devon county council’s response to the boundary … county council’s response to the boundary...

Improving life for all

Devon County Council’s response to theBoundary Committee’s “Draft proposalfor unitary local government in Devon”

September 2008

www.devon.gov.uk

Devon County Council’s response to the Boundary Committee’s “Draft proposal for unitary local government in Devon”

Contents

Summary

1. Introduction

2. Draft proposal for unitary local government in Devon: Devon County Council’sresponses to the key questions identified by the Boundary Committee 2.1 Boundary Committee question 1“Our view on the necessary inclusion of Exeter in a county-wide authority, particularlywhether it will support the city’s economic growth and promote the growth of thecounty.”

2.2 Boundary Committee question 2“Whether there is a need to extend the membership of the Devon StrategicPartnership to reflect more fully Exeter’s key role in the county.”

2.3 Boundary Committee question 3“Further information on the community governance model envisaged for the city ofExeter as part of a county unitary authority.”

2.4 Boundary Committee question 4“Further evidence that a county-wide unitary authority has a broad cross-section ofsupport from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens.”

2.5 Boundary Committee question 5“Considered views from parish and town councils in regard to their envisaged role inthe proposed Community Board arrangements.”

2.6 Boundary Committee question 6“The roles and responsibilities of the proposed Community Boards, particularly as theyare perceived by parish and town councils and other groups likely to be involved asBoard representatives.”

2.7 Boundary Committee question 7“How the County Council’s proposed community governance structures will beconstituted by the new authority in order to ensure clear accountability for matterssuch as service delivery.”

3. Two Unitary Authority Pattern

4. Conclusion

Appendix 1: Political governance and democratic structures

Appendix 2: Key facts and figures

Contents1

3

4

4

8

9

10

13

16

23

25

33

34

36

Devon County Council’s response to the Boundary Committee’s “Draft proposal for unitary local government in Devon” 1

Summary

We share the Boundary Committee’s view that a singleunitary authority for Devon would be the best pattern of localgovernment for the county, its people and communities andhas the capacity to meet the five criteria set by the Secretaryof State. Our response to the consultation on the draftproposal answers the seven key questions posed by theCommittee and explains why the two unitary pattern fails tomeet the five criteria

Boundary Committee question 1: Inclusion of Exeter ina county-wide authorityThe inclusion of Exeter is critical to the county'seconomy; vital for future transport, housing andemployment development and essential to theprovision of value for money services.Exeter is not just a city by itself: it is an integral part of a muchlarger community reaching out into a wide sub-region.Exeter’s success is built on its strategic location and its futureprospects are crucially dependent on the economic health ofDevon as a whole. Exeter cannot afford not to be part ofcounty-wide systems and structures for economic and landuse planning. The inclusion of Exeter as part of a county-wideunitary authority is essential for the delivery of effective andefficient services which provide value for money.

Boundary Committee question 2: Membership of theDevon Strategic PartnershipThe Devon Strategic Partnership would be integral tothe unitary authority's governance arrangements andenable partners to direct public resources towards thepriorities for Devon. The Devon Strategic Partnership’s leadership role would beenhanced by the creation of a unitary authority for Devon. Itsmembership would be reduced to match the reduction in the

number of local authority members and strengthened toreflect Exeter’s key role in the county.

Boundary Committee question 3: Governance modelfor ExeterExeter has a thriving network of neighbourhood andvoluntary organisations. Unlike the rest of Devon, it has no elected third tier (parishand town council) representatives. A community governancereview for the current Exeter City Council area would beinitiated to establish the needs and wishes of the people ofExeter. The outcomes might be the establishment of urbanparishes based on Exeter’s neighbourhoods and/or thedevelopment of neighbourhood partnerships.

Boundary Committee question 4: Broad cross-sectionof supportThe response to the consultation on the draft proposaldemonstrates that a change to a single unitary councilfor Devon would, if it were to be made, have ameasure of support from a range of key partners,stakeholders and service users/citizens.The level of support is in general at least that enjoyed by theshire county unitary bids that were approved by the Secretaryof State in July 2007.

Boundary Committee question 5: Role of parish andtown councils in the proposed Community BoardarrangementsCommunity Boards would provide opportunities forparish and town councils to influence and participate inlocal decision making.Devon benefits from vibrant parish and town councils thatlead and represent their local communities. A single unitary

Summary

Devon County Council’s response to the Boundary Committee’s “Draft proposal for unitary local government in Devon”2

Summary

authority for Devon would provide support and advice toparish and town councils and give them the opportunity totake responsibility for local services where they wished to doso.

Boundary Committee question 6: Roles andresponsibilities of the proposed Community BoardsCommunity Boards would provide a single channel forthe unitary authority to organise its communityengagement, consultation and decision-making in alocal area.The unitary authority would establish a framework for theaccountabilities of the Boards. They would have a communitydevelopment budget and delegated decision-makingresponsibility for key service areas. The unitary authority,town/parish councils and their partners would jointlyestablish the exact area to be covered by each Board.

Boundary Committee question 7: Accountability forservice deliveryA single unitary authority for Devon would provideservices and exercise its responsibilities in a coherentand efficient way.Services would be delivered through area based structuresand teams. Area planning/licensing committees and sub-committees based on the footprint of the three Spatial andEconomic Boards would make decisions on planningapplications.

Two unitary authority patternThe two unitary pattern would increase complexity andrequire the dismantling of integrated service delivery andmanagement arrangements. It is unclear how a coherent setof community engagement and neighbourhoodempowerment structures would be achieved for residualDevon and the Exeter/Exmouth area. There does not seemto be the prospect of this model commanding support.

Summary of the financial assessments submitted to theBoundary Committee on 12 September 2008

Single unitary authority for Devon● Saving of £28million over five years● Transition costs paid in three years and eight months● £19million year on year savings● Community leadership costs included● Reducing council tax to lowest rate

Exeter and Exmouth unitary● Saving of £100,000 over five years● Transition costs paid in four years and ten months● £3.1million year on year savings● Does not include community leadership proposals● Reducing council tax to lowest rate

Residual Devon unitary● Saving of £1.2million over five years● Transitions costs paid in four years and 11 months● £10million year on year savings● Community leadership costs included● Reducing council tax to lowest rate

1. Introduction


We focus in this response on answering the seven keyquestions posed by the Committee (as set out inside thecover of this document) in relation to our initial concept fora single unitary authority for Devon (“Flying the Flag forDevon: Strong Leadership and Local Focus”: April 2008). Wealso explain why the alternative pattern of two unitaryauthorities would not have the capacity, if implemented, tomeet the Secretary of State’s five criteria. Finally, we haveinclude appendices which make initial suggestions aboutgovernance and democratic structures and provide key factsand figures.

A single unitary authority for Devon would be able torespond to challenges and capitalise on opportunitiesin ways that the current structure of local governmentsometimes serves to prevent or frustrate. RestructuringDevon’s county and district councils into one new,efficient and responsive local authority would createthe capacity to enable Devon to punch its weight atregional, national and European levels. It would unlockthe potential of the town and parish tier of localgovernment and provide the structures to reinvigorateboth representative and participative democracy at thelocal level.

1. Introduction

We share the Boundary Committee’s view that a singleunitary authority for Devon would be the best pattern of localgovernment for the county, its people and communities andhas the capacity to meet the five criteria set by the Secretaryof State that a proposal should:

1. Attract a broad cross-section of support.2. Provide for strong, effective and accountable strategic

leadership.3. Deliver the empowerment of citizens and

communities, so that all communities have power andresources to influence the decisions that affect them intheir localities.

4. Provide value-for-money services – services should beprovided effectively, efficiently and in an integrated andcoherent way, ultimately driving up customer satisfaction.

