Agenda item

To receive any public questions.

The Chairman advised that eight questions had been submitted by the public and they would all be answered by the Executive Member for Finance and Support Services.

Question 1

Colin Arnott, Thorley, referenced the Executive’s recommendations to the Council and noted that these now proposed to make more limited changes to the Thorley Parish boundary than that requested by the Town Council.  However, with regard to the areas still recommended for transfer to Bishop’s Stortford, whilst seeing the logic of unifying St Michael’s Mead, the site south of Whittington Way was an entirely different issue.  He asked why a CGR of 53 hectares of agricultural land with no residents was required at this time or if ever.  The Town Council had suggested that, if and when this site was developed, future residents “are likely to feel of part of Bishop’s Stortford” yet offered no compelling evidence for this.  Indeed, the consultations with existing Thorley residents suggested the opposite.  Therefore, he also asked if a CGR of this area was appropriate at this time or whether it should be left to await the outcome of any potential development and the actual views of any future residents.

In reply, the Executive Member commented that, in carrying out a community governance review, the Council was required to have regard to the number of electors in the areas under review and any change in that number which was likely to occur in the next five years.  Electorate forecasts based on existing planning consents and projections in the East Herts District Plan suggested that by February 2023, there would be 300 dwellings on the site south of Whittington Way, which would be home to approximately 500 electors.

The current parish boundary ran through the site and therefore, when the site was developed, the boundary would no longer meet the Local Government Boundary Commission’s guidance which was that parish boundaries ‘should reflect the “no-man’s land” between communities […] or barriers such as rivers, roads or railways.’

The Executive, in reaching its recommendations to Council, had taken account of relevant information and the range of arguments presented by parties regarding the Review, including the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  It had considered that once developed, the area concerned would be sufficiently different in character to other parts of Thorley Parish and that future residents of this urban extension to the town of Bishop’s Stortford were likely to feel part of the Bishop’s Stortford community. 

Question 2

Roger Halford, Thorley, asked what compelling evidence had been submitted to Bishop’s Stortford Town Council that must have caused them to ask for a Community Governance Review (CGR) to make drastic change to the town boundary with Thorley Parish, probably leading to the demise of the parish.  Now that a considerably changed version of the request had been put forward through the Executive, had the Town Council’s original request been withdrawn and a new CGR proposed by the District Council.  Further, if a new CGR was put forward by the District Council, should this not be considered by an independent body having no interest in the outcome.

In reply, the Executive Member stated that East Herts Council had agreed to undertake the CGR following a request from Bishop’s Stortford Town Council.  He suggested that the questioner would need to approach the Town Council regarding any background information to that request, which had not been withdrawn or varied. 

Legislation provided that responsibility for community governance matters and the conduct of community governance reviews rested with principal authorities such as the District Council.  Reviews were conducted impartially in accordance with the statutory criteria.  There was no provision for any other body to carry out a community governance review and district councils across the country carried out such reviews on a regular basis, alongside but separate from their planning and other responsibilities.

Having agreed to proceed with a review, as the Principal Authority, East Herts Council had to take account of all relevant matters and evidence submitted, of which the Town Council’s submission was only one element.  It was open to East Herts Council to make recommendations that varied from those proposed by the body that had requested the review.  In relation to this review, all evidence received had been considered against the criteria set out in the guidance in arriving at these recommendations. 

In response to a supplementary question, the Executive Member confirmed that it was the Executive’s recommendations that would go forward for public consultation, if agreed by Council.

Question 3

Anthony Robins, Thorley, commented that this review was stated to be in response to the request for boundary change by Bishop’s Stortford Town Council.  Given that the draft recommendations following the opinion expressed both by the Scrutiny Committee and the Executive differed so significantly in both fact and degree from the original request, he asked whether it would now be sensible for the Town Council to submit a revised request, and for Thorley Parish Council to submit its own counter proposal before the second consultation.

In response, the Executive Member referred to his reply to question 2, and that having agreed to undertake a community governance review, the Council had to consider all information received against the criteria in the statutory guidance.  The Council was not limited to the terms of the original request and consideration of the evidence might lead the Council to recommend changes that were different to any initial request received.  Any draft recommendations agreed later in this meeting would be published for a further round of public consultation before any final decisions were made.  As part of this consultation, Thorley Parish Council might wish to submit their comments and/or any counter proposal which would be considered alongside all other submissions.  Equally, Bishop’s Stortford Town Council might also wish to submit a revised request but there was no requirement for them to do so.

Question 4

Russell Cox, Bishop’s Stortford, asked if the Executive Member agreed that, given Thorley and Bishop’s Stortford had equal status as parishes, there was no reason why the proposed development land could not remain in Thorley.

In reply, the Executive Member referred to his response to question 1.  The Executive had felt that the parish boundary which currently ran through the area identified for development south of Whittington Way should be reviewed and that it would be desirable for the area of proposed development to be within a single parish area.  This led naturally, on to consideration of whether that parish should be Bishop’s Stortford or Thorley.  As he had stated previously, the Executive had taken account of the relevant information and range of arguments presented by parties and considered that, once developed, the area concerned would be different in character to other parts of Thorley Parish and that future residents of this urban extension were likely to feel part of the Bishop’s Stortford community.

