- 1 - 11.05.12

EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL SUBMISSION ON COUNCIL SIZE TO THE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

MAY 2012 1. Introduction and Recommendation This is East Lindsey District Council’s (ELDC) submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) and its Electoral Review on Council Size. This has been developed during April and May 2012 by a cross-party Member Working Group, including the four political group leaders. Having examined a wide range of evidence, including the views of ELDC councillors, the Working Group has concluded that: East Lindsey District Council considers itself to be a good council delivered effectively with 60 councillors, a model that it would wish to see retained moving forward. The above evidence-based conclusion has been arrived at following a comprehensive review process through which the Working Group has been informed by: Briefings given by the LGBCE to ELDC political Group Leaders, all

elected members and key officers; LGBCE Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE); A survey of ELDC councillors; The views of all ELDC councillors, through 2 workshop events; The outcomes of other District Council Electoral Reviews. The Working Group considered: Current and potential demands on Councillor time including ward

work, committees, outside meetings and other representative duties; The expectations of councillors as set out in the role profiles and

person specifications; Current governance structures; The Council’s Corporate Strategy priorities and future ambitions; The Council’s recent review of Scrutiny arrangements and the

proposed Scrutiny Plan for 2012-13; The socio-economic context in which the Council operates; Forecast population growth and demographics; Current and future needs of the local population; The possible impact of new legislation, particularly the Localism Act; The size and governance arrangements of 18 other District Councils

reviewed since January 2009; The size and governance arrangements in the 4 largest Districts by

geographical area. 2. How the recommendation was reached On examining the KLOE, and prior to reviewing the evidence, the Working Group identified 4 options for consideration: a) to increase the size of the Council b) to stay the same c) to reduce the size by a modest amount (eg 54-59 councillors) d) to radically reduce the number of councillors (eg 45-53 councillors).

- 2 - 11.05.12

The Working Group identified and agreed the following set of principles to enable them to review the evidence and make a recommendation to reflect what they felt to be important specifically for East Lindsey: The Council must have enough capacity to ensure effective decision-

making and rigorous Scrutiny and Audit processes. Councillors should not be spread so thinly that they cease to be a

“familiar face” in their area. Communities should be able to be confident that their needs will not

be overlooked, as all parts of the District are well-represented. The workload of councillors must be manageable enough to enable

people from all walks of life to stand for election. Councillors should have enough time to be actively involved in their

communities, supporting groups, events and activities. Alongside their community roles, councillors should have time to be

actively involved in the formal management of the Council’s business. The Council must have the capacity to influence other organisations

and decision-making processes which could affect the District by having representatives on strategic bodies.

Councillors’ roles should be driven by the needs of the community. The Council must have the capacity to continue to be ambitious. These principles are underpinned in the expectations of councillors described in Role Profiles and Person Specifications for all formal roles. Members of the Working Group identified that they needed to know the following in order to respond to the KLOE: 1) What is the current workload of councillors? 2) How effective are we with the numbers we have at present? 3) What potential increases or decreases in workload might arise in the

next 5 years? 4) What are other Councils doing? 5) Other Considerations. The Working Group agreed at an early stage to continue with the newly-adopted Overview and Scrutiny arrangements. These were derived through a member-driven process of review and debate, and, although in their infancy, are delivering the desired outcomes. (Information on the change process is attached in an Additional Briefing Paper). On reviewing the evidence, the Working Group’s view was that it did not support an increase in the number of Councillors, as: there is good evidence that the business of the Council is effectively

managed at its current size; that the business of the Council is still effectively managed even when

work peaks, due to new initiatives, councillor absence (eg illness), etc there is no evidence of corporate failure, eg meetings being inquorate,

which might suggest a need for more councillors; there is good evidence through the councillor survey and workshops

that some councillors feel they could take on more work, and that they may need to do so in response to the Localism Act, Welfare Reform and changes in Licensing legislation;

the evidence regarding the potential growth of the area at between 3 and 5% is not excessive in relation to previous year-on-year growth which has been absorbed;

an increase would be “out of kilter” with other Councils nationally.

- 3 - 11.05.12

Having reached this conclusion, the Working Group tested the principles and the remaining options with councillors at 2 workshops. The debate elicited a range of views, many of which were expressed with the caveat that councillors felt able to reflect on their own position but less able to comment on the experience of other councillors, as wards vary greatly, particularly between rural and urban areas. In summary, a small number of councillors preferred either an increase or a radical reduction in Council size, some suggested a modest reduction, but the majority suggested that the evidence supported a stand-still at 60 councillors. The Working Group, having listened to councillor’s thoughts, returned to consider the evidence base (Appendix 4). Many councillors attending the workshops were concerned that a radical reduction in Council size would impact on the quality of their service to residents at a time when many are experiencing economic hardship, and when the Localism Bill, Welfare Reform, Police and Health Service changes will need a response from the Council. Whilst a few argued that that the Council could “cut its coat according to its cloth”, the Working Group concluded that there is not enough evidence to support a radical reduction in Council size (to around 45-53 councillors) as: there would not be enough councillors to deliver all the functions

needed to manage the Council’s core business effectively, along with other requirements eg representation on Internal Drainage Boards;

it would undermine the ability of non-Executive Councillors to hold the Executive Board to account as rigorously as agreed in the newly adopted Scrutiny arrangements, as it would reduce the pool of councillors needed for Scrutiny and Policy Panels;

the increase in councillor workload would be so significant that it would risk deterring existing councillors from standing for re-election, thereby losing expertise, and preventing people with other commitments from standing for election;

the business of the Council would be very hard to manage effectively when work peaks, due to new initiatives, councillor illness, etc, increasing the risk of corporate failure; particularly as the full impact of the Localism Act, Welfare Reform and changes in Licensing legislation are not yet known;

it would dramatically increase the number of electors per councillor, creating some extremely large wards, making the workload less manageable;

it would risk the electorate feeling that their needs and those of their area were poorly represented;

it would not be workable in the context of East Lindsey’s geography. When tested against the evidence and the principles, the Working Group also concluded that a modest reduction in Council size (54-59 councillors) was also not appropriate at the present time, as: changes to Executive Board numbers and Scrutiny arrangements are

still very new and the full impact on councillor workloads is not yet fully known; the additional demands on councillors researching and writing their own Scrutiny reports, the drive for more pre-decision Scrutiny and a bigger role in external Scrutiny could be significant; (See Appendix 6 and Background Papers A1, A2 and B);

- 4 - 11.05.12

whilst some existing councillors felt they could do more, this capacity is likely to be used either in the new Scrutiny arrangements, or in new casework generated by welfare reform, the Localism Act, etc, or both.

whilst member attendance at meetings is currently very good and, where absences occur, these can be effectively managed through substitutions, a reduction in councillor numbers could risk an increase in non-attendance, potentially making some meetings inquorate, and in some risking delaying decisions eg in regulatory committees.

Taking account of the evidence and the views of councillors, the Working Group concluded that there is good evidence to support a continuing Council size of 60 councillors, as this: retains sufficient councillor capacity to ensure effective decision

making by Executive Board, Planning and Licensing Committees and rigorous Scrutiny and Audit processes;

meets these internal roles, and the requirements of 3 Internal Drainage Boards and 7 Area Committees, requiring each councillor, on average, to hold 2 committee roles. (The 8 Executive Board councillors do not generally have other internal Committee roles, meaning 120 formal roles are shared amongst 52 councillors); this, added to travel time, does not appear to be unreasonable;

retains sufficient capacity to respond to additional ward casework and committee workload arising from changes including licensing, welfare reform and Localism, which may change expectations of local residents and may be impacting on the way the Council works, eg with more planning applications being called-in to Committee;

enables Councillors to deliver all aspects of their roles, as set out in the Role Profiles and Person Specifications for their roles;

keeps Councillor workloads in wards manageable. The proposed forecast growth of 3.5 % will increase the average councillor : elector ratio from 1:17351 in 2012 to 1:1796 in 2018. Whilst this is below the current ratio in the 4 largest wards (ranging from 2028-2284), and the national average, there are unique considerations in East Lindsey, such as the distances and time needed for travelling and the role of councillors on Internal Drainage Boards, which balance this consideration. Enough councillors say they have some capacity to manage a modest number of extra electors that this increase is likely to be manageable without deterring current experienced councillors from standing for re-election and still encouraging others to stand;

supports the existing mix of councillors from different walks of life, and with varying work patterns, family commitments, etc;

enables electors to continue to receive support from and have good access to councillors; councillors do not routinely sign-post residents to other agencies eg Education, Environment Agency, but often tackle the issues themselves in order to challenge policy and practice and to develop their knowledge for dealing with similar requests in future;

is appropriate for the needs of East Lindsey’s current and projected population and the ambition of the Council to continue to manage its own workload effectively, but also to influence policy and practice across public, private and voluntary sectors, and in local, regional and national issues.

