From: Robin Hogg.
Chairman, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
Plymouth & South Hams Branch.
Anchor House, Pillory Hill, Noss Mayo, PL8 1ED.
Telephone: 01752 872366. Email robstar@talktalk.net
23rd March 2009.
The Review Manager (Devon)
The Boundary Committee for England,
Trevelyan House,
Great Peter Street.
References. a. Chairman, CPRE Devon’s Letter of the 11th April 2008.
b. “Fears for Tiers” by Michael Chisholm.
Dear Review Manager,.
THE BOUNDARY COMMITTEE – 2008 – Further Draft Proposals.
INTRODUCTION. The CPRE (Plymouth & South Hams Branch), of which I am the current Chairman, represents an important part of this rural community. The CPRE County Chairman for Devon, Tim Hale, wrote to you in reference (a) and I would continue to support all that he said in that letter. You will readily imagine my disappointment at your further requests for our opinion on what can only be described as a “fall-back” position.
Last time round, we had taken much notice of the Government White Paper “Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power”, published simultaneously on 9th July 2008. This White Paper made several key points – any solution must satisfy “Public Demand”, improve “Access to Services” and be “Closer to the People”. The White Paper wanted “formal democratic decision-making to be conducted as locally as possible so that citizens can feel that their local government is part of the fabric of community life and that their views can be heard and acted upon by local councillors”. We judged this to be a sound appreciation of the requirement for local government in this huge, largely rural county.
Analysis of opinion across the county at the time seemed to show that there was almost no support for either your prime proposal “A Devon Unitary Authority comprising the existing county of Devon, with no changes to Plymouth & Torbay”, or for your fall-back position of “an Exeter and Exmouth Unitary Authority, and a Unitary Authority covering the reminder of the county, with no changes to Plymouth & Torbay.” In calling for comment on this second proposal, you say that you “will take into account what we have already said”. It would appear that no such notice has been taken of the bulk of local opinion across the county. Indeed, and this is not a “political” comment, the only person immediately to come out in favour of this latest exercise would appear to be Mr Ben Bradshaw, MP.
THE PRESENT SITUATION. In the intervening period we have had to watch our neighbouring county, Cornwall, struggle to make the move to unitary status through a morass of political conflict, doubts over new elections and escalating costs. The nation, and particularly this region, is facing great instability due to the present recession, making the management of even the present local government arrangements increasingly difficult. It would appear that the Boundary Committee has not complied with its remit by making yet another recommendation that clearly does not have a “measure of support”, especially from residents who will be the “customers” of any future authority.
COSTS. Reference (b), written by a former member of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and the local Government Commission for England, makes a number of salient points that apply particularly at this time of real economic difficulty.
· “A major justification for replacing two-tier structures with unitary councils was that it would reduce the cost of local service provision. However, virtually all the savings accepted by the government were gross, with no adjustment for additional recurrent costs, such as area governance, to give net figures.”
· “Heroic assumptions were made in estimating recurrent savings. Cornwall included £6m, one third of its claimed annual savings, on the basis that the cost per resident of each district service would be reduced to the county average, an assumption that ignores numerous factors. For example, the cost of administering planning is affected by the volume of business. In any case, aren’t councillors supposed to decide expenditure priorities, at least in some degree? The figure of £6m was justified with fewer than 60 words. Cornwall used Price Waterhouse Coopers and claimed that this firm had verified its figures. In fact, PWC’s letter explicitly stated that it had not checked the assumptions or the arithmetic, nor had it carried out an audit of the financial case.”
· “The time has come to stand back and ask what local government is supposed to do, the powers that are necessary and the appropriate financing, and then to consider what structure or structures would be appropriate. Instead, the 2007 Act provides for further piecemeal change, in which the advice of the Boundary Committee need not be requested. The experience of the 2006-2008 process shows that the government cannot be trusted to do a proper job.”
CONCLUSION. Doing a “Proper Job” is an expression peculiar to Devon and we feel that this new proposal is, once again, the wrong proposal instituted at completely the wrong time. The Boundary Commission declines to publish the costs of this exercise thus far but they must be considerable. We should not drain the public purse any further on this exercise, which would no longer appear to be in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION. We believe that the government should shelve or postpone the whole process until economic conditions improve and a genuine mandate for change from those who live in the county can be delivered.
Yours sincerely
Robin Hogg, Chairman, CPRE (Plymouth & South Hams Branch), Devon.
Copies to:
Alan Robinson, Strategic Director (Community), SHDC, Follaton House, Plymouth Road, Totnes, TQ9 5NE.
Tim Hale Esq, Larkebeare House, Whimple. EX5 2RZ