campaigning – average 3 hours per week.

3

And we have established that the typical opposition councillor spends approximately 15 hours per week in County Hall attending committee meetings, meeting officers and dealing with correspondence, including travelling time. Shadow committee spokesmen account for the upper end of this scale, on average spending 20 hours per week in County Hall. Under the Cabinet/Leader model, non-executive councillors were not involved as directly in the decision-making process and attended fewer committee meetings. The move to a committee system in May 2012 was subject to a full public consultation which revealed general support. The consensus was that it gave local councillors more influence over decisions, better access to information and consequently, greater ability to respond to constituents’ needs and reflect their interests. Some respondents feared that the new system might cost more to operate, but Members’ Allowances costs have decreased since the introduction of the new arrangements. If the size of the Council were to increase as suggested in this submission, usual procedures dictate that an Independent Remuneration Panel would recommend appropriate levels for Members’ Allowances entitlements, reflecting public interest. It should be borne in mind that a significant increase in the number of properties would meet the cost of fair representation, meaning there would be no greater burden upon current householders. When the new governance arrangements were agreed to be introduced in May 2012, it was further agreed to monitor the effectiveness and responsiveness of the new decision-making process and review its success after six months of operation. This and subsequent reviews have found that, whilst more councillors are involved in decision-making and policy formation than was the case under Cabinet arrangements, there have been no inherent delays to decision-making. The status and frequency of committee meetings is subject to ongoing review to ensure business needs are being met, with meeting cycles adjusted to reflect workflow. Arrangements are also periodically reviewed to ensure consistent reporting across the Council on such issues as councillors’ work on outside bodies and service performance.

4

1.2 How many portfolios are there?

As detailed above, the Council now operates a Committee system rather a governance model based on Cabinet portfolios. Details of the committee structure are attached (Document E).

1.3 Describe how a portfolio

holder carries out his/her work on a day to day basis

There are no portfolio holders, as the Council operates a committee system. The equivalent of a portfolio holder is a Committee Chairman’s role and this typically involves five days’ a week work (circa 37 hours). Committee chairmen act as the spokesperson and main point of contact for their committee’s area of business and are required to answer questions at Council meetings about the committee’s activity. Chairmen are required to regularly attend meetings and briefings and undertake related work. The Opposition Groups appoint Shadow Spokesperson for each committee and seek to distribute such ‘Special Responsibilities’ as evenly as possible to councillors from all parts of Nottinghamshire as their membership allows. This can mean that whilst the average Shadow Spokesperson spends around 20 hours a week in County Hall as stated above, councillors from the northern part of the county face greater demands. For example, one current Conservative Shadow Spokesperson undertakes regular 60-mile round journeys from her home in the far north of Nottinghamshire to County Hall (in the south) in order to attend meetings with officers, pre-meetings, committee meetings and Group meetings. This councillor represents a sparsely populated rural division serving 18 parish councils and several outside bodies, adding to her time commitments, especially travelling. The location of the Council’s administrative headquarters in the south of the county means that demands on the energy and time of councillors from the north of the county are generally high, if not excessive, but it remains essential to fair representation that such councillors enjoy equal consideration for senior roles compared with those living nearer to County Hall.

5

1.4 To what extent are decisions delegated to portfolio holders or are most decisions taken by the full Executive? What is the volume of decisions taken? How many decisions are taken by officers?

Decisions are made by committees. Whilst there are some powers delegated to Officers this is only for day-to-day operational decisions (see Document F - Scheme of Delegation to Officers - extracted from the Council’s constitution). Details of these operational decisions are reported regularly to the relevant committee. A committee can decide to retract this delegation and take such decisions itself, if it feels that this would provide more transparency and better governance.

1.5 Do Executive (or other) members serve on other decision making partnerships, sub-regional or national bodies?

A significant number of councillors (including the Political Group Leaders and Committee Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen) are involved in other decision making bodies, both formal and informal. These are included in the Council’s list of Outside Bodies and include the County Councils Network (CCN), East Midlands Councils, the D2N2 Local Economic Partnership (LEP), the Local Government Association (LGA), and Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships. A list of the Outside Bodies upon which the Council is formally represented is attached (Document G).