5. Be affordable – the change to a unitary structure shoulddeliver value for money and be self-financing, withtransitional costs being capable of being paid back withina five year period.

We believe that the alternative idea of a two unitary pattern:a residual Devon and an Exeter/Exmouth unitary authoritywould fail to meet all five criteria – particularly the crucialtest of affordability.


The Local Government Commission assessed the case for aseparate unitary authority for Exeter in 1995 and was of theview that “Exeter does not have the same size, strength orwider influence of Plymouth or Bristol and it is debatable asto whether unitary status would in practice bring theinvestment opportunities that have been suggested.” TheCommission concluded that “The interests of Exeter are inter-dependent with those of the rest of the county. TheCommission remains convinced that Exeter’s centrality withinDevon is of critical importance to the decision on structure,and it further believes that inter-dependence is a strongerprinciple than separation.” (Sir David Cooksey, Chairman ofthe Local Government Commission, December 1995)

The Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy for the SouthWest (RSS) identifies Exeter as one of 21 strategicallysignificant cities and towns that play a critical strategicregional or sub-regional role. Exeter is a focal point foreconomic activity, cultural facilities and a wide range ofservices. The city is at the centre of a hub of strategic roadand rail networks and has a growing economic influence.The presence within the sub-region of Exeter InternationalAirport and the University of Exeter, together with the city’scultural and retail strengths have encouraged strongeconomic growth over the last 20 years. This success hasbeen underpinned by positive joint working between thecounty, city and district councils.

2. Devon County Council’s responsesto the key questions identified by theBoundary Committee’s “Draftproposal for unitary local governmentin Devon”

Other consultees have presented the Boundary Committeewith information describing the differences between thesocial and economic characteristics of Exeter and the rest ofDevon. We submitted evidence to the Committee at stage 2of the review that demonstrated that those differences aremarginal. Their existence does not mean that separation isthe correct response or that the city functions in isolation.Exeter is not just a city by itself: it is an integral part of a muchlarger community reaching out into a wide sub-region.

The benefits of the economic, planning and transportationlinks and interdependencies between Exeter, the city’s sub-region and Devon as a whole would be lost if the city werenot to be included in a single unitary authority for Devon.The inclusion of Exeter is essential for the delivery of effectiveand efficient services which provide value for money. Wedescribe, in section 3 below, the diseconomies, inefficienciesand complexities for public service delivery that would ariseshould Exeter not be included in a county-wide authority.

Exeter is a small city with a wide influence: over 40% of thepeople employed in Exeter live outside the city. Exeter’ssuccess is built on its strategic location and its futureprospects are crucially dependent on the economic health ofDevon as a whole. Exeter cannot afford not to be part ofcounty wide systems and structures for economic and landuse planning.

2. Draft proposal for unitary local government in Devon:Devon County Council’s responses to the key questions identified by the Boundary Committee

2.1 Boundary Committee question 1

“Our view on the necessary inclusion of Exeter in a county-wide authority, particularlywhether it will support the city’s economic growth and promote the growth of the county.”


an increasing number of its working residents workingoutside the City’s boundaries. In 2001 over 29,000 workerstravelled daily into the city to work, while 9,000 travelled outto work.

Inward investmentDevon’s current capacity to compete on a national andinternational stage for new business is limited by its locationand by the dissipation of effort across the authoritiesinvolved. The separation of Exeter from the rest of Devonwould lead to unhelpful competition in attracting newbusinesses and hinder the development of the city andcounty’s economy. The potential for the growth of existingsmall businesses, such as food producers and rurally basedindustries, spread out across the county would also bejeopardised. Exeter provides a focus for enterprises to cometogether under the Devon brand to gain recognition that farexceeds anything that could be done by smaller groups. In analready small market, a further dilution of this capacity wouldnot assist any of the businesses involved that gain benefitfrom the cross county branding.

The continuing growth of Exeter and Devon is dependentupon a number of factors:

● Transport links● Inward investment● Housing for working families● Brand recognition● Skills● Funding

Transport linksExeter’s travel to work area stretches as far as Axminster tothe east, Okehampton to the west, Teignmouth/NewtonAbbot to the south and Tiverton to the north. This area notonly reflects the travelling distance for those working inExeter, but also the city’s cultural, retail and further andhigher education catchment areas.

Proportionately more people travel to work in Exeter fromCrediton than from Exmouth. Conversely, census data showsthat Exeter has become less self-contained since 1991, with


LegendExeter-Exmouth Proposal

Workers travelling toExeter (2001 Census)

4 - 50

51 - 100

101 - 250

251 - 500

501 +

Workers travelling to Exeter & Exmouth

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission ofOrdnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and maylead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019783. 2008


and Exmouth unitary authority. “Raising Expectations”,published by DIUS/DCSF in March 2008 proposes to transferthe Learning and Skills Council’s responsibilities and fundingto a number of agencies including first tier local authoritiesworking in sub-regional groups reflecting ‘travel to learn’patterns.

FundingThe reforms in government’s July 2007 “Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration (SNR)”strengthen local authorities’ role in economic developmentthrough a new statutory economic assessment duty andsupport local authorities in working together at the sub-regional level. It is difficult to envisage how these additionalresponsibilities could be better discharged by two unitaryauthorities rather than one. Central and regional governmentfunding is increasingly being allocated on the basis of largergroupings to enable resources to be allocated in the mosteffective way. The Department for Communities and LocalGovernment is proposing changes to the Local AuthorityBusiness Growth Incentives Scheme that emphasise sub-regional government and groupings of councils in economicdevelopment. The changes recognise the contribution thatcounty and unitary councils make to economic developmentand will give them more responsibility.

Links between rural and urban areasResearch by the University of the West of England in 2005examined the economic productivity of the South Westregion and the causes of its variation. Among the influencingfactors, workforce skills, especially at the basic and high ends,were of particular significance. The maps which wesubmitted with our answers to the Committee’s May 2008questions showed that there is a complex distribution ofworkforce skills, with some north-south contrast, across thecounty. The pattern for Exeter-Exmouth is not distinct ordifferent from the remainder of the county. Another factorwas distance from national urban centres, which again isclearly not one that affects Exeter-Exmouth any differentlyfrom other parts of Devon.

The interdependence of Exeter-Exmouth and the remainderof the county is most clearly expressed in the travel-to-workpatterns described above. Whilst the Exeter-Exmouth areashows a degree of self-containment, this is only a reflectionof the truism that people tend to live near to their work, andsimilar levels can be constructed on different boundaries.

Exeter is the county’s hub for professional services such asaccountancy and law. These services rely on customers notjust from Exeter or its sub-region but also from across thecounty. This focus serves to emphasise the symbioticrelationship between the city and the county that would beharmed by splitting the effort and having drivers of changepulling in different directions.

Housing for working familiesA successful and growing economy needs to have additionalhousing for those working within the city area. As Exeter’stravel to work area covers such a wide region, it is essentialthat economic development is linked to housing strategiesthat can provide the workforce from across Devon. The MetOffice’s move to Exeter resulted in much of the incomingworkforce opting to live well outside Exeter’s boundaries andthis is likely to be repeated in new developments.

Exeter’s Housing Market Area extends across Teignbridge,East Devon, Mid-Devon and into west Dorset and southSomerset. The Exeter Housing Strategy 2008-2012 (ExeterCity Council, August 2008) highlights that “the full housingrequirement cannot be met within local governmentadministrative boundaries” and that boundaries which implya rural/urban split do not work when considering the way inwhich people live and work in Devon. A single unitaryauthority covering the majority of this functional area wouldensure coherence, economies of scale and a strategicapproach. It would also implement an integrated planningpolicy and avoid conflicting priorities.