1 Figures as of 2 April 2012

- 5 - 11.05.12

3. Further Considerations In considering Council size, the following questions were considered alongside the KLOE: Are there different ways of working we should look at? Are there different ways to give / get information? Are all the external bodies still important? Do we want to change committee sizes? Are we being strategic enough? Are other Councils doing things we should try? The Working Group tested these in reaching its decision that the Council should stay the same size, noting that some areas could be delivered differently to manage the workload more effectively, but that changes are not likely to reduce councillor workloads. Comments were as follows: Executive Board reduced from 10 to 8 in May 2011. Portfolio Holder

workloads are significant, with much activity “behind the scenes” with partner organisations, particularly in response to national policy changes such as welfare reform and public health. Some changes are requiring more time preparing for and attending meetings, including a new countywide Community Safety Partnership which is being set up with Portfolio Holder representation from every District. District Councils are not currently all represented on the Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board, but do receive the papers and are asked to comment on these prior to Board meetings, leading to lobbying that all should be present at the meetings in future. ELDC’s Finance Portfolio Holder chairs the countywide Supporting People Commissioning Body which is overseeing radical changes in how it commissions services in future. Internally, Executive Board members are also establishing a new Self-Regulation Panel. Currently, these workloads, in addition to ward casework, are felt to be manageable with the current numbers and no immediate change is planned.

Scrutiny processes were streamlined in May 2011, when 2 Scrutiny

Committees were replaced by “task and finish” Scrutiny and Policy Panels, which report to Overview Committee, creating a more flexible system of shorter, quicker reviews, and enabling more councillors to be involved, albeit for a more concentrated period of time. At any one time there will be up to 3 panels meeting (eg May 2012) in addition to any ad hoc Working Groups (see below). The current annual plan is attached at Appendix 6. The Panel reports go directly to Full Council, which mandates the Executive Board to undertake specific actions. These changes addressed areas for improvement identified in the Council’s 2009 CPA report, which noted that Councillors were not being used to their full capacity, tackling concerns that previous reviews were slow, unwieldy, unfocussed, did not shape or change policy, and were primarily post rather than pre-decision scrutiny. Councillors now take responsibility for research and writing their own reports which has increased their workload. This new system will be reviewed in July 2012. However, as it was arrived at through external inspection and considerable internal debate, it is likely that any changes will be minor tweaks to ensure effectiveness rather than further major change.

- 6 - 11.05.12

Licensing Committee could meet less often as a full Committee, to review policy, with additional sub-groups sharing the day-to-day decision-making of individual applications. In 2011-12, 8 committee meetings were scheduled but, only 4 were held. However, the length of the sub-Committee meetings has increased to all-day, putting a very heavy workload on a very small number of councillors. With the large number of pubs, clubs, gaming outlets and taxi firms, particularly on the Coast, and the changes to licensing regarding Temporary Events Notices, there is and will continue to be a high volume of applications, which will need to be considered by a licensing hearing, but these all could be handled by a second sub-committee rather than full committee hearings. In addition, although ELDC currently deals with alcohol licence applications through a sub-committee of 3 members, it requires all taxi and private hire driver licence applicants to attend a meeting of the full Committee. A third sub-committee of 3 could decide these, reducing the workload of the full Licensing Committee and spreading the workload more evenly amongst councillors than at present.

Planning Committee has seen an increase in applications it has

called in. Between April 2010 and March 2011, 16 planning applications were called-in to the Committee which would otherwise have been delegated decisions by Officers. This has increased between April 2011 and March 2012 to 40 applications. This has not led to more Committee Meetings, but has meant that the scheduled meetings have had longer agendas and have been more time-consuming, with more reading for Councillors prior to the meeting. In addition, it has delayed responses to applicants and created more work for officers. Whilst it is absolutely necessary to have a call-in mechanism, there is scope to ease Councillor workloads and avoid duplication of work for both Councillors and officers. This is being reviewed to understand the cause and any action needed to ensure that the workload remains manageable. However, the increase in call-ins may derive from ELDC Councillors and/or Town and Parish Councils reacting to changes emerging from the Localism Bill, in which case, this is likely to be a developing trend.

Both Regulatory Committees achieve a balance of Committee and

delegated decisions, ensuring that speedy decisions are balanced with debate on more complex or controversial issues. Councillors who have served over a period of time report a very significant increase in delegated decisions in recent years, with only those which are particularly complex coming to Committee.

Standards Committee will meet until July or September 2012, after

which time Councillors are unlikely to investigate complaints. Most of the current work is investigating Parish Council complaints, which will go to Parish Councils themselves, the Monitoring Officer or other officers, or an 'independent person', creating capacity for members to engage more fully in the new Scrutiny arrangements set out above.

Audit and Governance Committees elsewhere are often smaller

and a reduction could be considered at ELDC. However, it is likely that, should there need to be a formal hearing concerning a councillor,

- 7 - 11.05.12

this will be dealt with by the Audit and Governance Committee once the Standards Committee ceases. This may be the case in other Councils too.

Planning Policy Committee supports the development of the Local

Development Framework. Not all Councils have a similar committee, but with a large and varied District, the risk of coastal and fluvial flooding and its potential impact on development, the Committee enables the needs of all areas to be considered in policy development. Separating policy development and decisions on specific applications allows greater debate on policy and prevents delays on developments.

Working Groups are set up as needed. The Working Group for this

review is an example, which has involved 8 councillors. Another Working Group, set up by Council, is reviewing Area Committees. A Working Group considered the Delivery Plan for the Council’s arms-length companies. Whilst this has now stood down, it will be re-convened for the same purpose in future years.

Area Committees are currently being reviewed by a Working Group

set up by Council to undertake a review recommended by a Scrutiny and Policy Panel. The workload survey for this Review showed that District councillors spend a significant amount of time going to individual Parish Council meetings. There may be mechanisms that reduce the need for attendance at every meeting, for example by taking a different approach at Area Committees, or other ways for councillors to keep in touch with parish councils. However, in the workshops, councillors highlighted that close liaison with Parishes enables them to identify and address individual casework, as well as “troubleshooting” and providing advice, often catching issues earlier than they would otherwise. In their view, there is a clear need for ongoing close liaison, which is more effective for being proactive.

External Body Appointments have accrued over time. The current

list includes some bodies which may not now be sufficiently strategic to warrant a formal ELDC presence, whilst a number of new bodies which the Council may want to influence do not feature. A review of the list is likely to make changes, but is not likely to reduce the overall workload. In addition, not all external appointments carry the same workload, with some requiring significant preparation in advance. This is the case for the 2 councillors who are formally appointed as Directors of the Companies set up by ELDC and South Holland District Council. It is likely that where workloads are significant, a councillor who may previously have held several appointments, will take fewer formal roles, requiring others to take on roles they haven’t previously done. Councillors also noted that where they are appointed to external bodies, meetings often clash with ELDC commitments, requiring them to send a substitute or apologies to ELDC. Health Scrutiny is an example. Where there is no control over the meeting schedules of other agencies, this will remain an issue, requiring enough councillors to be available to cover. This should be noted in relation to meeting attendance levels (83%).

- 8 - 11.05.12

Councillors are formally appointed to Internal Drainage Boards by the Executive Board. ELDC has 10 representatives on Lindsey Marsh Drainage Board (a recent review by LMDB reduced this to10); 7 representatives on Witham 3rd Drainage Board; and 3 representatives on Witham 4th Drainage Board. This is a time-consuming but necessary role, given the complex issues and risks surrounding flooding, requiring District Council input and support.

One District Councillor attends the countywide Health Scrutiny

Committee, which meets monthly; another attends the countywide Flood and Drainage Management Committee, a statutory duty arising from the Pitt Review, which meets twice a year. In addition one District Councillor will be nominated to the new Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel to scrutinise the work of the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

With the development of two new companies, all ELDC Councillors will

be expected to attend the annual share-holders meeting. Councillor Training is compulsory on election, with a thorough

induction programme, and for Planning, Licensing, Equality and Diversity and on the Code of Conduct. 12 Reserved Member Days provide further opportunities for development, along with additional external opportunities which arise.