Question 5

Janet Rolph, Thorley, was not present to ask her question.  She had referred to Thorley as a parish of scattered, identifiable communities, each focusing on different activities because of circumstances, but also having in common tradition, sense of place, and linkages homing in from settlements all around to its central village church.  It already had community, connectivity and cohesion that Community Governance Reviews were meant to achieve.  She asked on what grounds and with what benefits for Thorley Street and Pig Lane residents, could the boundary move to the bypass, allowing encroachment of town into the very middle of parish land, be justified.

In reply, the Executive Member stated that the Executive’s recommendations did not propose any change to the status of the areas around Thorley Street and Pig Lane which, contrary to Bishop’s Stortford Town Council’s original proposal, were recommended to remain part of Thorley Parish.  Under the Executive’s proposals, the only existing residents of Thorley Parish who would transfer to Bishop’s Stortford Town Council were those in St Michael’s Mead, which crossed the existing parish boundary so that boundary no longer met the government guidance.  Relatively few consultation responses had been received from St Michael’s Mead residents of Thorley compared to those in other parts of Thorley Parish. 

Proposals in relation to community governance reflected actual and proposed development but they did not determine whether or not that development took place, which was a matter for the planning process.  Under the Executive’s proposals, Thorley Parish would remain in existence and it could be said that those areas included in the revised boundary of the Parish would share more strongly the common traditions, sense of place and identity that the questioner referred to.

Question 6

Sylvia McDonald, Thorley, asked why two quite different issues, with nothing in common apart from being two examples of Bishop’s Stortford town interests straddling Thorley village boundary, were being linked together in one of the Executive’s recommendations at (B)2.  This had been proposed ostensibly as meeting the “need to secure community governance which is reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area”.  Looking at order of magnitude, some 16% of St Michael’s Mead physically fell in Thorley parish territory at its very western edge and in the other, some 95% of parish territory was being proposed for what was town urban extension and encroachment into the very middle of the village environs right up close to two of the scattered communities that categorised so many rural Hertfordshire villages.  They were different issues needing separate procedural treatment.

In reply, the Executive Member commented that, in reaching its recommendations, the Executive had considered each element of the community governance review separately and as the questioner had suggested, different considerations had applied to each of the areas under review.  In relation to St Michael’s Mead, as stated in his reply to question 5, this existing development had crossed the parish boundary which therefore required revision.    

In relation to the land to the south of Whittington Way, he had explained in his responses to questions 1 and 4 the Executive’s approach to consideration of this site within the context of the review.  Although the majority of the site was currently in Thorley, the view had been taken that once developed, it would have more in common with the town of Bishop’s Stortford.  He noted that the questioner herself had described the proposed development as ‘town urban extension’. 

As both St Michael’s Mead and the land south of Whittington Way were proposed by the Executive for inclusion within the area of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council, both areas had been included in a single recommendation.  However, for clarity and recognising the different considerations that had applied, he intended to move them as two separate recommendations.

In response to a supplementary question, the Executive Member commented that the size of the St Michael’s Mead settlement was not a consideration and that the proposals sought to regularise the current anomaly.

Question 7

Robin Lumsden, Thorley, asked if the combined effect of recommendations 3 and 4 meant that on a map of the proposed boundaries, if a straight line was drawn from end to end east to west following the line of the bypass across the areas, there would be ward boundary crossings from Thorley urban, into Bishop’s Stortford South, Thorley urban again, then Thorley rural.  He suggested this arrangement did not lend itself to achievement of good governance and would mimic the already existing anomaly in Church Lane which had not been addressed in the Town Council’s original request for boundary change.

In reply, the Executive Member stated it would not because the proposal was for the new Thorley Parish Council, on its revised boundaries, to be unwarded, so there would be no crossings between Thorley Urban and Rural.   There would be one stretch where the east-west line mentioned would cross from Bishop’s Stortford to Thorley and back again, but this was to address an issue within the Church Lane area that the questioner had mentioned.  The recommendations before Council proposed that a small area north of the bypass should remain within Thorley, including the whole of Rectory Close which was currently split between Bishop’s Stortford and Thorley.

In response to a supplementary question, the Executive Member confirmed that the Rectory Close proposal would be considered as part of tonight’s recommendations.

Question 8

Ann Lowe, Bishop’s Stortford, asked whether the numbered recommendations under (B) would be taken individually in turn, with any subsequent recommendations (or parts of recommendations) withdrawn if precluded by earlier approval or rejection of recommendations (or parts of recommendations).  Also, would a recommendation, linking together two unrelated issues, for example as in recommendation (B)2, be treated as two separate recommendations.

In response, the Executive Member, in respect of recommendation (B)2, referred the questioner to his reply to question 6, in which he had indicated that he intended to move the two elements of that recommendation separately.  On the other items he believed it would be for the Chairman to determine whether these were taken together or individually, which would depend on how the Members’ debate unfolded.

In response to a supplementary question, the Executive Member confirmed that no final decisions would be taken tonight and that a further round of consultation, running from May – July 2018, would take place.