Brand recognitionDevon has a profile that is perceived as a destination ofchoice to live, work, invest and learn. Research and surveyresults demonstrate that Devon has a strong brand imagewhich is recognised by those who are not familiar with thecounty, and that this is higher than Cornwall’s and nearlytwice as high as that for Exeter. The view is that potentialbusinesses choose the whole package provided by Devon interms of countryside, coasts and lifestyle choice as well asthe opportunities offered to businesses in the region.

SkillsGrowth in Exeter and Devon as a whole relies on having theappropriate skills available to support businesses. Workforceskills are spread across the county, with Exeter as aneducational hub. The designated area of Exeter Collegeextends well beyond the boundary suggested for an Exeter




The Board would build on the experience that has alreadybeen gained by the Exeter and Eastern Devon Sub-RegionalSpatial Strategy Steering Group and the Exeter and EastDevon Growth Point Strategic Board. The latter hasmembership made up of representatives from the businesssector, the Highways Agency, Government Office SouthWest, the Regional Development Agency, the EnvironmentAgency and Natural England as well as members and officers.This membership would also form the basis of the Spatialand Economic Board.

Bringing the two Growth Point Boards under themanagement of the Spatial and Economic Board, along withoversight of the major developments for the East of Exeterincluding the Science Park and Sky Park, would provideleadership and connections and a greater integration ofeconomic, transportation, planning and infrastructure acrossthe sub-region. Strong links would also be provided to theRegional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and the Local DevelopmentFramework (LDF).

One of the expectations of the July 2007 Sub-NationalReview is that local authorities must have the capability todeliver before responsibility can be delegated from theRegional Development Agency. The capacity of the unitaryauthority for managing major projects would be reinforcedthrough the management of major developments across thecounty and expertise would be shared to benefit of all thepartners involved. A unitary authority for Devon whichincluded Exeter would be in a position to forward fund keyelements of the East of Exeter infrastructure which will not beprogressed by developers given the current economicclimate. Without this capacity there is a real risk thatdevelopments such as the Science Park and Sky Park will notproceed which would have a damaging effect on both Exeterand wider Devon.

The Board would have responsibility for the delivery ofintegrated regional and sub regional plans relating tostrategic planning, the economy, housing, developmentmanagement, skills, transportation, the environment,flooding and other key spatial activities. The membershipincluding the unitary council, the business sector, the RDA,bodies such as the Environment Agency, English Heritage andEnglish Nature, learning and skills sector and ExeterUniversity, will ensure that all stakeholders that have a part toplay and a key interest will be able to contribute to the futureof the sub region.

The work commissioned from the Centre for Urban andRegional Development Studies at Newcastle University byExeter City Council demonstrated that the wards closest toExeter had the strongest interaction with the city, and thatthe level of interaction declined with distance. This isunsurprising and does not provide compelling evidence tosuggest that the boundary be drawn as Exeter City Councilsuggested in their submission, nor that it should follow theboundary of the suggested Exeter-Exmouth unitary authority.Both of those boundaries can be considered arbitrary, andrepresent neither a tight delimitation of urban Exeter, nor thefull extent of the city’s economic role which spreads far wider.

Exeter’s central role in the county is, of course, closely relatedto its geographical position. Comparisons have been madebetween Exeter and other unitary authorities such as Telfordand Wrekin, Swindon, Nottingham, Bournemouth and Poole.Those are unitary authorities which are on, or close to, theperipheries of their former counties. Bournemouth is moreclosely linked to Hampshire than Dorset and despite itsproximity to the thriving M4 corridor, Swindon was, untilrecently, a poorly performing council subject to governmentintervention.

Exeter City Council cites research that demonstrates thatwhere urban unitary authorities were created in the 1990sin Durham, Wiltshire, Leicestershire, Dorset, Staffordshire andShropshire the economic performance of the remaining areawas better than the unitary urban area. If this is correct, itsuggests an even stronger case for Exeter being included ina county-wide authority for Devon.

Spatial and Economic Board for the Exeter Sub-RegionOur concept for unitary local government across Devonenvisages the establishment of three Spatial and EconomicBoards based on the county’s functional economic and travelto work areas. The Spatial and Economic Board for the ExeterSub-Region would have a key role in providing the leadershipfor the economic growth of the sub-region and influencingthe growth in the rest of Devon. It would be responsible fortwo Growth Points and a number of other majordevelopments that would impact on the whole of the SouthWest region.



There is a network of partnerships and groups underpinningthe DSP and our concept for a single unitary authority forDevon is for a strengthening and simplification of theirconnections with the DSP. Each of those partnerships andgroups would therefore review their membership to ensureeffective and proportionate representation for Exeter.

These new arrangements would enable the DSP to achievebetter outcomes for people and communities in Devon. Theywould support the delivery of the Devon SustainableCommunity Strategy 2008-2018 and the LAA and removethe complexities associated with the present district localstrategic partnerships.

The Devon Strategic Partnership’s (DSP) strategic leadershiprole would be strengthened by the creation of a unitaryauthority for Devon. It would be integral to the unitaryauthority’s governance arrangements and bring public sectorbodies and agencies together in order to achieve the visionand long-term priorities set out in the Devon SustainableCommunity Strategy. It would enable partners to addressproblems and challenges for Devon in a regional and nationalcontext. The DSP would continue to be the forum forcollectively reviewing and steering public resources and thefocus for managing the Devon Local Area Agreement.

The Partnership’s membership would be reduced to matchthe reduction in the number of local authority members andstrengthened to reflect Exeter’s key role in the county. TheDSP Partnership Board would include the chairman of theCity Board for Exeter, reflecting Exeter’s importance as thecapital of the county. The DSP Delivery Board would includeunitary council officers with responsibility for Exeter andrepresentatives of the Strategic Boards.


“Whether there is a need to extend the membership of the Devon Strategic Partnership toreflect more fully Exeter’s key role in the county.”



A further option for community governance might be thedevelopment of semi-formal neighbourhood partnerships,chaired by a local unitary councillor and based on ‘natural’community areas, determined by local people. This could beachieved by building on the work of the current City Councilthrough their four neighbourhood engagement pilotprojects. These are beginning to devolve power and fundingdown to community level, and we would envisage this beingextended as the partnerships mature, with resources anddecision-making being devolved to neighbourhood level.Street scene, community safety, parking, play provision andyouth activities are among the services which might bedevolved to neighbourhood level. As with parishes,mechanisms would be put in place to ensure thatneighbourhood partnerships were able to articulate theirviews and issues to the City Board.

We would learn from the experience of the work of theTransform Neighbourhood Management Programme forNorth Devon in Ilfracombe, Bratton Fleming and CombeMartin. Our experience of working in Exeter with localcommunities/groups in developing school travel plans, theExeter Cycle Development Town project and the WonfordHome Zone demonstrates the County Council’s track recordof working locally at neighbourhood level. This experiencewould inform neighbourhood work, whether parishes arecreated or neighbourhood structures are developed.

There are strong links between neighbourhood engagementand neighbourhood policing. Our proposal would deliver theaspirations in the July 2008 policing green paper “From theneighbourhood to the national: policing our communitiestogether” (Home Office) to bring together local policing withservices provided by local authorities, housing associationsand others to contribute to community safety by tacklingcrime and anti-social behaviour.

Community Governance in ExeterExeter has a thriving network of neighbourhood, voluntaryand community groups and organisations but, unlike the restof Devon, no elected third tier (parish and town council)representatives. The unitary authority would build on thestrengths of the third sector and also offer the opportunity toestablish an elected tier of local government at local level.Both community participation and elected representation arevital to support genuine empowerment and engagement.Our model for the city would ensure that they complementone another in the same way that parish/town councils andCommunity Boards would work in the rest of the county.