1.6 Is the role of the Executive Member considered to be full time?

Yes. Committee Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen and Opposition Spokesmen are required to work the equivalent of (on average) a full-time working week and some councillors work in excess of such hours. Opposition Spokesmen estimate that on average they would spend around 35 hours per week on their roles, although other factors can increase this, as explained in answer 1.3 above.

Regulatory 1.7 How does the Council

discharge its regulation functions? How many members are involved in committees?

The Council discharges all its functions by committee but in respect of what are described as regulatory functions under Executive arrangements, these functions are discharged through the following:- Planning & Licensing Committee: there are 11 members on this committee;

6

Audit Committee: there are 9 Members on this committee, which is chaired by an Opposition councillor; Pensions Fund Committee, Pensions Investment Sub-Committee and Pensions Sub-Committee: there are 9 County Council Members on these committees, with the sub-committees also including a City Councillor, Nottinghamshire Local Authorities Association representatives (district councilors), Trade Union representatives, Scheduled Body / Fire Authority representatives. Members of the Pensions Committee are quasi-Trustees who must receive regularly updated training to perform this role. Conduct Committee: 5 members The terms of reference of these various bodies are included in Document H.

1.8 Describe the

arrangements for the delegation of decisions in respect of regulatory functions? To what extent are decisions delegated to officers?

A number of decisions on planning applications are made by planning officers under powers delegated to the Corporate Director for Policy, Planning and Corporate Services. Planning officers are authorised to determine all applications with the following exceptions:-

development involving a site area greater than 15 hectares or extraction/input in excess of 30,000 tonnes per annum or new development with a floor space in excess of 10,000sqm;

those involving a departure from the Development Plan; those accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment; those which have financial implications for the County, such as those which have an

accompanying Planning obligation/S106 agreement; those which have received objections from the District or Parish Council or local

member;

7

those which have been referred to committee by a local member; those which are recommended for refusal unless the refusal is on the grounds of

insufficient information; those which have received significant* objections, within the statutory consultation

period or other such period as agreed with the County Planning Authority, from consultees or neighbouring occupiers (* for clarification, 'significant' objections requiring referral must i) raise material planning consideration, ii) be irresolvable by amendment to the scheme or imposition of planning conditions, iii) involve more than three objections from separate properties);

those which are submitted by Policy, Planning and Corporate Services; those which raise issues of regional or national importance; those involving the determination of new conditions for minerals sites; and those involving the making and serving of orders for revocation, etc where

compensation is likely to become payable.

All the above applications are reported to the Planning and Licensing Committee for a decision

1.9 Is committee membership standing or rotating?

Standing

1.10 Are meetings ad hoc,

frequent and/or area based? How are the Chairs allocated?

The Council’s schedule of meetings is agreed following consultation with councillors and circulated in advance. As previously mentioned, the frequency of meetings is subject to ongoing review to appropriately reflect workload and can range from 4-weekly to quarterly. On occasion, additional meetings are required or scheduled meetings are cancelled as business requires, though this is a relatively rare occurrence. The Chairs of the Council’s Committees are appointed by Full Council at its Annual Meeting.

8

1.11 What level of attendance is achieved? Are meetings always quorate?

The level of attendance at meetings by councillors is excellent and committee meetings are always quorate. This is partly ensured by the facility for Group Business Managers to appoint (in advance) a substitute for a committee member should they be unable to attend.

1.12 What future issues may impact on the role of non-executive councillors in respect of regulatory functions? How might the role develop?