Councillors each have a grant of £2000 for use in their community. A number of councillors expressed the view that, whilst it is hard to

get an indication of how satisfied the electorate is with the quality of service they receive from their councillor, on balance, the general view of councillors is that they are able to offer a good service. Many members are concerned that even a modest reduction in Council size would increase in the overall workload and the numbers of electors per councillor to a point where the service is poorer, and a radical reduction in Council size would significantly prejudice this. Making a difference for their electors was a key motivator for many councillors seeking election and recommending it to others.

Use of surgeries, newsletters and websites is not well-developed.

Councillors could use these more in future but this is likely to increase rather than reduce workloads, as these take time to set up and maintain, and may increase awareness of and access to councillors, generating a greater caseload. Councillors feel that, with the use of email, they are expected to be more available and to respond quicker; but with higher than average proportion of elderly residents, there will be an ongoing need to communicate via traditional methods (eg face to face, telephone) in addition to new technologies. However, a number of councillors expressed the view that they are able to cope with an increased workload and, the Working Group considered that, rather than reducing Council size, any additional capacity could be used to increase contact with local residents.

Councillor workloads vary over time (members in the workshop

described this as coming “in waves”), between wards and between

- 9 - 11.05.12

councillors. Whilst a few councillors feel that people should only stand for election if they can manage the workload, others argue that the Council should manage its business in such a way that it encourages a wide range of people to stand thereby ensuring a Council which represents the whole community. The Working Group were very mindful that there is no “average” councillor or ward. However, on the basis that there are broadly 2 formal roles per councillor (128 positions and 60 councillors, with 8 Executive Board Members), that all members are expected to be active in their communities and deal with individual casework, and that travel time is significant, the consensus is that councillors currently have a reasonable workload which, if anything may increase rather than decrease as new policy changes start to impact.

4. Summary and Conclusion For the reasons set out above, and supported by the evidence provided below, East Lindsey District Council recommends to LGBCE that the Council size remains at 60 councillors. The Council recognises that there is no single perfect model, but having reviewed the comprehensive evidence base set out in the Appendices to this report, which identifies the diverse and unique characteristics of the East Lindsey District, the Council is recommending that the Council size remains at 60 Councillors to ensure the Council is able to meet the evidenced needs and demands within the District. 5. List of Appendices Appendix 1 The East Lindsey Context Appendix 2 The Current Model of Local Governance Appendix 3 Councillor Workloads Appendix 4 Evidence Base Appendix 5 Key Lines of Enquiry completed for ELDC Appendix 6 Scrutiny Plan 2012-13 6. List of Additional Background Papers A1 Report to Council April 2011: Review of Governance

Arrangements: rationale and considerations A2 Models and Options: review outcomes: August 2011 B Role Profiles for Elected Members

- 10 - 11.05.12

The East Lindsey Context APPENDIX 1 Having set out above the Council’s recommendation and rationale, this section describes the context for this in more detail. a) Geography, Social and Economic Context Located on the East Coast, East Lindsey covers approximately 700 square miles and is the second largest District Council by area in England. It is a rural and sparsely populated district, with three distinct areas: the Fens to the south; the Coast to the East, and the Wolds to the West. This varied landscape offers a hugely attractive environment and incorporates many Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) of national and international significance, as well as being ideal for outdoor recreation. The District offers a relaxed pace of life, low crime rates and good schools. Its value as a tourist destination is starting to be recognised more widely and the tourism/hospitality sector is worth approximately £450m per annum to the East Lindsey economy, although it remains a “hidden gem” in comparison to the Cotswolds or Lake District. The area’s agricultural businesses feed the country, providing employment and, increasingly, high quality, specialist produce which recently earned Lincolnshire the accolade of being the country’s best food county, with Louth at the centre of this. There are also pockets of significant deprivation, with the District ranked as 73rd most deprived of the 326 local authorities nationally (IMD 2010), with 7 super output areas in the top 10% most deprived wards in the country. There is no single urban centre, but a network of market towns and coastal resorts, each with a hinterland of smaller rural and coastal communities. Each town has its own character and “specialism”: antiques (Horncastle), art and craft (Alford), food (Louth) and tourism (Mablethorpe and Skegness). Some towns and villages experience challenges due to their location, limiting infrastructure and remoteness from service centres.

The mid-2010 population estimate for East Lindsey is 141,600. The population has grown by around 1100 people per year since the 2001 Census. East Lindsey residents make up just over 20% of the population of Lincolnshire. Population density is very low: East Lindsey is the 324th lowest density area nationally out of 354. There are around 65,788 properties in East Lindsey and 55% of residents live within the coastal area of the district, with the remaining 45% living in the rural inland area.

A recent survey commissioned by the Council has identified over 200 caravan sites and nearly 25,000 static caravans, particularly along the coast. Whilst most are used by tourists (the population increases dramatically during the summer months), up to 6,600 mostly older people live in these for extended periods. Of these, the survey identified that 40% are effectively full-time ELDC residents. Many other long-term caravan and chalet residents have a home elsewhere (primarily in the Midlands and South Yorkshire) but spend 5-6 months on-site in East Lindsey, and are likely to be registered electors in their home area.

- 11 - 11.05.12

48.4% of East Lindsey’s population is over 50 years old. The population is ageing, particularly on the coast, and 25.3% (2010) of residents are aged 65 or over, 8.8% above the national (England) average. Projections show that this trend will continue as people live longer, but also with ongoing inward migration of retirees. In older age, there are more women than men, especially in the over 80 age group. At the same time, the number of people aged 15-24 is only 10.7% (13.2% nationally) and is influenced by the outward migration of young people leaving the area for higher education or to find employment.

According to the Annual Population Survey around 23.1% of the East Lindsey population is considered to be disabled, and an estimated 15,000 people are unpaid family carers. Work continues countywide to identify the true number of carers to ensure that they are well-supported.

The Council works proactively with its partners to tackle the challenges facing the area, which include: Low levels of educational attainment, aspiration and skills; High levels of low-skilled, low-paid and seasonal employment; High levels of worklessness and economic inactivity, often linked to poor

health, and pockets of long-term unemployment; Low levels of healthy eating and exercise and high levels of obesity,

heart disease, diabetes and stroke, with inequalities between areas; Large numbers of highly mobile populations including “temporary”

residents and holiday-makers; Poor public transport links, road and rail infrastructure; Poor digital infrastructure with significant broadband not-spots; Other less visible issues include: loneliness, isolation and mental health

problems; low literacy levels; fuel poverty; and ongoing risk of coastal flooding and the issues associated with this.

The Council also works proactively with its partners to raise the profile of the area and to maximise opportunities which include: Developing and marketing the cultural, heritage and environmental

offer to deliver economic growth and create business opportunities; Responding to growth opportunities along the Humber; An emerging renewable energy sector, including wind and solar farms; A stable rural economy with an employment and business base typified

by the dominance of Agriculture, Tourism and traditional Manufacturing, with an underrepresentation in growth sectors such as Business Services;

A high proportion of profitable SMEs (particularly micro and small), most locally owned and operated, but start-up rates that lag behind national levels and low productivity;

This mix of complex challenges and exciting opportunities has led the Council with its partners to retain a Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) to generate proactive and innovative solutions which have begun to improve quality of life for residents. The Annual Delivery Plan is implemented by 6 Theme Groups and performance managed by an Executive Board. Members of the LSP Executive Board along with Councillors are pro-active in representing the area in key strategic partnerships including the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership (GLLEP), to ensure that the area is able to influence and respond to opportunities.

