Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The purpose of this paper is to gain the approval of Cabinet to the County Council's response to the consultation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the membership of the future South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA).

1.2. Defra proposes that the overall size of the SDNPA should be no less than 29 members and no more than 37 members. This responds to the recommendation of the National Park Inquiry Inspector, that having a greater number of members would help to share the workload and help resolve the concerns regarding a possible "democratic deficit".

1.3. The lower figure of 29 members, based on one member from each of the 15 partner local authorities, plus parish members and Natural England appointees, would result in a severe democratic deficit for those authorities with large populations living in the future National Park. A number of other options have been considered by the partner local authorities and are presented in this report. An SDNPA with 37 or 39 members would ensure that the relationship of the level of local authority representation and population numbers is recognised.

1.4. Consideration has also been given in this paper to the need for an efficient and effective decision-making structure, given the potential difficulties for an SDNPA with up to 39 members.

1.5. The recommendations in this paper have been prepared in consultation with the relevant officers in the partner local authorities. Comments are invited by Friday, 9 October 2009.

2. Contextual information

Membership

2.1. On 16 July 2009, Defra published its Consultation Paper on the Membership of the SDNPA. Defra proposes that the overall size of the Authority should be in a range of between no less than 29 members and no more than 37 members. It also proposes that (depending on the overall size) there should be from 15 to 19 local authority members; from 8 to 10 national members; and from 6 to 8 parish members. Defra recognises that, with some local authorities covering a larger area and having a higher population than others, an SDNPA with one local authority member to one seat would not be democratically representative. It also recognises that, in increasing the size of the SDNPA to 37, some of the authorities covering larger areas or populations would have more than one seat. Since the publication of the consultation paper Defra has indicated that it would be willing to consider any other option that has the support of all of the 15 local authorities.

2.2. Following discussions between the local authorities, a number of alternative arrangements have been put forward, although at the time of writing not all the local authorities have had the opportunity to discuss the options. This report considers four potential arrangements for membership of the SDNPA.

	Defra Preferred Option	Alternative Option 1	Alternative Option 2	Alternative Option 3
Local authority members	15	19	21	21
`National' members	8	10	9	10
Parish members	6	8	7	8
Total	29	37	37	39

2.3. `Local authority members' are elected members of the three county councils, 11 district or borough councils and 1 unitary authority. `National members' are individuals with specialist knowledge and skills appointed by the Secretary of State. `Parish members' are serving parish councillors chosen collectively by the parish councils but formally appointed by the Secretary of State.

2.4. Defra is asking consultees four questions:

(i) What is your preferred overall size for the SDNPA?

(ii) Within your preferred overall total, how many seats would you want to have for local authority members; for national members; and for parish members?

(iii) If you are advocating more than 15 local authority seats (so that there is more than the statutory minimum of one per Council available) how would you allocate those additional seats?

(iv) For local authority respondents only: Do you wish to be excluded from the list of Councils appointing to the National Park Authority (this option is given to you by paragraph 2 (3) of Schedule 7 to the 1995 Act)?

Criteria

2.5. The following are recommended as the adopted criteria for assessment of these options. The governance model should:

(i) maximise public confidence in the Authority;

(ii) facilitate efficiency and accountability in decision making; and

(iii) ensure value for money for taxpayers.

Assessment of the proposal against the criteria

Public confidence in the SDNPA

2.6. It is important that the option adopted is that which will maximise public confidence in the work of the SDNPA. The sentiment in section 4 of the consultation paper that local authority members on their own should form an absolute majority is supported. Each of the options is considered against the `public confidence' criterion.

2.7. The Defra preferred option for a 29 member SDNPA with 15 seats occupied by the local authorities is popular with a number of interested parties, including at least one of the partner local authorities. It accords the same level of membership to local authorities representing over 40,000 inhabitants and up to 880 square kilometres within the National Park area, as authorities representing as few as 100 inhabitants and as little as 8 square kilometres within the National Park area. This may be regarded as unlikely to enhance confidence that appropriate weight will be given to issues of importance to those parts of the community served by the larger local authorities. There is a risk that that lack of confidence may then detract from the credibility afforded to the Authority's efforts to fulfil National Park purposes, particularly by those local authorities that regard their communities as under-represented.

2.8. Option 1 is for a 37 member SDNPA, with 19 seats being occupied by the local authorities. Under this option it is suggested that each of the authorities serving a population of more than 30,000 (Hampshire and West Sussex County Councils, East Hampshire and Chichester District Councils) appoints an additional local authority member, which would ensure some redress of democratic deficit. However, allocation of seats on the basis of population would mean that there was not equivalent representation amongst all county and unitary authorities. This option is not supported by East Sussex County Council as it would have only one seat.

2.9. Option 2 is for a 37 member SDNPA, with 21 seats being occupied by the local authorities. This option takes advantage of Schedule 7 of the Environment Act 1995 which allows for a constituent local authority not to take up its seat or to share its seat with another. This enables the seven authorities with the largest share of the area and population (Hampshire, West Sussex and East Sussex County Councils, and East Hampshire, Chichester, Lewes and Winchester District/City Councils) to have two seats, and for the remaining authorities to have one seat each, except for Worthing and Adur which have agreed that they could share a seat. Under this option the proportion of seats taken up by nationally appointed and/or parish members would be reduced, which would be of concern to some influential external partners, and is unlikely to be supported by Defra.