Planning & Licensing remains a high profile committee and all members are required to undertake training before becoming a committee member. Issues such as fracking applications are likely to attract considerable attention. Members of this committee are therefore required to continually develop their knowledge of relevant issues. The remit of the Committee has recently been expanded to take on roles previously dealt with by the Rights of Way Committee. The Health & Social Care Act 2012 (see Document I) devolved responsibility for Public Health promotion to upper tier and unitary authorities, leading at Nottinghamshire County Council to the establishment in 2014 of a Public Health Committee responsible for a ring-fenced budget of £36 million. This is a major new committee with a membership of 9 county councillors and served by a separate, dedicated directorship. It clearly represents an increased demand on elected member resources, illustrating the case for an increase in council size. In 2015, it is the intention for school nurses and health visitors to also become the responsibility of the County Council. The Council is required to have an Audit Committee and the time commitments involved in this Committee are unlikely to diminish in the future. For the Pensions bodies, all administering authorities must put in place a Pension Board by 1st April 2015 as part of the new LGPS Governance Regulations. Further consideration will be needed as to the implications of the Regulations on the Council’s existing Pensions bodies. Members will require training in relation to the new Regulations.

9

Demands on Time 1.13 Has the Council defined the role of councillors? Has the Council adopted arrangements for training and developing Councillors and supporting them in their role?

The role of Councillors is defined in the Constitution as follows:- ‘Councillors collectively are the ultimate policy makers. …Their role is to act in the interests of the whole county of Nottinghamshire, and also to represent the communities which elected them, bringing their views to the decision-making process. In addition, they deal with individual casework and act on behalf of constituents in resolving particular problems.’ Formal training arrangements are in place. Induction is provided following elections supplemented by ongoing councillor development sessions. Specialist training in such areas as Planning & Licensing, Employment Appeals, media, information management and chairing skills is also provided.

1.14 Has the Council assessed how much time members spend on Council business?

1.15 Do Councillors

generally find that the time they spend on council business is what they expected?

In preparing this submission, Opposition councillors on the authority have provided details of the time they spend on Council business and the type of duties involved. Newly-elected councillors often comment that the workload is far greater than they expected and very few councillors are able to combine full or part-time work with all of the responsibilities of their Councillor role. The demands on councillor time have been increased by the current financial issues affecting local government, including increased involvement in consultation on difficult proposals, evaluation of services in constituencies and analysing business cases for potential service reductions or cessation. The role of a Nottinghamshire County Councillor has changed significantly since the previous boundary review 2002-2004, driven by the change to the Council’s operating model, changes in the delivery of services, the increasing requirement to work in partnership with other organisations, the need to keep up-to-date with changing policy/legislation and increasing constituent expectations. The growth in the use of e-mail, mobile phones, social media and websites as methods of communication means that the public expect councillors to provide responses to their enquiries much more quickly/instantly than was the case a decade ago, effectively making elected members contactable 24 hours a day, 7-days a week.

10

1.16 What is the extent of Councillors representational role on and appointment to outside bodies? How many are involved in this activity and what is their expected workload?

Following the County Elections in 2009, the incoming Conservative administration sought to rationalise the number of outside bodies to which the authority appointed councillors, in order to reduce costs and ensure effective use of the time of elected members. The review was timely, because some outside bodies were ceasing to exist and others agreed, when asked, that they no longer specifically required a councillor representative. Nevertheless, the majority of outside bodies reaffirmed their desire and requirement for councillor representation and the list of outside body commitments was not reduced by as much as first anticipated. New outside bodies requiring a councillor representative have emerged during the 5 years since the review, meaning that, as of today, the Council still appoints councillors to around 100 outside bodies covering a range of areas of activity including social care, education, business, leisure, transport, the environment, young people’s issues and community safety (Document G). Appointments to national and regional bodies are included in this list. The Nottingham & Nottinghamshire Combined Fire Authority is classed as an outside body for administrative purposes, with members being drawn from the City and County councils on a politically proportionate basis. Nottinghamshire County Council currently contributes 12 members (6 Labour; 4 Conservative; 1 Liberal Democrat; 1 Independent) who also serve on at least one of its 7 sub-committees. Councillors will normally represent the Council on at least one outside body, with many having several commitments. These bodies meet at a multitude of locations throughout the county (and in some cases outside the county), requiring considerable travelling and time commitment. In addition to outside bodies to which they are formally appointed by the Council, elected members might also serve informally on certain local outside bodies i.e. they are invited because of their role as councillors and community leaders, but are not deemed to be formally representing the Council. Councillors will also attend community meetings as part of their role, including school governor duties, often for more than one school. Elected members from rural areas will often devote a substantial amount of their time to attending Town and Parish council meetings. The remarkably high number of parishes