- 12 - 11.05.12

b) ELDC Achievements, Priorities and Ambitions Achievements: Since late 2004, ELDC has been on a journey of improvement and development. Following a poor CPA inspection result in 2004, all aspects of the Council’s management and operations have been reviewed and improved, resulting in 2009 in the Council being rated as good by CPA. The increasingly difficult financial climate has been seen as a challenge to reduce costs and become more efficient, without reducing frontline services to residents. Through prudent financial management, ELDC has made significant savings in its revenue budgets of over £9m since April 2009 to compensate for increased service costs and reduced government funding, including saving £500K per year in senior management costs. Other achievements since 2004 include: Delivering an full capital programme resulting in: new business

centres in Skegness, Mablethorpe and Louth; revitalising the Skegness Foreshore; installing solar panels on all leisure venues, securing the higher rate feed-in tariff;

Delivering an ambitious Leisure Strategy, resulting in the £12.5m Meridian Leisure Centre, London Road Pavilion in Louth and Wainfleet Road Pavillion in Skegness, with over £250K invested in play areas, and developing the innovative Funk Bus provision for rural areas;

Developing a high-profile, high-quality programme of events and festivals, including the SO Festival which has secured over £1m of external investment in 3 years, generating an economic impact of over £1m per annum in 2010 and 2011;

Achieving some of the highest recycling rates in England; Securing national recognition for innovative health improvement and

communications schemes (publications and engagement); With Lincolnshire County Council and Primary Care Trust, setting up

the hugely successful First Contact to support older people; Transferring community assets to local groups, including: Jubilee Park

and Lido in Woodhall Spa; Church Farm Museum in Skegness; Horncastle Town Hall; Alford Corn Exchange; and Louth Town Hall;

Setting up Compass Point Business Services (East Coast Ltd) with South Holland District Council, to manage back office services for both councils and delivering around £20m savings over its first 10 years;

Investing £1m in flood prevention works in Louth and Horncastle to reduce the risk of a repeat of the devastation caused in 2007.

Priorities: The Council’s current corporate priorities, developed with comprehensive consultation with local people, address the key issues in the district and are reviewed annually as a part of the corporate planning process: Enabling people to get actively involved in their community Improving equality of opportunity and life chances Contributing to environmental sustainability and adapting to climate

change Developing and nurturing the character and viability of our towns,

villages and rural areas Helping to develop the right environment for a growing economy,

building on current strengths and creating new business sectors

- 13 - 11.05.12

Current actions include: Continuing to deliver a full capital programme, recently agreeing:

£1m for broadband improvements; £500k for public toilet improvements; and £90k for new beach huts;

Continuing to invest in business and growth opportunities: allocating £1.5m for projects to boost the economy in rural area; investing £100k in a national TV campaign supporting the visitor economy; making representation to the Chancellor re the Caravan Tax and its potential impact on the tourism industry; overhauling local markets;

Continuing to deliver affordable homes, with the aim to complete 728 new homes (from an original target of 495) by 31 March 2015, with a total investment since 2004 of £7.6m. This is in addition to enabling delivery of 548 units through other funding mechanisms since 2004

Increasing Councillor’s Community Grants, releasing up to £120K to local groups and organisations;

Delivering a District-wide programme of events through East Lindsey Live, incorporating the 10-day SO Festival, a cultural event of national significance supported by the Arts Council stretching;

Reviewing the Waste Strategy and renewing the waste fleet; Revamping car park machinery to “intelligent” machines to enable a

full review of car park tariffs alongside the decriminalisation of on-street enforcement of parking;

Taking the county-wide lead on the arrangements for the Police and Crime Panel;

Taking the lead on co-ordinating the county-wide Health Trainer programme, under contract to LCC Public Health;

Embarking on a programme to generate advertising and sponsorship income from the Council’s assets;

Reviewing the Supported Housing services delivered by the Council through Supporting People contracts as part of a county-wide project to develop a Well-Being Support Network for all adults.

Ambitions We are an ambitious Council which wants to achieve more for our area. Working with our partners, we aim to grow the economy and improve income levels, influence the range of training, skills development and employment available, improve health outcomes and quality of life, strengthen the local infrastructure and promote community cohesion. A recent exercise with Executive Board, Audit Committee Members and Senior Officers tested our appetite for risk, indicating that we are open to new opportunities and are aware of the steps we need to take to realise the benefits of these, whilst safeguarding the organisation’s interests. We recognise our leadership role in facing major challenges like climate change and the risk of flooding, As we approach the 60th anniversary of the 1953 floods, we are proactively tackling the issue through cultural activity and with businesses, employers and householders to develop their resilience, whilst continuing to lobby central government and others such as the Environment Agency to act in the best interests of the area. At the same time, we are actively promoting the area to secure inward investment, recently setting up a Destination Management Organisation

- 14 - 11.05.12

with local partners, to market the area to existing and new visitors. We aim to develop an all-year-round offer, to tackle seasonable employment. We are happy to lead and are taking a report to all 8 Lincolnshire Local Authorities in May 2012 which recommends that ELDC be approved as the lead authority for the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel. All Councillors are at the centre of this vision in making East Lindsey an attractive place to live, work and visit now and for many years to come.

- 15 - 11.05.12

The Current Model of Local Governance APPENDIX 2 ELDC’s 60 Councillors represent 48 wards. The Council is in Conservative control with 31 Conservatives, 14 Independents, 10 Labour and 5 District Independent / Liberal Democrats. The Council adopted a Leader and Executive Board model of governance in May 2000. Governance arrangements were reviewed after the 2011 elections, resulting in a reduction in the number of Executive Board Members from 10 to 8 and changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee system. i) Council The Council has 60 councillors, elected every four years at a single set of elections, the last being in 2011. Councillors have a duty to the whole community of East Lindsey and are democratically accountable to residents of their ward. All councillors meet as Full Council 6 times per municipal year (normally in May, July, September, November, December and February). Full Council appoints the Leader and Chairman of the Council, approves the Policy Framework and any policy changes, and sets the budget. It receives recommendations from other committees and also petitions from the public.

ii) Executive Board The Council appoints the Leader for the four year term of the Council. The Leader appoints the Executive Board, which is where most of the day-to-day decisions of the Council are made. The Executive Board consists of the Leader and seven other councillors and meets collectively every six weeks. Major decisions to be made by the Executive are set out in the Forward Plan of Key Decisions, which is updated every month. Individual members of the Executive, known as Portfolio Holders, are allocated particular service responsibilities aligned to the Council’s corporate priorities, with powers and are able to make individual decisions within certain restrictions. Portfolio Holders have monthly briefings with their senior manager and officer team, as well as joint Briefing meetings collectively with members of the Corporate Management Team around six times per year. Portfolio Holders are required to work in partnership with other agencies on issues and policies, and to be involved with events and meetings associated with their portfolio area, ie. opening of play parks, etc. The Leader and Portfolio Holders regularly report to Full Council and to Overview Committee.

iii) Overview and Scrutiny Committee The Local Government Act 2000 required each local authority to set up a scrutiny process as a statutory function of the Council. ELDC has a single Overview Committee that covers all of the statutory scrutiny functions. Executive Board Members cannot be members of Overview as it holds the Executive to account for its decisions, monitors progress against the corporate priorities and contributes to policy making in the Council. The Overview Committee consists of 11 councillors and meets every six weeks. Places are allocated according to political proportionality rules and there is a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Scrutiny and Policy Panels are established to undertake proactive and reactive reviews of Council policy and practice. Recent reviews include: the effectiveness of the Council’s Community Engagement Strategy; progress made to implement outcomes of a review of Leisure provision; and a review of the Council’s Waste Strategy and contracts. This requires additional meetings, research and analysis by the

- 16 - 11.05.12

review group members, who have recently begun to write their own reports. The Overview Committee provides information to joint scrutiny reviews, such as the County Council’s scrutiny into Fuel Poverty. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 introduced the right for any councillor to refer a local matter affecting his or her ward to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and this ‘Councillor Call for Action’ must be put on the Committee’s agenda and discussed at its meeting.

iv) Planning Committee Planning Committee is a regulatory committee, consisting of 15 members, who are not on the Executive Board. Places are allocated according to political proportionality rules and there is a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Group Leaders appoint substitutes to attend in their absence. The committee meets monthly. All members of the committee and substitutes must undertake internal and external training every year and no new member of the committee may participate at a meeting until they have met this requirement. Training is also an on-going commitment during the municipal year. Members sometimes undertake Site Inspections if required. The Chairman meets with the Planning Team Leader and the legal team prior to the meeting to discuss the formal agenda. A Scheme of Delegation exists and the Planning Committee determines applications which: involve ELDC Councillors or Senior Officers; have received a significant objection; are contrary to the local plan but the officer’s recommendation is for approval; a Town / Parish Council view is in conflict with officers, or are called-in by Councillors. Call in by Councillors must be done in writing within 4 weeks of validation date giving planning reasons for the call-in.