The unitary authority would initiate a community governancereview for the current Exeter City Council area drawing onthe guidance published jointly by the Department forCommunities and Local Government and the ElectoralCommission earlier this year. The review would establish theneeds and wishes of the people of Exeter including those ofthe many local community groups, residents and tenantsassociations and the emerging pilot neighbourhoodpartnerships. Whilst the unitary authority would set the termsof reference of the review, we envisage that the keyobjectives would be to develop structures to enable localpeople to have a real voice in the design and delivery of localservices, and conduits through which they can bring issues tothe authority’s attention. Improving access to services andinformation would be a key factor, as would mechanisms toimprove community cohesion.

One of the outcomes of the review could be theestablishment of urban parishes based on Exeter’s naturalneighbourhoods. Alternatively, and possibly less likely,another could be the establishment of a town council forExeter. This is a model which we believe would work welland would combine the advantages of democratically electedrepresentation with the opportunity for all citizens to becomeinvolved in community governance at a very local level.Parishes could adopt the terminology of ‘communitycouncils’. Should this model be adopted, then electedrepresentatives of these councils would be able to participateas voting members of the City Board as described below.


“Further information on the community governance model envisaged for the city of Exeteras part of a county unitary authority.”



There is support for the draft proposal from all areas of theeducation and skills sector where many organisations haveconcerns that the disaggregation of education services in thecounty would lead to unnecessary duplication and a loss ofeconomies of scale.

The Boundary Committee’s draft proposal satisfies thecriterion that the change to a unitary structure, if it were tobe made, should at least have a measure of support from arange of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens.Previous experience shows that many people find theprospect of a change to a unitary structure unwelcome.Many of the responses to the consultation reflect theuncertainties and doubts that people understandably haveabout such a significant change.

The Boundary Committee’s website has published lettersfrom members of the public who oppose the draft proposal,with the majority favouring the retention of the current threetier structure of local government in Devon. We believe thatthis response is the result of negative publicity andmisinformation about the draft proposal; nor have theirresponses had the benefit of being able to take account ofthe results of the financial assessments submitted to theCommittee on 12 September 2008.

Despite the impact of negative campaigning by some districtlocal authorities, a cross section of town and parishcouncils is enthusiastic about the possibilities andopportunities that a single unitary authority for Devon has tooffer. Discussions with councils to explore issues in depth,particularly about Community Boards, have shown that thosewho were initially doubtful are keen to investigate theopportunities and some of them propose to test the conceptin their areas.

We consider that the level of support for the draft proposalis in general at least that enjoyed by the shire county unitarybids which were approved by the Secretary of State in July2007.


“Further evidence that a county-wide unitary authority has a broad cross-section of supportfrom a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens.”

“Our principal concern is that the efficient large scaleservices of education and social services provided bythe county should not be broken up. We also considerthat three or four Unitaries in Devon (plus Plymouthand Torbay) would be too small to be truly viable,again for reasons previously stated. To this extent wesupport the proposal.”Rackenford and Creacombe Parish Council

“This council broadly supports the concept ofcommunity boards consisting of Town/Parish councils,the unitary authority and representatives ofcommunity interest groups to help reinforce decisionmaking at the local level”Dawlish Town Council

“After deliberations my Council feel it makes senseto support the Boundary Committee’s proposals toreplace all of the existing 8 district councils and theDevon county council with a single unitary council forDevon” Heanton Punchardon Parish Council

“The Council unanimously agreed to respond to theconsultation by indicating that the Town Councilstrongly supported the proposal for a single unitaryauthority, which included Exeter within it…” Crediton Town Council

“… ultimately it must cost more to deliver servicesacross two new structures than one. For this reason,of the two proposals, the Devon Unitary Authoritycomprising of the existing county of Devon, with nochanges to Plymouth and Torbay would, in our view,be the one that would best serve the people ofDevon.” Connexions

“We are opposed to any proposal that might lead tothe break up of state education structures.”NASUWT



Leading businesses in Devon, particularly national orregional companies, are supportive of a single unitary councilin Devon. Business leaders in Devon are concerned about theconsequences of disaggregating services such as road andtraffic management and waste disposal. They see the draftproposal as strengthening leadership and giving them theconfidence to invest.

“We therefore support the move by the BoundaryCommission to have one Unitary Authority for thewhole of Devon as we believe it best meets thecriteria of affordability, strategic leadership and valuefor money services.” NUT

“Our main reason for supporting and endorsing yourproposals is the importance of planning strategicallyand coordinating the supply and development of skillslinked with economic regeneration and developmentcost effectively.” Learning and Skills Council

“There exists a capacity within larger councils toefficiently procure services and projects from theprivate sector and develop standards and practicesthat encourage continuous improvement andinnovation… We would very much welcome theformation of a Devon unitary authority comprisingthe existing county of Devon with no changes toPlymouth and Torbay’.” MIDAS

“Since the question of a Unitary Authority was firstconsidered we have supported the need for a singlestrong and efficient countywide administration… Inour view there are a number of areas where a singleunitary authority having a more joined up strategy,programme and budget would be beneficial.” ROK group

“A unitary authority based on the existing countyboundary would provide the most appropriatebalance of quality and effectiveness of service whilstmaintaining, or enhancing, local democracy”.Parsons Brinkerhoff

“Having seen for myself the negative effects on bothTorbay and Plymouth that have resulted from theirunitary status and the comparative success of Exeterin the current system, I am now persuaded that Exeterwould in the long term be better served if it were atthe heart of a unitary County…” Richard Jacobs, EIC Ltd Exeter

“the opportunities to deliver the step change from anhistoric reliance on landfill are greatly enhanced whenwaste collection and waste disposal authorities workas close as possible. The replacement of the existingtwo-tier system in Devon with the Committee’s draftproposal for a single unitary authority will provide theplatform for driving value from that economy of scale,making the connection of collection and treatmentcomplementary." Viridor Waste Management Ltd

“From a practical point of view, we give 24-houremergency cover, 365 days a year. It would benonsense to duplicate the weather radar, icedetection, CCTV and traffic signals from separatecontrol centres. From a public perspective highwaysand emergencies do not stop at political boundaries.”SWH Ltd (Formerly South West Highways)

continued



“The community board concept is a logical way tobring scrutiny, influence and information to a morelocal area. Many councils see that bringing togethertown and parish councils, along with unitarycouncillors and other bodies could be beneficial.”Devon Association of Parish Councils

“CCD is strongly in support of the trend to favouraction and accountability at a community level, whilstachieving better co-ordination at a strategic level…CCD therefore favours the Devon wide solution overthe two unitaries pattern.” Community Council of Devon

“we totally support the work in hand and yourprimary proposals – for a single unitary authority forDevon in addition to the existing ones for Plymouthand Torbay.” Villages in Action

Voluntary and community groups and bodies such as theDevon Association of Parish Councils see the benefit of asingle unitary authority for Devon as giving them a strongervoice and the opportunity to build on the strength and senseof identity of Devon’s communities.

Public sector bodies are supportive of a single unitaryauthority, many have indicated that they will be writing tothe Boundary Committee to express their views.