11

served by some councillors highlights a practical problem arising from the previous 2002-2004 boundary review, in that the Boundary Committee created some divisions so geographically expansive as to be impractical. For example, the vast and very sparsely-populated division of Tuxford in the north of the county spreads literally the width of Nottinghamshire (25 miles) from the Derbyshire to the Lincolnshire border and 20 miles from the most northern parish in the division (Bole) to the most southern parish (Normanton-on-Trent). The County Councillor currently representing Tuxford maintains contact with and regularly attends the meetings of 19 Parish Councils, 4 Parish Meetings and 1 Town Council within his division, sometimes having to travel long distances between two (or more) meetings on the same night, in addition to the considerable, unavoidable amount of travelling he must undertake to attend meetings at County Hall in the south. We strongly urge the Boundary Commission to reflect on whether such demands are reasonable or practical, and to acknowledge that the capacity of a councillor to represent each constituent in such a vast division is significantly reduced, compared to a councillor representing relatively densely populated urban/suburban divisions. Even the availability of modern communications technology is restricted, with rural areas of Nottinghamshire acknowledged to suffer from a lack of access to superfast modern broadband. The County Council is backing an initiative to address this problem, but at least 5% of the county will not receive an improved service for the foreseeable future. The current layout of electoral divisions in the eastern part of Bassetlaw illustrates the danger of creating electoral divisions in a so-called “doughnut” arrangement, i.e. exclusively town-based divisions (Retford East, Retford West) surrounded by exclusively rural divisions which are simply too geographically (and electorally) large to be practical (e.g. Tuxford, Misterton). For this reason we welcome the Commission’s stated intention to ‘not normally recommend such warding patterns’ and to recognise instead the advantages of combining parts of towns with adjacent rural areas (LGBCE Technical Guidance, April 2014). We submit that a small increase in the number of councillors would assist this objective, reducing the need to create overly large divisions and ensuring that councillors are able to maintain closer proximity to those they represent.

12

1.17 Does the Council have difficulty in retaining councillors or attracting new candidates?

The Council holds full elections every 4 years. In 2013, a total of 286 candidates stood for election (compared to 262 in 2009). Of the 286 candidates, 50 were councillors standing again for election and 36 of those were re-elected. Since the 2001 elections there has only been 1 uncontested division and all by-elections have been filled promptly in accordance with elections law, indicating that the Council does not struggle to retain or attract councillors or candidates. It is true however, that younger people (e.g. under the age of 35) are under-represented in the Council Chamber, relative to the general population. As stated in the responses to 1.14 and 1.15 above, the demands on councillors’ time continue to increase, making it especially difficult for younger candidates/councillors to juggle the demands of developing a career and/or busy family lives whilst also serving as a public representative. If the increase in workload for councillors is not matched by an increase in the number of elected Members, placing even more time pressure on the existing 67 councillors, then this can only exacerbate the situation where membership of the Council is imbalanced towards those who are over 50 or retired, with typically more time to devote to the role.

1.18 Have there been any instances where the Council has been unable to discharge its duties due to a lack of councillors?

None

1.19 Do Councillors have an individual or ward budget for allocation in their area? If so, how is the system administered?