v) Licensing Committee Licensing Committee is also a regulatory committee, consisting of 13 councillors meeting 8 times per year to consider changes to policy and to determine licence applications. Places are allocated according to political proportionality rules and there is a Chairman. The committee has one Sub-Committee of 3 members with 1 substitute, drawn from the main committee, to hear individual cases in relation to the Licensing Act 2003. Committee members must undertake specific training and a new member appointed to the committee cannot take part in or vote on any decision until they have attended at least one internal and one external training session on Licensing related topics. Existing members should complete at least one internal and one external training session each year. Training for Licensing Committee is also an on-going commitment during the municipal year.

vi) Audit & Governance Committee The Audit and Governance Committee has 9 members who cannot be on the Executive Board and is subject to political proportionality rules. There is a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The committee meets 7 times per year, roughly every two months, to consider corporate governance, audit, the financial framework and accounting policies. vii) Standards Committee will cease in July or September 2012. viii) Employment Committee The Employment Committee consists of 9 councillors and meets as necessary to determine appeals, for example against dismissal. It is not

- 17 - 11.05.12

subject to political proportionality rules and, as it meets infrequently, a Chairman is elected at the start of each Committee meeting.

ix) Planning Policy Committee This Committee supports the development of the Local Development Framework, reviewing evidence and developing Planning Policy.

x) Area Committees East Lindsey has 189 Town and Parish Councils and supports 7 Area Committees, which provide a meeting place 4 times per year for District, Town / Parish and County Councillors. Members of the public and representatives of other agencies (including Police, LCC Highways, Environment Agency) are invited to discuss issues of local significance. These are not currently decision making bodies, and are largely consultative. All 60 Councillors are allocated and invited to the Committee for their area, but are not formally required to attend, although most do so.

xi) Working Groups The Council convenes working parties and groups on an ‘as and when’ basis e.g. the Working Group for this Electoral Review. These are not official committees of the Council, but are important in enabling councillors to drive strategy and policy, explore new legislation or new opportunities.

xii) Reserved Member Days Twelve days are planned into the municipal diary for development and debate, 3 of which are held for discussing the budget. Others cover topics relevant to the local area. Attendance is encouraged but not compulsory. xiii) Civic Duties The Chairman, supported by a Vice-Chairman, elected annually, is the Civic Head, ambassador and representative of the Council and chairs Full Council meetings. The Chairman attends functions in the district and beyond, to promote the area, promote and recognise business in the area and to raise the Council’s profile publicly. Since their election in May 2011 and the end of December 2011, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have represented the Council at 60 civic events. xiv) Partnerships and Outside Bodies The East Lindsey Local Strategic Partnership coordinates strategic partner collaboration through the Community Strategy. This umbrella body is a mixture of public, private and voluntary sector organisations who agree and implement an annual delivery plan, which is performance managed by the LSP Executive Board, chaired by the Council’s Leader. There are Theme Groups delivering action on specific issues, including the cross-District Community Safety Partnership and the Quality of Life Group, working on health, wellbeing and older people’s issues. The Council’s Leader is on the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership Board and is Lincolnshire’s 2012 Champion. She meets with the other District Leaders and Chief Executives every month. She is also actively involved at a regional, national and international level, for example with East Midlands Councils (EMC), as an official appointee to the Local Government Association (LGA) Culture, Sport and Tourism

- 18 - 11.05.12

Board, with the Rural Commission and Sparse, and in developing cultural links with Sweden and Denmark. The frequency with which Outside Bodies meet and the time commitment required from councillors varies. Not all councillors serve on outside bodies, but some hold a number of appointments. These appointments are kept under regular review to focus efforts on those bodies with the greatest strategic significance for the Council. These are appointed annually at the Council AGM.

- 19 - 11.05.12

Councillor Workload APPENDIX 3 The expectations of Councillors and how they undertake their role in order to be effective are set out in Role Profiles and Person Specifications for each role. The adoption of the Leader and Executive Board model of governance in 2000 reduced the number of internal meetings. However, a survey of ELDC councillors as part of this review, to which 43 responded, shows that they still spend a considerable amount of time on internal business. The findings are as follows: 44% are self-employed, 33% are retired and 5% semi-retired: 82% of

the respondents. Many commented that they were able to manage their councillor workload because their personal circumstances allow a degree of flexibility.

18 members are ELDC councillors; 21 are twin-hatters serving ELDC

and Town / Parish Councils; 2 are twin-hatters for ELDC and LCC; and 3 are triple-hatters. Some of the twin / triple-hatters felt that the roles complemented each other and made their roles easier as they had a better understanding of who to contact to resolve local issues.

The majority of respondents hold positions outside of their councillor

roles: 29% serving as school governors, 51% involved in charity or voluntary management roles and 51% involved in volunteering.

17% of councillors are also carers. 25 respondents (73%) receive up to 4 requests for assistance each

month from constituents. 63% spend 1-4 hours per week on ward work, with 25% spending

more than 5 hours per week on this. 93% of respondents attend parish council meetings in their area. 3

respondents have 16, 18 and 22 Parish Councils in their areas, the average (based on this survey) being 4 parishes per councillor.

Less than a third of councillors hold surgeries, contribute to their own

or Parish Council newsletters or have websites. Most respondents spend 1-4 hours attending Council meetings,

reading minutes, papers and agendas for council meetings and dealing with Council correspondence.

Councillor workloads vary. Excluding the 8 Executive Board Councillors

who generally do not hold other formal positions, the remaining 52 councillors cover 120 formal roles (including Area Committees and IDBs). Taken in addition to ward caseload, community activities and other external appointments, working groups, training and travel time, this seems reasonable.

- 20 - 11.05.12

Most respondents spend 0-2 hours per week attending outside body meetings, area assemblies, training and political group meetings.

Big distances result in significant travel time for councillors:

Miles (single) Miles (single) Skegness to Manby 26 Wragby to Manby 27 Frithville to Manby 33 Woodhall Spa to Manby 24 Tattershall to Manby 26

Holton-le-Clay to Manby 24

Skegness to Lincoln 46 Louth to Lincoln 26 ELDC’s councillor profile has been considered alongside the LGA Councillor Census 2010:

National Census 2010 ELDC Survey Councillor profile (ELDC number = all 60 councillors) Male 69% 73% Female 31% 27% Holds one or more leading Council positions

57% 52%2

Councillor profile (ELDC number = from 43 responses to survey) Full-time paid employment 21%3 15% Self-employed 15% 44% Retired 47%4 33% Caring responsibilities 25% 17% Members of other councils in addition to this one eg County, Town, Parish

39% 60%

School governor 42% 27% Unpaid voluntary work 56% 51% Would recommend being a councillor to others

83% 95%

Holds ward surgeries 38%5 26%

Overall, ELDC Councillors attending the 2 workshop events and responding to the questionnaire, reported that: the workload tends to come “in waves”, both as Executive and non-

Executive Members; that newer councillors took a little while to learn the ropes and get

well known in their areas; that travel time is considerable.

2 Does not include appointments to outside bodies such as Drainage Boards, or political group roles 3 Nationally, this number is falling in each census 4 Of the national adult population, 19% are retired 5 Shire District Councillors are least likely to do surgeries; Metropolitan Councillors are most likely.

EVIDENCE BASE APPENDIX 4 This paper collates all of the evidence reviewed by the Working Party reviewing Council size. 1) What is the current workload of councillors?

A. Current Council structure and numbers of councillors involved in existing committees:

Committee / Meeting Constitutional Frequency (per year)

Actual Frequency 2011-12 Number of Members

Council 6 6 60 Executive Board 9 8 8 Executive Briefing 14 14 8 Overview 8 10 11 Scrutiny & Policy Panels

Around 12 reviews per year, with the option of 2-3 extras as

required.

Usually 6-8 meetings per review, but some will be

considerably more.

7 members on each panel = at least 21 at

any one time; others in reserve for next time.

Licensing Committee 8 4 13 Licensing Sub-Committee As required

(an alcohol licence application that receives an unresolved objection must be considered within 20 working days of the closing date for objections).

14 3 (drawn from Full

Committee members)

Planning Committee 12 12 15 Audit & Governance Committee 7 6 9 Standards Committee Ceases July / September 2012 due to new legislation. Employment Committee As required 3 9 Planning Policy Committee 10 11 13 Working Groups Ad hoc 0 Varies Reserved Member Days 12 12 60 All Councillors are Members of their local Area Committees. Currently there are 7 of these which meet 4 times per year. This is part of member’s workload but will not increase or decrease in relation to Council Size: if there were 30 councillors or 130, they would all be allocated to a Committee.