“The trust sees considerable advantages from theproposal to create a single unitary authority for Devonfor local people. Combining the functions of theCounty Council, Exeter City Council and the districtcouncils will create sufficient critical mass to attract,recruit and retain a high calibre of staff as well asproviding economies of scale which a number ofsmaller authorities may not be able to achieve.”Devon Partnership Trust

“This Authority fully supports the draft proposal ofthe Committee for just three unitary authorities inDevon comprising Plymouth and Torbay (both on theirexisting boundaries) and a third one for the remainderof Devon. I should add that this Authorityemphatically does not support the other option…..”Devon and Cornwall Police Authority



Devon benefits from vibrant parish and town councils thatlead and represent their local communities. The number ofQuality councils is evidence of the success of their work, theirenthusiasm for community-led planning and extent ofdevolved and delegated decision-making. The responsesfrom parishes and towns to the Boundary Committee’sconsultation demonstrate that there are energetic andenthusiastic councils across the county with the desire to takeup the opportunities that a single unitary authority for Devonwould afford them.

We held over 70 consultation meetings with Devon residents,district, town and parish councils, MPs, business leaders,trades unions and public service providers during March/April2008. The Community Boards and the role of town andparish councils were a particular focus for discussion andquestions at most of those meetings and we followed themup by publishing “A Unitary Council for Devon. Your Questions Answered”(available at www.devon.gov.uk/dcc_feedback_doc_5.pdf).That document explains that parish and town councils wouldcontinue to be statutory bodies in their own right and retaintheir existing powers and responsibilities. It also describeshow Community Boards would offer town and parishcouncils an opportunity to enhance their role and play asignificant part in determining and meeting local priorities.

We have worked with the Devon Association of ParishCouncils and individual town and parish councils during thetwelve-week consultation period. A group comprising theCounty Secretary of the Devon Association of ParishCouncils, the Clerks to Exmouth, Ivybridge, Dunkeswell andIpplepen Quality councils and Devon County Council havefurther developed the proposal for Community Boards andexplored the role of town and parish councils. We shared theresults of that work at well attended events for town andparish councils on 15, 16 and 17 September and discussedthem with a large group clerks and councillors at a DAPCmeeting. We were also pleased to accept invitations to givepresentations and attend parish/town council and publicmeetings across Devon during the consultation period, whichwere an invaluable source of ideas and suggestions.


“Considered views from parish and town councils in regard to their envisaged role in theproposed Community Board arrangements.”

CASE STUDY

Parish and Town Councils and DemocraticRepresentation

“One aspect which has been mentioned by a numberof people relates to local democratic representation.Although, the Town/Parish sector has been outsidethe main focus of the debate the third tier willcontinue in the same way (or in an enhanced role)whichever format is selected, but it has generallybeen largely ignored in the debate. However, thediscussion about lack of local democraticrepresentation seems persistently to fail to recognisethe fact that there is a vast number of locally electedTown and Parish Councillors who are the most directlink with the residents. The democratic deficit debateonly has any credibility if it is being suggested thatthe third tier Councillors have no validity or areincapable of representing their communities – it hasto be very clearly highlighted that Town Councillorsare capable of providing that vital link withincommunities having in the region of 800 constituentseach. In Parishes this is likely to provide an even betterlevel of democratic representation with fewerparishioners per Councillor. Any new Unitary structureneeds to recognise the role of Town/Parish Councillorsand ensure that they are engaged with the relevantUnitary Councillor(s).”Town Clerk, Ivybridge Town Council - report 1st September 2008


The results of the 2007 research programme, funded byDevon County Council and undertaken by the CommunityCouncil for Devon, which examined how local governmentmight better engage with rural communities are pertinent tothe Committee’s question about the role of parish and towncouncils. The research findings showed that ruralcommunities generally want to have a greater influence overtheir area rather than direct responsibility for providingservices. It showed that a lack of funding, even relativelysmall amounts, to meet local priorities, frustrates anddiscourages local initiative. It also revealed that the presentcounty, district and parish/town structure was not viewed aseffectively addressing the concerns and problems of ruralcommunities. It identified the potential for parish and towncouncils to have an enhanced role and that in order toachieve this, they would require support to build capacity andskills.

It is clear from our discussions with parish and town councilsthat they all perform, often with very limited resources, aninvaluable role in their local communities with councillorswilling to invest time and energy. Some parish and towncouncils have concerns that a single unitary authority forDevon would mean the loss of the working relationships andnetworks of contacts that they have established over timewith both county council and district local authority membersand officers. Some councils are worried that a unitaryauthority’s expectations might in some way deter councillorsfrom standing or clerks from coming forward. In workingwith parish and town councils, the unitary authority wouldrecognise the differences and be sensitive to the variationsbetween them. It would not oblige councils to take on moreresponsibilities where they did not wish to do so nor seek toimpose a uniform approach to community empowermentand local engagement.

The unitary authority would support all parish and towncouncils through technical advice; identifying contact pointsfor specialist expertise and guidance and ways to quicklyreport and remedy local problems and issues. The unitaryauthority would establish a presence, a local office sharedwith other service providers or one-stop shop, in each of theCommunity Board areas to improve local access to services.The unitary authority would need to draw on the examplesof existing good practice in supporting and working with theDAPC and parish and town councils in areas such as thedevelopment of business cases for new projects; the existingcounty-wide database of parish, town and community plans;training in planning/development control and advice onfunding applications. Town and parish councils would haveaccess to the unitary authority’s information systems,

management information, management support andlogistical support where this is cost effective; helps town andparish councils with capacity issues and is practical in termsof providing economies of scale. Town and parish councillorswould also be key members of Community Boards and theirrole is described in our answer to question 6 below.

We envisage that a single unitary authority for Devon wouldgive parish and town councils the opportunity to takeresponsibility for local services where they wished to do so.Our view is that the unitary authority should identify, withthe active involvement of the Devon Association of ParishCouncils, a menu of potential services and responsibilitiesthat could be delegated and work with councils to establishthe best arrangements. Our work joint work has identifiedthe following services and responsibilities:

● Allotments● Bus shelters● Café licences● Community recycling and composting● Disabled parking bays● Grass cutting● Housing maintenance● Leisure/cultural facilities● Off street parking – net income going to town/parish

councils● Parks, gardens and open space● Parking permits● Public conveniences● Public rights of way and cycle routes● Recycling promotion● Skip and scaffold licences● Street cleaning – removal of graffiti and litter● Street naming/numbering● Street lighting● Street markets● Tourist information centres

Town and parish councils may already be providing some ofthese services. Others would be taking on services currentlyprovided by district local authorities but possibly someprovided by the county council. Personal services such ashousing, housing benefits, environmental services etc, whichbenefit from economies of scale would need to be managedat a more strategic level. The arrangements should, wherelegal and practical, reflect the preferences and capacity ofeach parish or town council and be developed collaboratively.The unitary authority would need to ensure that the way inwhich delegated services are financed did not lead to doubletaxation.



The unitary authority could give town and parish councils,with the capacity and aspiration, a role in the managementor ownership of community assets, such as leisure centresand theatres.

The unitary authority could, for example, delegateplanning/development control responsibilities to parish andcouncils, by making arrangements for them to determinecategories of minor householder applications, applicationsfor advertisement consent and work to protected trees.


CASE STUDY

Devolution of responsibility and decision-making: Exmouth

Responsibility for the maintenance and cleanliness oftown centre street scene currently rests with theCounty and District Councils. However, in a numberof cases the County Council, District Council andTown Councils work together with key day to daymatters being delegated to the town council. In onesuch case Exmouth expressed an interest inmaintaining its bus shelters to provide a speedyresponse when problems occurred and to ensure thatits own priorities would be reflected in the work. Anagreement was struck and Exmouth was givenappropriate funding and, within agreed parameters,was given responsibility for the maintenance andrepair of its bus shelters. Since then Exmouth hastaken responsibility for the maintenance of all itsstreet furniture, clearing of weeds and graffiti, andgeneral cleanliness. The outcome is that the town isable to identify its own priorities and to react quicklywhere problems are identified.