In September 2003, the Council established the Electoral Division Initiative (EDI), later renamed the Councillor Divisional Fund (CDF). Each Councillor is given a budget annually, to be used (subject to the regulations of the fund) to support the communities they represent. The size of the budget increased over time from £5,000 to £10,000 per councillor, but in response to current budget constraints this sum has dropped back to

13

£5,000 per councillor for the 2014/15 financial year. These funds remain in great demand and councillors have difficult decisions to make to ensure the best allocation in their communities. The number of applications each councillor receives often exceeds monies available, leading to detailed and sensitive work assessing applications. Councillors are required to complete an application form to access the funds (Document J). The Council also operates a Supporting Local Communities Fund (SLCF) to support projects which ‘help local people in local communities develop a pride of place and responsibility for the environment’. A total pot of £500,000 is available, with an application process requiring suggestions from local communities. The SLCF is smaller than the Local Improvement Scheme (LIS) it replaced, which saw £3 million per annum (plus £1 million of private funding) distributed throughout Nottinghamshire, but local councillors remain integral to the process of encouraging and supporting bids to the SLCF.

2. Scrutiny of the Council, outside bodies and Others 2.1 What’s the structure? How does it operate

The Council is required to maintain statutory overview and scrutiny functions in relation to health, crime and disorder and flooding. The Council operates a Joint Health Scrutiny Committee comprised of Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County councilors, to consider health matters which impact on the areas covered by both councils, including scrutiny of the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust. In practice, this means that the committee deals solely with the southern county districts and the City where there is a joint interest, which has led opposition groups to dispute the ruling administration’s appointment of a northern area (Mansfield) councillor as Chairman of this committee. Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Joint Health Committee is exchanged each year between City and County council nominees.

14

Meanwhile, the Health Scrutiny Committee scrutinises health issues deemed to solely affect the County Council area (including the south) and includes scrutiny of the Sherwood Forest Hospitals Trust. Opposition groups tabled a motion at Full Council in June 2014 calling for the size of this committee to be increased to include county councillors from all district areas in Nottinghamshire (Document K), but this was defeated by the majority party. This leaves some districts – currently Ashfield, Gedling and Rushcliffe – unrepresented on what is supposed to be a countywide committee. All three Opposition groups therefore believe the current number of councillors on the Health Scrutiny Committee (6) to be insufficient to represent the whole county fairly, and foresee more councillors being required to serve on this committee in due course. The Community Safety Committee has responsibility for statutory crime and disorder and flood risk management scrutiny. The County Council is also represented on the Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Panel, whose role is to scrutinise and support the Police and Crime Commissioner. In addition, all Committees are able to set up projects and cross-committee project steering groups to focus in detail on specific issues

2.2 What is the general workload of scrutiny committees? Has the Council ever found that it has had too many active projects for the scrutiny process to function effectively?

The Joint Health Scrutiny Committee and the Health Scrutiny Committee continue to have full and extensive work programmes. The Police and Crime Panel continues to have a full work programme.

15

2.3 How is its work programme developed and implemented? How many subjects at any one time? What’s the time-span for a particular study?

Copies of the currently available work programmes for the Scrutiny committees are attached (Document L).

2.4 Are Councillors involved in scrutinising external issues?

Scrutiny plays a crucial role in examining the work of specific local public bodies, helping to ensure that they offer a good service to residents. The Council’s scrutiny arrangements include extensive scrutiny of external issues. The Health scrutiny committees scrutinise the services of the relevant Health bodies in that area. Community Safety Committee’s scrutiny remit includes various external bodies including the Police, the Crime and Disorder Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships, the new ‘probation’ bodies (Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service), other Councils and the Environment Agency. The Nottinghamshire Police & Crime Panel scrutinises the work of the Police & Crime Commissioner.

2.5 When not in scrutiny meetings what activities are councillors expected to undertake?

As Nottinghamshire operates a committee system for policy formation and decision-making, elected members’ commitments are no longer limited mainly to those committees undertaking scrutiny work, as was the case under the Leader/Cabinet model. Councillors are required to read the relevant committee papers for all the committees for which they are a member or substitute, and attend working groups covering a number of issues including transformation work, local plans, and budget issues. Training events are held quarterly. This is in addition to their front-line councillor responsibilities to constituents.