B. The current size of the electorate is 104127 voters. The current average number of electors per ELDC councillor is 1735.

C. Councillor training and development is delivered through an extensive induction programme on election. 12 Reserved Member Days are planned in advance into the Council calendar, with 3 further Reserved Member Days specifically for budget debate. Planning and Licensing training are mandatory for Committee members and their substitutes. Equality and Diversity and Code of Conduct training are also compulsory. This equates to around one day’s training per month.

2) How effective is the Council with the numbers it has at present?

D. Have there been any failures eg corporate governance judgements, meetings not quorate, etc No meetings have been inquorate and there have been no investigations or decisions against the Council which suggest that the business is not being effectively managed by Councillors.

E. What did CPA say? In 2009 the Council was rated as Good overall. The following comments were made regarding councillor capacity and the Scrutiny function: 11. Specifically, the Council should consider. • Improving communication and strengthening partnerships with town and parish councils. The Council should apply its knowledge and understanding of local communities, their needs, aspirations and expectations, and use this to help ensure that these relationships mature in to effective partnerships. In particular, the Council should concentrate on communicating what is relevant to each partner rather than expecting community based partnerships to understand and appreciate district wide issues.

12. But the Council is not making the most of the available capacity and it should consider the following. • Improving the arrangements for Overview and Scrutiny to ensure that the links between the work plans of Scrutiny and the Executive are clear, and streamlining the overview function so that important policy decisions are not delayed when considered.

35. ….although the Council still needs to ensure that councillors' time and resources are used consistently to help the Council; in particular, Scrutiny is not fully effective. 41. Scrutiny is not fully effective. Although Scrutiny has carried out a number of reviews, there is limited evidence that the Executive act on the proposals and findings. Links between the forward work plans of the Executive and Scrutiny are not clear. For example, the Overview Committee can allocate work to either of the two Scrutiny committees but these do not have clear terms of reference. These restrict Scrutiny's role in both policy development and robust challenge of services. Scrutiny is therefore not being used to its full potential to either develop policy or contribute effectively to improving services.

F. Is the workload manageable? Eg are there high levels of substitutions? How is absence covered (eg ill-health?)

Substitutions enable members to work co-operatively to cover absence (eg ill-health, holiday, diary conflicts, work and family commitments) but these do not appear excessive. Member attendance at meetings averages 83%. This includes 17

councillors who have attended 100% of their meetings, and only 2 attending less than 50%. A number of councillors have experienced poor health, and others have extensive work and childcare commitments, and external appointments sometimes clash with ELDC dates, but this does not seem to prevent them attending a significant number of meetings.

G. Current decision-making arrangements: how much is delegated to Portfolio Holders and Officers or decided by

Committees? The Council’s Constitution delegates a number of decisions to Portfolio Holders and to Officers. Portfolio Holder decisions are recorded at their monthly meetings. Chief Executive’s Actions are documented and reported to the next Executive Board meeting. Delegations are used particularly in Licensing and Planning. Planning decisions for the last 2 years were:

01/05/2011 - 17/04/2012 = 1132 with 1061 delegated decisions and 71 decided at Planning Committee 01/05/2010 - 30/04/2011 = 1201 with 1146 delegated decisions and 55 were decided at Planning Committee

H. How are conflicts of interest dealt with? Especially for twin-hatted councillors?

Conflicts of interest are notified at the start of formal meetings and, should these arise in the discussion, during the meeting, and are recorded. In some cases, Members will nominate a substitute if it is clear that they cannot take part.

I. Consideration of changes already made: Executive, Overview & Scrutiny, Community Cabinet, Reserved Member Days.

In May 2011, the new administration reduced the number of Executive Board Members from 10 to 8. The Overview Committee and 2 Scrutiny Committees, were streamlined to create a single Overview Committee, agreeing that Scrutiny & Policy Panels of 7 members will take work from the Committee to investigate further. The Community Cabinet, which had previously met quarterly was stood down.

J. What do councillors do between Overview meetings (eg take evidence from others, visits?)

Scrutiny & Policy Panels, meeting between Overview meetings, involve up to 7 members undertaking investigations. For example a recent Scrutiny on the Council’s Community Engagement Strategy involved interviewing the County Council’s Head of Community Engagement, taking evidence from the Chief Executive of the Lincolnshire Association of local Council’s; this and the recent Waste Strategy review have involved questioning the relevant ELDC Portfolio Holders.

K. What arrangements exist for Joint Scrutiny?

- Health Scrutiny is co-ordinated by Lincolnshire County Council, with regular attendance of an ELDC non-Executive Councillor, who liaises closely with ELDC’s Portfolio Holder and lead officer. - ELDC Portfolio Holders and Officers were recently invited to give evidence in LCC’s Scrutiny review of measures to tackle fuel poverty and to comment on the final draft report. - Reciprocal arrangements are also in place between District Councils to attend and report back from external, particularly countywide meetings. For example, for the new Shadow Health and Well-Being Board, 2 District Councillors from NKDC and CoLC represent all 7 Districts; for the LEP, ELDC represents all 7 Districts. - ELDC is preparing to lead on arrangements for Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel.

3) What potential increases or decreases in workload might there be in the next 5 years (to 2018)? L. The current electorate is 104127. Projections suggest that this will increase by 2018 to between 107340 and 109353,

subject to planned development occurring, an increase of between 3% and 5%, as shown below:

Year 100% New Dwellings

100% New Electors

75% completed

50% completed

Reaching 18

Deceased Age Growth

Total New

Electors

Max Electors

% increase

2012/13 452 904 339 / 678 226 / 452 1200 1000 200 1104 105231 1.06 2013/14 305 610 229 / 458 152 / 305 1200 1000 200 810 106041 0.77 2014/15 305 610 229 / 458 152 / 305 1200 1000 200 810 106851 0.76 2015/16 305 610 229 / 458 152 / 305 1200 1000 200 810 107661 0.76 2016/17 323 646 242 / 484 162 / 323 1200 1000 200 846 108507 0.79 2017/18 323 646 242 / 484 162 / 323 1200 1000 200 846 109353 0.78 Totals 2013 4026 1510/ 3020 1006 / 2013

2012 104127

4026 1200 5226 109353 5.02% 3020 1200 4220 108347 4.05%

Working Group preferred option = completion rate lower than 75% & more than 50% 107844 3.5% 2018

2013 1200 3213 107340 3.09%

M. The current electorate is 104127. Projections suggest that this will increase by 2018 to between 107340 and 109353, subject to planned development occurring, an increase of between 3% and 5%, as shown below:

N. Changes in caseload? Eg needs of the electorate / demographic profile.

Age: The population is getting older, as people live longer and as older people retire to the area. Older people tend to be more democratically engaged and more likely to need ongoing support and may therefore generate greater caseloads. Need: the tough economic climate is causing anxiety and a degree of hardship regarding unemployment, housing, etc. This may generate more casework for councillors. System changes: there are significant changes to welfare and benefits systems, NHS organisations, etc nationally. This may cause confusion and/or generate complaints about service outcomes which are referred to councillors.

O. Changes in decision-making / delegations: call-ins to planning?

Localism Bill: the full impact is not yet known. It may change workload or expectations, which in turn affect workload. Alternatively, it may fail to make a significant impact in councillor’s workload. It is unlikely to reduce the workload overall.

P. All Councillors have IT equipment and almost all use email to receive papers and stay in touch with officers, external bodies and constituents. Papers are put on the Members Portal and Planning Portal. A Councillor e-bulletin is sent fortnightly, with key issues and links to further information. This enables councillors to manage their workloads more efficiently, provided that the equipment and systems are reliable, but also increases public expectations that they are available 24/7, 365 days per year. With email replacing letters, people also expect much quicker responses to queries.

4) What are other Councils doing? Q. The National Census of Local Authority Councillors 2010 identified 1825 as the average number of electors per councillor. R. Other Electoral Reviews of District Council were reviewed for comparison, including: Fenland, Gedling, Vale of White Horse,

Boston Borough, West Somerset and Hambleton.