The unitary authority would need to give particularrecognition to parish and town councils that have achievedQuality status and this could be the trigger for discussionsabout delegated services. However, we recognise that thisaccreditation is not necessarily the only way in which a parishor town council can demonstrate its ability to deliver servicesand represent a local community.

CASE STUDY

Dawlish Town Council. Unitary Governance for Devon

“This Council was granted Quality Parish Councilstatus in 2004, and as a result it is expected that,when the finer points of the “power of wellbeing”are agreed by central Government, then DawlishTown Council will be in a position to make thefollowing areas of the parish more viable through:● Promoting and improving the economic well-being

of the Parish.● Promoting and improving the social well-being of

the Parish.● Promoting and improving the environmental well-

being of the Parish.The above improvements are dependent uponprovision of services being devolved by the PrincipalAuthority for the area in which the Parish is situated.

In order to achieve, this Council hopes to enter aCharter Agreement with the Unitary Authority toenable the Council to provide services directly to theelectorate in the parish such as:● Markets● Car Parks (all aspects to include maintenance and

revenue)● Public Conveniences● Control/maintenance of all parks/gardens and

public open spaces● Footpaths (definitive map)● Development Control (planning) decisions

delegated to officers.● Environmental health (street/cafe licences etc)● Clean Neighbourhood Act 2005● Street naming and numbering● Aspects of leisure and tourism● Play areas and skateboard parks● Council Tax Collection (as part of one-stop-shop

programme)

As a Quality Council, Dawlish Town Council wouldexpect to:● Host/facilitate an umbrella community committee

in order to provide a voice to the Unitary Authorityfrom a group/cluster of towns/parishes in thevicinity.

● Provide a One-Stop-Shop facility for all servicesprovided by town/unitary.”

Extract from “Dawlish Town Council. Unitary Governance for Devon. July 2008”



Each Community Board would cover the geographical area ofa town and the surrounding villages and rural communities.A wide variety of local interests would be represented oneach Board, including representatives of key statutorypartners, local business and the voluntary and communitysector. It would be important for the unitary authority,town/parish councils and their partners jointly to establishthe exact area to be covered by each Board and itsmembership. This could lead to a Community Board beingestablished for an area such as the Blackdown Hills whereparish councils are already linked through a well-establishednetwork and where there is a secondary school which servesthat distinct rural community.

Each Board would be chaired by a unitary authority councillorand include all those unitary councillors whose electoral areafalls wholly or partly within the agreed Board area. Optionsfor the direct involvement of parish and town councils range

Community BoardsThe projected 28 Community Boards, based around Devon’stowns and their hinterland of villages and rural communities,have the capacity to become an innovative way to devolvedecision-making and enable communities to influence serviceprovision and resource allocation. This question asks forfurther definition of the Boards’ role and for clarification ofthe two-way relationship between Boards and town/parishcouncils.

At present, local strategic partnerships and communityforums are often outside councils’ decision making structuresand in two tier areas, such as Devon, it has been difficult forthe two existing democratically elected principal authorities,with different sets of functions, to co-ordinate the way theyengage with local communities. There is a myriad of localformal and informal partnerships and groups across thecounty that the creation of Community Boards wouldrationalise and reduce. The Boards would lead to significantsavings of money and staff time. They would provide a singlechannel for the unitary council to organise its communityengagement, consultation and decision making in a localarea.


“The roles and responsibilities of the proposed Community Boards, particularly as they areperceived by parish and town councils and other groups likely to be involved as Boardrepresentatives.”

Meeting Local Priorities and Communities’Needs

“Councils and their partners are being expected toplay a broader role in leading their communities asthey tackle significant challenges, such as supportingthe development of the local economy, respondingto the needs of the rapidly increasing proportion ofolder people, improving environmental sustainability,tackling climate change and reducing crime andinequalities. The interconnected nature of thesechallenges highlights the importance of effective localgovernance, including purposeful engagement withlocal people in their various roles as taxpayers,residents, service users, employers and volunteers.Citizens expect local services to make good use ofnew technology and other means to provide readyinformation, easy access to services and responsivedecisions. Increasingly, citizens expect direct access toinformation about local services.”Extract from “Comprehensive Area AssessmentFramework Proposals for Consultation”, AuditCommission, July 2008


from one councillor from each local council in the area (whichin some cases would create very large Boards) to establishinga locally agreed basis for clustering parishes and for eachcluster to nominate a representative for their cluster – this isan approach taken by the Devon Association of ParishCouncils in securing representation on its County Committee.In those Board areas with a large number of parishes, theremay be merit in drawing on the experience of the WestDevon Link Committees model and exploring a similararrangement to provide the opportunity for all parishes tobe involved.

Councils will from April 2009 have a “duty to involve” localpeople in decision-making, requiring authorities to involverepresentatives of local people in the exercise of theirfunctions. The Comprehensive Area Assessment, whichcomes into effect in April 2009, will examine how well localpriorities express community needs and aspirations.

Community Boards will, together with the CommunityForums described below, fulfill that duty and satisfy the CAArequirements by:● Providing opportunities for people to influence and

directly participate in making local decisions.● Providing a mechanism for the unitary authority to use

local consultation to inform broader strategy.● Providing feedback on decisions, services, policies and

outcomes.● Co-designing policies and services by being involved in the

commissioning of services.● Co-producing and carrying out some aspects of services

for themselves.● Defining priority outcomes for the area and assessing

whether they are being delivered.● Looking at the effectiveness of all local partners’ activities.

The unitary authority would establish a consistent frameworkfor the accountabilities of the Community Boards. Our viewis that the pace of development and detail of CommunityBoards would vary depending on local circumstances andcontext in each area. Existing bodies, community groups orforums within each area would provide the foundations forthe establishment of Community Boards and work jointlywith the unitary authority to do so.

The Community Boards are not intended as service deliverybodies but would have delegated decision-makingresponsibility for key service areas. In addition, each Boardwould have a community development budget and forillustration we showed, as part of our concept, how a savingof just 0.5% of the current combined County and districtlocal authority expenditure would produce an average of£200,000 for each Board. This cost was taken into account

in the affordability assessment submitted to the Committeeon 12 September 2008.

We see the role of Community Boards as being to:● Develop and hold the ‘vision’ for the area.● Develop and implement a community action plan that

addresses priorities for the area by building on existingplans and strategies.

● Influence budget allocations, spending priorities and takedecisions on devolved services.

● Direct additional resources to people and places wherethey are most needed.

● Promote community cohesion and a sense of localbelonging.

● Hold the unitary authority and other public serviceproviders to account for the quality of the servicesprovided within the Board’s area.

● Allocate funding, from the Board’s development budget,towards local projects and initiatives that contribute to theaction plan’s priorities.

● Shape the development of local planning policy.● Respond to consultations and act as a sounding board for

the unitary council.● Debate issues of local/topical interest.

We have considered the Boundary Committee’s suggestionthat extending our proposals for budget delegation beyonda development budget for Community Boards to supportcommunity initiatives could provide greater flexibility to tacklethe differing needs of and challenges facing the people ofDevon. We have identified the following funding streamsthat a unitary authority could either delegate to the Strategicand Community Boards or consult with them about.

● Local Area Agreement performance reward grantThe estimated maximum performance reward grant forachieving all of the Devon Local Area Agreement 2008-2011 targets would be £4.4million (DCLG is currentlyconsulting on the method of calculating this grant). Aunitary authority could chose to apportion this funding toCommunity Boards to spend on projects that wouldcontribute to meeting LAA targets. This would supportthe development of “Community Area Agreements”which described the relevance of the LAA to each areaand, in turn, shaped the priorities for future LAAs.

● Local Transport Plan capital fundingThe Spatial and Economic Boards and Community Boardscould be responsible for the delivery of transport schemesin the local transport plan programme and takeresponsibility for or influence elements of that capitalfunding.



