Agenda item

To consider the attached motion submitted by Councillors Chris Caswill

and Jeff Osborn

The Chairman reported receipt of the above mentioned motion from Councillors Chris Caswill and Jeff Osborn worded as follows:

‘Council notes that a process for handling responses to highways issues logged by Wiltshire residents has been centrally imposed on Area Boards and Community Area Transport Groups (CATGs). Council regrets that this process has been imposed without local consultation. Council is particularly concerned that

(a)  the process as described in the administrative flowchart is lengthy and bureaucratic, and

(b)  the process does not recognise and include the representative role of the local Wiltshire Council member, even though that role is specifically set out in the Council Constitution, and

(c)  Wiltshire Councillors who are not CATG members are limited to the largely symbolic approval of CATG representations, and

(d)  Parish and Town Councils have an effective veto on action on reside requests from residents, but are required to give first stage consideration to the residents’ issues without the benefit of any professional officer advice, and

(e)  all Community Areas are being required to limit their active consideration of residents’ issues to 5 at any one time, regardless of the size of the Community Area and its highway network, and

(f)    the process will be neither comprehensible nor acceptable to residents who expect their elected representatives to act on their behalf and the Council to provide timely responses to their requests Council recognises that there are resource constraints on highways and road safety improvements as a result of the combination of Government funding cuts and Cabinet decisions. However the current lengthy and rigid process is neither effective nor consistent with representative democracy. Council therefore requests the Cabinet member for Highways to withdraw the current CATG process, to consult with backbench members, and thereafter to replace it with a more flexible system, which incorporates the representative role of the local Wiltshire Council member’.

In presenting his motion, Cllr Caswill stated that with the current CATG process as it staood he was less able to represent his constituents as the Town Council effectively has a veto on proposals; In his view the local Wiltshire Councillor should have primacy. He also expressed concern as to the length and complexity of the process.

In response, Cllr Whitehead stated he had recently reaffirmed at a meeting with the Chairmen of the CATG groups that the paperwork and processes had not been imposed on them, but were there to ensure consistency and efficiency. Whilst CATGs were a success, they took up greater proportion of officer time in comparison to the size of the funding involve. Furthermore, in his view, it was not prudent for a project to go forward without the support of a Parish or Town Council; and that any project should have the wider support of the community. In his experience CATGs were able to progress schemes relatively quickly.

The Chairman then proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Wheeler, that the motion be debated and on being put to the vote, it was

Resolved:   That the motion be debated.

The Chairman invited the Group Leaders to comment before opening the matter up for wider debate.

Cllr Hubbard stated that he felt that he believed the Town and Parish councils should not have an effective veto on projects and that there should be some flexibility for projects to come forward that did not have their support.

Cllr McLennan stated that his experience of the CATG process had been positive and that he felt the local Wiltshire Councillors and the Parishes were positively engaged.

Cllr Hill argued that the system worked best when it focused on finding solutions for the wider community rather than on the wishes of individuals.

Cllr Jeff Osborn stated that his experience of the process had been process but understood that in some areas it may not work as well.

Cllr Jacobs and Cllr Clewer both emphasised the importance of the process in seeking community wide solutions.

Cllr Seed made reference to particular instances where the process had encouraged Councillors representing different communities to work together even though they were from different political groups.

Cllr Packard argued that no scheme should be progressed without the support of the local Town or Parish Council.

Cllr Wright felt that as an Independent Wiltshire Councillor, he still felt able to participate effectively in the process.

Cllr Chivers felt that the process may prejudice some smaller parishes that were less able to raise money through their precept.

Cllr Whitehead stated, in response, that the public, in general, welcomed increases in their precept where they could see it being spent directly for their community’s benefit. He went on to state that the requirement for a 25% contribution from Town and Parish Councils could be calculated across the five prioritised projects, so that some projects had greater percentage contribution with some projects having less or even none at all.

Cllr Caswill, in summing up his motion, stated he welcomed the points of clarification from the Lead Member; that he was supportive process, having previous been successful in securing support for projects.

Having been put to the vote, the motion was LOST and it was therefore.

Resolved:     That the motion be not adopted.