District Size (sq miles)

Population Electorate at start

Previous Council Size

Proposed Council Size

Difference % Ave per cllr

Ave per cllr: 5 yrs

% growth over 5 yrs

Electoral Reviews currently under consultation on LGBCE website Arun 85.3 150,600 56 53 -3 -5.3 Gedling 46.3 113,200 50 40 -10 -20 1769 2260 Hambleton* 506 87,600 44 28 -16 -36.4 Rushcliffe 158.0 112,800 86,424 50 45 -5 -10 1728 1921 South Oxfordshire 261.99 131,000 48 36 -12 -25 2140 3050 Swale 144.2 133,400 96,920 47 47 0 0 2062 2157 +4.6 Tower Hamlets 7.63 237,900 45 39 -6 -13.3 Vale of White Horse

223.4 119,800 51 38 -13 -25.4 1860 2700

Reviewing but not currently consulting Boston 139.6 59,000 47,293 32 30 -2 -6.3 1478 Purbeck 156.1 45,200 24 25 +1 +4.1 Slough 13 131,100 92,630 41 42 +1 +2.4 2205 2271 Completed Reviews Broxbourne 19.86 90,600 69,538 38 30 -8 -21 2318 2403 Hart 83.1 91,200 69,472 35 33 -2 -5.7 2105 2125 Hartlepool 36.24 91,300 69,416 47 33 -14 -29.8 2104 2163 +2.8 Mansfield 29.61 99,600 82,661 47 +

Mayor 36 -11 -23 2296 2380

Rugby 135.6 94,200 74,096 48 42 -6 -12.5 1764 1906 West Lindsey 446 89,400 71,859 37 36 -1 -2.7 1996 2140 +7.2 West Somerset 280.63 35,400 28,063 31 28 -3 -9.7 1002 1032 +2.3

S. The 5 largest Districts by geographical area were also considered as comparators. King’s Lynn and West Norfolk is the nearest comparator to ELDC having a similar geographical size, population, electorate and number of parish councils:

T. The table below considers the core Committees required for a Council to operate, the number of “positions” in each Council

and also the overall number of Councillors. Some operate very different systems eg 2 have no specific Executive Board / Cabinet; one has a joint planning and licensing committee. Only 2 have a committee similar to ELDC’s Planning Policy Committee. The Councils shaded in grey are the comparators by geographical area considered at Q above.

Council Committees Number on

Each Number of Positions

Council Size Comments

West Somerset Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance/ Standards Other

7 9 11 15 7 / 9 8 (LDF Panel)

66 28

Broxbourne Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards Other

6 15 15 (joined with planning) 5 / 6 8 (LDF)

55 30 Planning and Licensing is one Committee

Ryedale (4th largest geog area, reviewed 1999)

Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards Other

- 9 11 16 TBC / 5 Yes

62 30 Commissioning Board (11) & Policy & Resources Committee (10) make decisions. Audit being reviewed

Largest 5 Districts by Geographical Area District by Geographical Area

Size (sq miles)

Population Electorate Number of Cllrs

Average Electors per Councillor 2012

Last electoral review

Town & Parish Councils

1 Eden 827 51,800 42,058 38 1107 1997 71 2 ELDC 680 141,600 104,127 60 1735 1996 189 3 South Lakeland 592 103,800 82,712 51 1622 2007 69 4 Ryedale 582 53,600 40,782 30 1359 1999 117 5 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

552 143,600 116,116 62 1873 2002 101

Council Committees Number on Each

Number of Positions

Council Size Comments

Hart Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards

6 11 11 19 6 / 5

58 33

Hartlepool Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards

9 16 15 18 7 / 7

72 33

Mansfield Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards

8 33 across 3 Commissions 15 11 7 / 4

78 36 Select Commissions do Scrutiny.

West Lindsey Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards

- 11 11 11 9 / 3

70 36 Prosperous Communities (13) + Policy & Resources (12) Committees make decisions

Eden (1st largest geog area, reviewed 1997)

Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards

6 13 16 19 16 / 3

73 38

South Lakeland (3rd largest geog area, reviewed 2007)

Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards

5 6 / 12 / 12 14 18 5 / 4

76 51 Overview co-ordinating + 2 themed scrutiny committees

East Lindsey District Council (2nd largest geog area, but not yet reviewed)

Executive / Cabinet Overview Scrutiny Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards Other

8 11 7/ 7 / 7 13 15 9 / 7 13 (PP Cttee)

97 60 IDBs and Area Committees take this to 128 positions

Council Committees Number on Each

Number of Positions

Council Size Comments

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (5th largest geog area, reviewed 2002)

Executive / Cabinet Overview / Scrutiny (Panels?) Licensing (sub-committees) Planning Audit & Governance / Standards

7 3 /15 / 15 / 9 15 18 15 / 5

102 62 Overview Liaison Group + 3 scrutiny panels

5) Other Considerations:

U. Potential changes in current governance arrangements: Licensing Committee. The Licensing Act 2003 requires Councils to have a Licensing Committee of between 10 and 15

Councillors for alcohol and gambling licensing. It also allows Councils to have one or more Sub-Committees consisting of 3 Members.

Local Government Boundary Review – Council Size Submission (Type C) APPENDIX 5

1. Managing the business of the Council: To what extent is council size influenced by the council’s decision-making process or, conversely, the decision making structure fitted around the council size? 1.1 What is the overall structure of decision

making? Do Councillors match the work to fit the time available to them, or stretch/shrink the time they spend according to how much work they want to/need to do?

1.2 Has the Council studied how much time

members spend on Council business? 1.3 What assessments have been made of

how many members it needs to function effectively, particularly since the introduction of executive arrangements? In a hypothetical scenario where the council size was increased or reduced by 10%, how would you do things differently?

1.4 To what extent is the current council size

a factor in determining the political management, scrutiny and governance arrangements or is it the other way round?

1.5 If you had a free hand, are there any

changes you would make to the political management, scrutiny and governance arrangements? If so, how might that impact on the number of councillors required?

1.6 How are decisions ‘cascaded’ down the

structure? Is the balance between member decisions & officer delegated decisions effective? Is work duplicated?

ELDC moved to a Leader and Executive Board model in 2000, enabling swift decisions to be made and providing clear accountability. Executive Board Members may not be on Overview or Scrutiny and Policy Panels and generally do not sit on Licensing or Planning Committees. “Back-bench” councillors take responsibility for regulatory decisions, spreading the workload to manage the Council’s business effectively. The Council’s governance arrangements were reviewed and revised in May 2011, implementing changes in Overview and Scrutiny as recommended in the 2009 CPA report. This Review has considered a hypothetical increase and reduction of 10%, and more, concluding that these options are not appropriate at this time. Members considered ELDC’s position and that of other Councils, including those which have been reviewed recently, and those which have the largest geographical area. The current arrangements ensure clarity regarding Scrutiny and Audit arrangements. The new Scrutiny arrangements allow all non-Executive councillors to be involved. It allows them to flex their time and some have commented that this allows them to do extra work as the time commitment required varies rather than being ongoing. There is no evidence that the Council tries to find ways to occupy and engage non – executive members and the review of Scrutiny arrangements means all can participate through Scrutiny and Policy Groups. A survey of councillor workloads has been carried out for this Review. Workloads vary considerably between councillors, due to personal style and availability, as well as to the nature of their ward areas. The findings have been compared to those of the national Census of Councillors for 2010. In Lincolnshire, councillors are required to be appointed to Internal Draining Boards, in addition to other governance structures eg Health, Police, etc. Some further development opportunities have been identified during this Review (see Section 3 above) to improve how the Council’s business is managed but these are unlikely to reduce councillor workloads. Where capacity is released, Members are likely to be encouraged to use this to develop new engagement mechanisms with residents and to deliver the newly-adopted Scrutiny arrangements. The balance of member decisions and officer delegated decisions has been reviewed. An increase in planning call-ins was identified prior to this Review and is currently being investigated further to understand the cause and any potential future impact.

2. Scrutiny of the Council, outside bodies and Others

2.1 What’s the structure? An overview and scrutiny committee, or several scrutiny committees? How do subjects get tackled – in Committee or Task & Finish Groups? How many subjects at any one time? What’s the time-span for a particular study?

2.2 Is Scrutiny just the Councillors doing

meetings or do they take external evidence?

2.3 If the former, what do the members do

between meetings? 2.4 How is the Council handling health scrutiny

– who is involved? How much work do they do?

2.5 How many ‘twin-hatted’ members sit on

outside bodies and how are conflicts of interest resolved?