16

2.6 How will the role of the scrutiny member change? What are the emerging issues and trends?

The outcomes of the Francis Inquiry into Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust underlined the importance of Councillors taking an active role in health scrutiny and elected Members are mindful of these expectations and their roles and responsibilities. Since their establishment in November 2012, research has been undertaken to highlight good practice in Police & Crime Panels. The Nottinghamshire Police & Crime Panel has recently joined a regional network designed to share best practice across the East Midlands and this brings further time commitments for councillors with this remit.

2.7 What kind of support do scrutiny members receive?

Support is provided by Democratic Services Officers but councillors no longer have a dedicated Scrutiny Officer or Scrutiny Team to call upon for support.

3. Representational Role: Representing Electors to the Council 3.1 Has the representational role of Councillors changed since the council last considered how many elected members it should have?

The representational role of councillors has changed considerably and demands on their time have increased, in particular for non-executive members. See above.

3.2 In general terms, how do Councillors carry out their representational role with electors? Do members mainly respond to casework from constituents or do they have a more active role in

Most Councillors take a proactive role within their area rather than simply responding to case work. The approach taken can vary, but generally all Members undertake some or all of the following:-

Surgeries – dealing with queries such as street lights, vulnerable adults, unknown land;

Consultation events on specific issues (such as closures of police stations) and

17

the community? 3.3 How Councillors engage with constituents? Do they hold surgeries, public meetings, use IT etc?

wider issues (such as the Council’s budget); Meetings with community groups and voluntary organisations; Attending local community events; Attending Parish/Town Council meetings etc; Attending outside body meetings – e.g. School Governing Bodies; Working with local schools and colleges in general – e.g. promoting democracy; Ward visits; Neighbourhood tours; Door-to-door visits and delivery of information leaflets; Partnership meetings; Maintaining websites and blogs informing residents of their activities; Home visits; Written and e-mail correspondence; Telephone calls (sometimes late into evenings!); Community activities – e.g. Speed Watch, Safer Neighbourhoods, Lorry Watch,

Community Flooding Groups; Specific capital projects – e.g. new war memorials, village noticeboards.

Prior to the previous boundary review 2002-2004, Nottinghamshire County Council was comprised of 63 councillors each representing single-member divisions. There is a strong belief amongst many Nottinghamshire county councillors that the current multi-member division (67 councillors representing 54 divisions) format introduced in 2005 has not been a success, with issues such as:-

confusion over the distribution of councillor workloads in multi-member divisions; public demands for clarity as to who represents them in multi-member divisions of

two or even three councillors; generalised rather than localised election outcomes, where certain communities

within large multi-member divisions feel disenfranchised and deprived of a councillor reflecting their political preference.

18

We believe the decision to introduce multi-member divisions arose mainly from the heavy emphasis placed during the last review on district ward and county division co-terminosity. In some cases, it appears that this was achieved to the detriment of clear local accountability and representation. Therefore, we urge the Boundary Commission to return to a single-member division format whatever the size of the Council, though we believe that a small increase in the number of elected members would help to achieve this aim by providing more flexibility to determine divisional boundaries.

3.4 How do councillors generally deal with casework? Do they pass on issues directly to staff or do they take a more in depth approach to resolving issues?

3.5 What support do

Councillors receive in discharging their duties in relation to casework and representational role in their ward?

Unlike some Councils, none of Nottinghamshire’s county councillors have dedicated caseworkers. Each political group has access to a researcher but these individuals have competing workloads and therefore are not able to offer extensive support for case work. Most elected Members tend to progress-chase issues themselves, including sending their own correspondence and making phone calls and visits etc. It is felt that the current financial climate has resulted in an increase in casework.

3.6 Has the Council put in place any mechanisms for councillors to interact with young people, those not on the electoral register or

The Council’s Corporate Parenting Sub-Committee is one formal means of seeking the views of young people. The County Council operates a Youth Parliament and most councillors are active in promoting democracy through visits to (and hosting at County Hall visits from) schools and

19

minority groups or their representative bodies?

colleges in their area. Councillors also promote electoral registration at every opportunity. School Council visits to County Hall are encouraged and promoted by councillors. Work has also been undertaken with Young Carers. Some councillors have targeted specific minority groups within their area, such as Polish groups, Muslim groups and Buddhist groups. Links to minority groups are also promoted through representation on various outside bodies.