2.10. Option 3 is for a 39 member SDNPA with 21 seats being occupied by the local authorities. This would allow representation of local authority members as set out in Option 2, but would maintain the representation by national appointees and parish council members. Although this addresses the issue of representation there are concerns that a 39 member authority would be too large to operate effectively. If this proposal is accepted by all the local authorities it would be recommended to Defra as the preferred option.

Efficiency and accountability in decision making and value for money for taxpayers

2.11. Whatever the final number of members, the SDNPA's membership will be larger than most existing National Park authorities. It is therefore necessary to consider the impact of this on decision making and cost. There is a risk that the making of too many decisions by a full meeting of between 29 and 39 members may lead to delay and excessive cost, detracting from effectiveness in pursuing National Park purposes and lowering public confidence in the SDNPA.

2.12. Whichever level of membership is adopted, consideration will need to be given to streamlined decision making through effective delegation to committees and officers. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Inspector (see Annex E of the Defra consultation paper) that the SDNPA should "put in place efficient decision making structures in line with the modernising local government agenda".

2.13. Unlike local authorities, National Park authorities are not subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2000 to adopt one of a number of forms of "executive arrangements". However, there is nothing to stop the new SDNPA adopting a similar style of decision making structure within existing statutory powers.

2.14. Existing powers enable a National Park Authority to establish a committee and to delegate to that committee any of its functions. These provisions could be utilised to establish an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, together with the National Park Officer, would then be given sufficient delegated authority to make decisions on most matters arising on individual projects and day-to-day matters.

2.15. In such a structure, the full SDNPA would focus on major strategic issues affecting the Authority, in effect setting a "policy framework" within which the Executive Committee is authorised to discharge its delegated functions.

2.16. A Scrutiny Committee could also be established, with a remit to scrutinise individual decisions of the Executive Committee and National Park Officer and to hold them to account. It could assist the full SDNPA with policy review and development. The Committee could be empowered to "call-in" decisions where relevant, with the possibility of referring those decisions with which it disagrees to the full SDNPA (this would be expected to happen on an exceptional basis).

2.17. Membership of committees would be split equally between local authority members and Secretary of State-appointed members, in line with the requirements of the Environment Act 1995.

2.18. It would be inappropriate for the Chairman of the Executive Committee to also be the Chairman of the SDNPA. This would make it difficult for the Chairman of the SDNPA to chair debates at full SDNPA meetings which involved the holding of the Executive Committee to account. The separation of responsibility would be akin to the split between chairman and leader of a local authority. This may offer some appeal to elected members, as the Chairman of the NPA has in effect to share power with the Chairman of the Executive Committee. Thought would need to be given to the effect of this on organisational leadership of the Authority. However, the split between chairman and leader of a local authority does not necessarily have a negative impact on leadership of that authority. It should be possible for the SDNPA to adopt protocols that clarify the separation of roles.

2.19. Unlike a local authority, there would be no legal power for any member of the Executive Committee to make decisions acting alone. This is because, legally, a National Park Authority cannot delegate functions to an individual member. However, it can delegate functions to the Executive Committee and/ or the National Park Officer. In practice, many day-to-day decisions would be made by the National Park Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the Executive Committee.

2.20. With a third Committee fulfilling local planning authority functions, the SDNPA could adopt a structure that is like that of a modern local authority, whereby there is a clear division of responsibility between executive/scrutiny/regulatory functions, with the full SDNPA maintaining a strategic overview.

2.21. This more streamlined decision making structure would be in line with the Inspector's recommendation, and would ensure that the second and third limbs of the criteria were met, ie facilitates efficiency and accountability in decision making and ensures value for money for taxpayers. This would also be achieved within current legislation.

2.22. The operation of a model which involves an element of executive and scrutiny would be familiar to the local authorities, and would provide a system of checks and balances on an executive. The adoption of an innovative NPA model, with the overview and restraint of a scrutiny committee, would be quite different from the conventional NPA model of an executive and a planning committee.

2.23. While the above would provide a framework for streamlined decision making within a large SDNPA of 29-39 members, it should be noted that the "executive arrangements" model can be criticised for concentrating power in the hands of a small group of members, while reducing the effectiveness of the contribution of non-executive members. It will be essential that decision making arrangements have the confidence of all stakeholders.

3. Finance

3.1. There are no financial implications for the County Council. National Park costs are met by Government, which will also pay members' allowances and expenses.

4. Recommendations

4.1. That the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be informed that, if it secures cross-local authority support, the County Council supports a future South Downs National Park Authority membership of 39 members. This membership to be made up of 21 members from the constituent local authorities, with Hampshire, West Sussex and East Sussex County Councils, and East Hampshire, Chichester, Lewes and Winchester District/City Councils each having two members, and the remaining authorities having one member, except Adur and Worthing Councils which share a seat;

and, in the event that a South Downs National Park Authority membership of 39 members is not acceptable:

4.2. That the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be informed that the County Council supports a future South Downs National Park Authority membership of 37 members, with 19 members being from the constituent local authorities, with Hampshire and West Sussex County Councils and East Hampshire and Chichester District Councils each having two members.

4.3. That the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be informed that the County Council wishes to be included in the list of councils appointing to the National Park Authority.

4.4. That the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be informed that the County Council proposes that a future South Downs National Park Authority establishes a committee structure to streamline decision making and ensure a clear division of responsibility between executive, scrutiny and regulatory functions.

2128Rpt/946/LT-K

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Links to the Corporate Strategy

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

1. Equalities Impact Assessment:

1.1. Not applicable

2. Impact on Crime and Disorder:

2.1. Not applicable

3. Climate Change:

a) How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint / energy consumption?

There are no impacts arising from this report.

b) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

There are no impacts arising from this report.