CPA in 2009 stated that there were areas for development with regard to Overview and Scrutiny to ensure that this is more robust. In May 2011, an Overview Committee, supported by flexible Scrutiny and Policy Panels, was established, standing down the previous 2 Scrutiny Committees. Topics are covered by the Overview Committee or a Panel, depending on the nature and complexity of the topic. Topics investigated by Panels return to the Overview Committee only to verify their robustness and not to debate the findings, which are taken directly to Full Council, which then mandates the Executive to enact the agreed recommendations. The 2012-13 programme is attached at Appendix 6 below. The Overview programme is derived from the Forward Plan and aims to review strategic policy development and major changes to service delivery. Quarterly Performance Reports are scrutinised to monitor progress, with Portfolio Holders called to answer questions as appropriate. The revised arrangements now include pre and post decision scrutiny. At any one time there are likely to be 3 reviews in progress, involving a total of 21 members. External evidence is sought from local communities, partner agencies and interest groups, according to the topic. An expressed desire by Members to take a more hands-on approach to Scrutiny means they now do more of their own research and report writing, with a significant reduction in officer support, thereby increasing councillor workloads to some degree. Health Scrutiny is co-ordinated at County Council level. ELDC’s Health Scrutiny Councillor regularly attends the Health Scrutiny Committee, contributing to core meetings, research visits and working groups. She liaises closely with the District Council Portfolio Holder and other interest groups in the District on issues affecting the area. The Portfolio Holder for Health is actively supporting the development of Health Watch, which will build on the previous arrangements for stakeholders to review and shape health services. Joint scrutiny to hold police commissioners to account will impact on councillor time and capacity. ELDC is likely to be the lead authority for Lincolnshire’s Police and Crime Panel. Member appointments to outside bodies are reviewed regularly and confirmed annually. All Councillors are required to sign the Council’s Code of Conduct, attend mandatory training and to maintain an up to date register of their interests with Member Services. The Monitoring Officer provides advice and guidance on conflict of interest issues in Councillor induction sessions and as they arise. Members must declare any interests at the outset of Committee meetings and, if a prejudicial interest in an item is declared, they must leave the room while the item is discussed and must also abstain from the vote. This is always noted in the minutes.

3. Representational Role: Representing Electors to the Council

3.1 What sort of engagement is there between front-line councillors with electors? One–to-one when there’s a customer complaint, or gathering views about policy from the whole community? If the latter, how? 3.2 What is the structure of local area committees. What are their responsibilities? Is membership limited to councillors? – is it open to district councillors or co-option from the wider community? 3.3 Do Councillors fix day-to-day problems by taking them to officers or by representing elector issues as policy views in meetings of the Council? 3.4 How does the Councillor engage? Surgery, newsletter, blog, public meetings, or not at all? 3.5 What do officers do to facilitate councillor engagement?

Frontline Councillors engage with constituents in a variety of ways as described in the Survey carried out for this review. Face-to-face meetings (especially through Parish Council meetings and attending local events) and telephone contact predominate. Councillors respond to individual queries and complaints, usually following these up to ensure resolution. 7 Area Committees are a forum for Councillors of County, District and Town / Parishes to meet. These meet 4 times per year and are open to the public. They are supported by the Members Services team, a lead officer and other specialist officers as necessary. They are primarily consultative, although both District and County Councillors have budgets which allow them to support local initiatives. A review of their boundaries and effectiveness is current being undertaken by a Scrutiny and Policy Panel. Councillors fix day-to-day problems by a variety of means, depending on the issue, their own experience and resources. Some twin and triple-hatted councillors report that they find it easier to resolve issues as they understand which tier to approach and can navigate complex systems, including lobbying senior politicians and decision-makers in the appropriate agency. Councillors are well-placed to spot issues early or to identify trends. They frequently speak with the Council’s communications team to flag these and plan an early, proactive response. They are also comfortable raising issues directly with Team Leaders, Senior Managers including the Chief Executive, Portfolio Holders and the Leader. They also feed these into policy discussions and can recommend these to Overview Committee if a wider review is needed. The survey undertaken for this review indicates scope for further development of surgeries, newsletters and websites. Councillors currently use channels including Facebook and Twitter where they feel confident to do so. This is an area which could be developed further, with officer support for training in IT skills. Officers support member engagement with information through a fortnightly e-bulletin, making planning applications available online through the planning portal. The members use the member portal to access other relevant information. Officers offer advice and will on occasions accompany councillors to meetings in their wards where difficulties arise, although most issues are resolved before this stage. The ward councillor protocol requires all officers to ensure that ward councillors are well-informed regarding issues in their area (with the exception of personal or sensitive issues) and are not wrong-footed by being the last to know of developments.

4. Representing the Council in the community

4.1 Does the councillor go to meetings of community bodies, parish councils? If so, how many? What for? Do councillors feel obliged to go to meetings of each individual parish council in their respective divisions or is it to meetings of “clusters” of parishes? Where the former, is this an effective use of an elected members time? 4.2 Does the Council attract candidates and retain members? 4.3 Are Councillors “go-betweens” between clients / customers / electors and paid service staff to fix service delivery complaints? 4.4 What happens when a Councillor is absent? Formal taking on of responsibility by other elected members, informal contact point for electors, or nothing? (Maybe different in multi-member wards). Do front line councillors take the strain of, for example Executive members whose time maybe limited? 4.5 Do Councillors learn and develop on the job or in formal training? 4.6 Has the Council experienced any statutory or other failures because there weren’t enough councillors? Are Councillors bored or “inventing” work to do?

Councillors spend a considerable amount of time attending Parish Council meetings, Area Committees and other bodies such as Neighbourhood Management in Mablethorpe and Town Centre Partnerships in Louth, Skegness and Mablethorpe. Others attend Tenant and Resident Associations, Seniors Forums, Youth Councils, etc. Many councillors take seriously their liaison with Parish Councils and engage directly at their meetings, as well as at Area Committees. This could be done differently but would require careful management of Parish Councils’ expectations in making a change. The Council both retains existing councillors and attracts new councillors. In May 2011, a number of experienced councillors stood down. 38 of the 48 wards were contested, attracting 126 candidates. 20 new councillors joined the council. 41 of 43 councillors surveyed for this review said they would recommend being a councillor. Councillors do report service delivery complaints, monitor outcomes with electors and ensure issues are fixed. If they do not find a resolution, they will refer the issue onwards through managerial or political routes and, in this respect, do not act as “go betweens” with staff. Attendance at meeting averages 83%. Where members are unwell, on holiday or have conflicting commitments, they substitute to others, enabling the council’s business to continue effectively. The timing of meetings is often flexible and officers are mindful of councillor’s commitments in agreeing times and locations for meetings. Councillors in multi-member wards report that this works very effectively. Other than this, members do not currently have individual working arrangements with other councillors and this could be developed further. Portfolio Holders have a good knowledge of their colleagues’ interests and encourage other councillors to attend meetings, consultation events, presentations, etc, with and without them. Councillors have an extensive induction programme and new councillors have buddies. This is supported by ongoing training for regulatory committees and 12 programmed Reserved Member Days. Councillors are encouraged to attend external development, including through the Leadership Academy. The Council has not experienced any statutory or other failures, such as meeting being inquorate because there weren’t enough councillors. Councillors do not appear bored and do not seem to invent work.

Overview Committee Annual Scrutiny Programme 2012-13 APPENDIX 6  This programme allows for up to 3 panels (of 7 members each) operating at any one time, in addition to any other Working Groups). One Panel is always scheduled for evening meetings to enable maximum member involvement. Important or necessary in-year topics may be introduced at any time, resulting in either an additional Panel being established or a reviewed programme. Members will be notified where this is the case. Reporting Timeframe: Council Meetings 16th 25th 10th 5th 27th 17th Overview Meetings 23rd 4th 29th 24th 12th 13th 1st Topics for Scrutiny and Policy Panels

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May

Waste (continuing) (D)                          Car Parking/Decrim (D)                          Future Financial Proofing (E)                          Localism Act (D)                          Self Regulation (D)                          Impact of Welfare Changes (E)                          Does planning have the right tools to deliver? (D)

                         

Impact of LEPs (D)                          Affordable Housing (E)                          Health and Wellbeing (D)                          Economic Development Strategy (D)

                         

Arts & Culture (E)                           D – Daytime E – Evening Completed (Jan – April 2012) Community Engagement SO Festival Leisure Options Review