3.7 Are Councillors expected to attend meetings of community bodies such as parish councils or resident associations? What is the level of their involvement and what role do they play?

Councillors are expected to attend such meetings and involvement is high. Members act as a conduit, enabling a two-way exchange of information between the Council and such groups. Sometimes attendance is linked to the role of a specific Committee and the members’ role on that Committee (e.g. Chairman). As illustrated in answer 1.16, councillors representing sparsely populated, geographically large rural divisions often serve a considerable number of Parish Councils and Parish Meetings, most of which expect their elected county representative to attend their meetings regularly. Such commitments place a greater burden on these councillors compared to those representing smaller, more densely populated suburban/urban divisions, not least in terms of the travelling time/distances involved.

4. The Future 4.1 What impact do you think the localism agenda might have on the scope

There is an increasing emphasis on services being delivered by accountable community groups and empowering communities to take on many of the responsibilities currently exercised by councils. This is likely to increase the role of councillors significantly, as they

20

and conduct of council business and how do you think this might affect the role of councillors?

will need to act as the facilitator between those arrangements made for running services more locally and those services whose scale or nature demands they remain operated by large councils. The experience of councillors will be invaluable to any communities taking on local provision. This is amply evidenced by the establishment of community resource centres.

4.2 Does the council have any plans to devolve responsibilities and/or assets to community organisations? Or does the council expect to take on more responsibilities in the medium to long term? 4.3 Have changes to the arrangements for local delivery of services led to significant changes to councillors’ workloads? (For example, control of housing stock or sharing services with neighbouring authorities)

Where it is appropriate to do so, assets have and will continue to be transferred to communities. As part of the Council’s approach to Transformation, set out in the “Redefining Your Council” strategic plan, it is likely that over time more services will be commissioned externally, including from the Third Sector. Increased digitalisation will allow more self-support within communities Whilst it could be argued that partnership work and the development of other forms of service delivery dilutes the role of Councils, this is not always the case. The development of Academies is a case in point. Although Academies are free-standing organisations, the statutory role of the County Council in relation to school admissions remains (2012 School Admissions Code). This co-ordinating role is more complex as Academies are admission authorities in their own right. The changing educational landscape has seen local elected Member involvement increase as constituents approach councilors seeking support and guidance. Additionally, the Council’s move towards greater commissioning of services involves Members in agreeing the specification for services and much greater contract and performance management skills to ensure positive outcomes for residents.

4.4 Are there any developments in policy ongoing that might significantly affect the role of elected members in the future?

The continuing pressure on the Council’s budget is developed in 4.5 below. Since 2009, the Council has recognised the need to transform the way in which it operates to make further savings in order to balance the budget up to 2017/18. Such savings need to be made in a planned and strategic way to preserve the vital frontline services on which residents depend.

21

To this end, the “Redefining Your Council” plan will see the political leadership of the Council driving this transformational change, leading a number of portfolios covering a range of Council services. This enhanced strategic role for Lead Councillors will review all areas of spending with a view to delivering future services in a more cost effective and innovative way.

4.5 What has been the impact of recent financial constraints on the council’s activities?

Since the Council Elections in 2009, £180 million-worth of savings have been delivered. Councillors have not only been required to make difficult decisions regarding service reductions but also to ensure that the public and particularly their own constituents understand the reasons for the reductions. This approach has presented increasing challenges to local councillors in terms of difficult discussions with service users and local groups. Councillors have many more issues to consider in reducing services, including ensuring they have a solid evidential basis on which to make decisions and have considered all relevant issues including human rights and equality considerations. An increasing issue is the need to balance the requirement to make short-term savings to achieve a balanced budget without prejudicing long-term transformational change required to ensure services are retained, improved and viable for the future.