● Local Authority Business Growth Incentive fundingThe LABGI scheme is designed to give local authorities anincentive to encourage local economic and businessgrowth. The increase in a local authority’s businessrateable value is used as a proxy for business growth.Devon County Council’s year 3 allocation was£1.98million. A unitary authority for Devon could devolvesome, or all of that funding to the Spatial and EconomicBoards to promote local business growth.

Mainstream unitary council budgetsCentral government has increased local authorities’ flexibilityover the use of their mainstream resources. Local authoritiesare now free to use the totality of their non-ringfencedfunding as they see fit to support the delivery of local,regional and national priorities in their areas.

Each Community Board area would have an area unitarycouncil budget that identifies the total unitary council spendin that area (this would average £30million per CommunityBoard). It would be possible to delegate decision-makingpowers over some elements of these budgets. By extension,in collaboration with partners it would be possible to identifytotal public sector spending in each area, which wouldprovide for greater transparency.

Here are some examples of local service delivery decisionsthat a Community Board might make:

Recycling and composting – use savings realised bydiverting household waste from landfill to reinvest incommunity facilities for sustainable waste management.

Libraries and museums – vary local library opening hoursand, promote library services through “friends groups”.

Local environment – working with, or through parish andtown councils, arrange locally for services to maintain andimprove the local environment: e.g. play areas, public rightsof way, public open space, parks and gardens, bus shelters,street cleaning and signing.

Public transport – work with the unitary authority and busoperators to vary routes and support socially necessaryservices.

Health and wellbeing – carry out a local wellbeing auditand use the results to prioritise preventative and discretionaryservices such as smoking cessation and promotion of healthyand active lifestyles.

Facilities for young people – work with schools to arrangeuse of sport, recreation and leisure facilities out of schoolhours and during school holidays.


CASE STUDY

Example of an agenda for a Community Boardmeeting

1. Public Engagement (How are we doing?)● Public feedback, comments and questions…..

by individuals.

● Open forum on local issues/topics ……fromgroups/representatives and bodies.

● Call for action/petitions….from communities.

2. Community Engagement (What can we do for you?)

● Proposals for Community Board budget

● Consideration of funding bids from communitygroups

● Consideration of consultations from unitaryauthority, PCT, police and other Board members.

3. Performance and review (How are we doingand can we do better?)

● Community action plan… are we meeting thetargets and priorities and contributing to the LocalArea Agreement?

● Unitary authority services and policies….e.g. localdevelopment framework, school place planningand extra care housing.

● Town and parish council feedback onservices…..scrutiny

4. Decision making (Time to decide)

● Variations to levels and standards of service● Parks and gardens● Public open space● Play areas● Culture, leisure and libraries● Public rights of way● Bus services.

● Assets● Reviewing potential of public buildings for

shared/community use: community use ofschool buildings premises.

● Public access to services and one stop-shops.


Resilience and contingency planning – undertake localrisk assessments to understand and rank local perception ofhazards and threats and develop community emergencyplans which identify community resources and localvulnerable institutions.

Community Safety and regulation - resources could bedirected towards alcohol related crime at identified hotspots,noise control measures and fly-tipping issues.


CASE STUDY

Children and Young People - “Things to do inSafe Places to be”

The key priority of the Devon Children and YoungPeople’s Plan, ‘Things to do in safe places to be,’would be the responsibility of the Community Boards.The Boards could commission the provision of servicesand ensure effective and targeted use of resourcesand provide opportunities for inter-generational work.

This covers the age spectrum 0 – 19 and includes:● Play:

● holiday activities ● free play outside such as in parks, and other

green spaces● breakfast clubs, after school clubs● specialist activities such as chess, IT and

cooking● physical activities and sport● arts including music, drama and fine art.

● Activities for young people:● Trips● Community projects● Workshops.

● Inclusion of those with disabilities and from lowincome families.

● Ensuring provision available to those most in need

Community Board meetings would be open to the public andpress, open discussion and debate would be encouraged andcontributions invited from all members. They would focus onpractical issues of relevance to the area. There would beopportunities to draw on the expertise of particular parish ortown councillors by inviting them, along with otherspecialists, to contribute to a discussion on a topic or themeof particular importance such as public transport, highwaymaintenance or community safety. Attendees could beinvited as required where relevant to the topics beingconsidered.

The unitary authority would support each Community Boardto ensure that there is:-

● A strong shared sense of purpose – local council clerkswould need support in developing their network ofcontacts.

● A clear understanding of the Board’s vision and purpose –effective communication to support delivery.

● Capacity to service meetings of the Boards andCommunity Forums.

● Access to dedicated officer support to the unitaryauthority members and the Board – locally basedcommunity development/community planning officerswould network locally with stakeholders and withcolleagues in the unitary authority.

Devon County Council is committed to a process of co-designing and developing the Boards with its partners. Giventhe level of interest and support expressed for theCommunity Board concept, we intend to test the concept ofCommunity Boards in a small number of areas in Spring2009. At the time of writing this response we have receivedexpressions of interest from:

Ilfracombe (North Devon) – a project to build on thesuccess of the neighbourhood management pathfinderproject in Ilfracombe which puts local residents at the heartof the decision making process in partnership with the serviceproviders and finds tailored solutions to meet the needs ofthe community.

Dawlish (Teignbridge) – the Town Council was the first onein Devon to articulate its support for the draft proposal andwishes to contribute to the development of a CommunityBoard which complements its capacity and ambition todeliver more services.


Exmouth (East Devon) – the Town Council, whichrepresents the 36,000 people (2007 estimate) living in thetown, has volunteered to work as a key player to deliver theaspirations of the “Communities in Control – Real PeopleReal Power” White Paper for Exmouth and the surroundingarea.

Okehampton (West Devon) – the Devon Heartlands, acommunity forum which has been active in the area for anumber of years, wants to explore how best to integratecommunity involvement, participation and engagement withthe more formal local democratic role of the CommunityBoard.

We are aware of a number of other areas where there is aninterest in participating in testing and developing the conceptof Community Boards and will be working with them to helpto develop their ideas and proposals.

Community ForumsOur concept, “Flying the Flag for Devon: Strong Leadershipand Local Focus” described how local public meetings wouldengage and involve all sectors of the local community. Eachof the Community Boards would be responsible forestablishing and maintaining such a Community Forum forlocal residents, the business community, voluntaryorganisations, neighbourhood associations and local serviceproviders. The meetings would be open to all and attempt toensure involvement from all sectors of the community toincrease trust, mutual understanding and respect. They couldconsider key issues affecting the area and makerecommendations to the Community Boards concerning highpriority local issues. They might also be involved inparticipatory budgeting arrangements, where these areestablished – perhaps in relation to a local community chestor small grants scheme.

Responsibility for establishing and facilitating CommunityForums could be devolved to town councils or localcommunity organisations. It would be important that thismechanism for engagement and involvement contributes tomeeting the new “duty to involve” (July 2008 White Paper“Communities in Control, Real People, Real Power”). Theunitary authority would, through the Community Forums,involve service users in the planning and design of services,encourage and support local community planning.

As with the Community Board concept, we have received anexpression of interest from the Devon Heartlands Forum(which was established as a community forum in theOkehampton area in connection with the Market andCoastal Town’s (regeneration) Initiative and has been inexistence for a number of years) to develop this aspect of theconcept in more detail. This would include reviewing, on anongoing basis, the arrangements for engagement with thewider community.

Devon AssemblyOur concept envisages the establishment of an Assemblywhich would bring together the unitary authority’s Leaderand Executive, the chairs of the Community Boards and CityBoard - as leaders of place, Members of Parliament, Membersof the European Parliament and Regional Minister. Thisarrangement would enable MPs/MEPs to raise constituencylevel concerns with the unitary authority. It would also bringa strong community and locality voice into the unitaryauthority and link the locality perspective with the council’sLeader and Executive.


CASE STUDY



Community Boards and services to children and young people.

Local learning communities and Community BoardsDevon schools are organised into networks called LocalLearning Communities (LLC’s) which are most often madeup of a single secondary school and its feeder primaryschools. LLC’s also include special schools, Pupil ReferralUnits and Children’s Centres. In place for over thirty years,the LLC infrastructure enjoys strong support from schoolsand governors. There are 32 LLC’s across Devon whichbroadly mirror the areas which could be covered byCommunity Boards. The proposed areas covered byCommunity Boards therefore provide a familiargeographical framework for schools.

LLC’s are rapidly moving away from loose professionalnetworks towards more formalised structures providinga collaborative and strategic framework for raisingachievement and the delivery of Extended Services.Schools have a very good knowledge of the communitiesthey serve but also undertake robust auditing processesto identify services that children and their families willrequire. Outcomes from this detailed needs analysis,alongside strong local awareness, means that thecollective knowledge of schools would be brought to thecommissioning work and impact evaluation of theCommunity Boards. For example schools will know fromtheir direct contact with children and communities whatplay and youth provision is needed in an area and ifprovision makes a difference to the lives of those youngpeople.

LLC’s already send representatives to multi-agency forumsto actively contribute to the development of services andsupport for vulnerable children and young people.Schools through their LLC’s are represented at AXSPathway work (multi-agency integrated working) and thedevelopment of children’s centres and Children’s TrustLocal Planning and Implementation Partnerships. Schoolswithin their LLC structures are currently considering theirfuture role as commissioners of services either as anetwork of schools or as part of joint commissioningarrangements.

LLC’s receive a range of funding to facilitate localpartnerships and shape services for children and theirfamilies. They have developed systematic approachesmoving from the identification of need to instigatingcollaborative action at local level. Schools are currently

building their LLC infrastructures to ensure sustainableleadership capacity so that they can make a realdifference to the communities they work within. Theopportunities brought by the setting up of CommunityBoards will extend and enhance this work which isalready developing within local partnerships that includeschools.

The participation and contribution of LLC’s throughCommunity Boards will be significant as they bringexperience of schools working in collaboration, alongwith their capacity to drive change, share collectiveresponsibility and to jointly manage resources.

Community Boards and local authority schoolgovernorsUsing their local knowledge and contacts CommunityBoards could perform a vital role in helping to ensure thatschool governing bodies have Local Authority vacanciesfilled swiftly and efficiently with people locally sourced,known and respected in and by the local community,bringing their expertise and skills to help to ensureexcellent governance and able to offer that all importantwider perspective. This would also help to provide aconsistency of approach and to ensure that schools werenot offered nominees unknown to them which can oftenbe a cause of friction. Building on this, CommunityBoards could also add value to LLC’s work on establishingand maintaining governor networking.

Community Boards and the promotion ofcommunity cohesionGoverning bodies have recently acquired a legal duty topromote community cohesion. If Community Boards areto take a role in helping to ensure good candidates areput forward to serve on governing bodies, they could alsohave ‘promoting community cohesion’ as one of thecriteria for appointment – although the overallresponsibility rests with the corporate governing body.Community Boards could help to monitor the success ofschools in promoting community cohesion and be ableto share and promote best practice. The CommunityBoards would help to ensure that each community isrecognised and celebrated for its unique localcharacteristics. Community cohesion may well throw updifferent challenges in different localities so localknowledge and understanding will be very important.



City Board for ExeterA City Board would be established for the Exeter urban areausing the same principles as those underpinning thedevelopment of the 28 Community Boards in the rest of thenew authority’s area. This further description of the detail ofthe operation of a City Board has been informed byconsultations with key Exeter stakeholders including the chairof the Exeter Vision Partnership, Exeter University andVoluntary Sector organisations.

The members of the City Board would comprise the unitarycouncillors for the City area, representatives of statutorypartners such as the PCT, Police and Environment Agency,third sector, learning and skills and business representatives.Once a community governance structure is in place asdescribed in section 2.3 above, representatives from thosebodies would bring a community voice to the City Board.Although the City Board will be large in number, this wouldensure the inclusion of all key stakeholders.

The City Board would, like the Community Boards, havedecision making powers on devolved services and adedicated budget which could be used for:● Decision making over aspects of services such as city

centre management, car parking, public realm, leisureservices, community safety, libraries and youth services.

● Community development work to facilitateneighbourhood engagement and locality budgets

● Project work aimed at reducing inequalities i.e in mostdisadvantaged neighbourhoods

● Community grants / community chest● Implementing the outcomes of the governance review

Building on the work of the current Exeter Vision Partnership,the City Board would: ● Hold the long term ‘vision’ for Exeter.● Identify priorities for investment of area based funding,

monitor progress and evaluate the outcomes.● Develop a community strategy or Community Action Plan

for Exeter.● Oversee the recommended local governance review of the

urban area.● Oversee the development of neighbourhood engagement

arrangements.● Provide the conduit through which the strategic and other

key issues raised through neighbourhood arrangementsare brought to the attention of the Executive and seniormanagers of the unitary authority.

● Ensure effective communications between the Spatial andEconomic Board for the Exeter Sub-Region and the CityBoard.

● Advise and make recommendations to the other StrategicBoards, in respect of particular needs of Exeter residentsand communities.

● Take a strategic and cross sector / cross service approachto Exeter’s needs and advise the council’s executive ofparticular issues which need co-ordinated action.

● Within the policy framework of the unitary council, advisethe Executive on service policy and delivery matters whichare of particular relevance to the City.

● Hold the unitary authority and other public serviceproviders to account for the quality of the servicesprovided within the Board’s area.

The city’s civic traditions would endure through thecontinuation of the post of Lord Mayor and theestablishment of a Charter Trust under the umbrella of theCity Board. If Exeter were to become part of the suggestedExeter and Exmouth unitary authority then such anarrangement may need to be re-examined.

The City Board would have a close relationship with theSpatial and Economic Board for the Exeter Sub-Region whichcould commission it to oversee delivery of particular aspectsof its strategy which are specific to the city.

The City Board Chairman would represent Exeter interests onthe Devon Strategic Partnership Board and a senior managerserving the Exeter area would have a place on the DSPDelivery Board



verge cutting, skips and scaffolding licences, applications forpedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures. Membersof the public contact or visit the area offices in NewtonAbbot, Barnstaple and Exeter or telephone the CountyCouncil’s Customer Service Centre for assistance.

Education provision is delegated to schools and governedand operated through local learning communities aligned tothe Community and City Board areas. The chairs of the locallearning communities would be members of the CommunityBoards. Local learning communities are grouped into 19 AXSclusters for the delivery of multi-agency services.

Adults and Community services are already provided bylocally based Complex Care Teams of adult and communityservices social care staff, NHS staff and voluntary sectorrepresentatives based around GP practice populations. Theseintegrated teams work alongside primary care GP practices,delivering the service to practice populations withindesignated geographical communities or “clusters”. There isone, or in some cases two, complex care teams in eachcluster. The 16 adult clusters and 23 complex care teamsacross Devon are closely aligned with Community Boardareas.

The unitary authority would provide services and exercise itsresponsibilities for services such as planning, licensing,highways and housing in a coherent and efficient way,reflecting the need for local input into the decision makingprocess. In the case of development control, advice topotential applicants would be provided at regular localplanning surgeries where experienced planning officerswould be available. Parish and town councils would continueto be formal consultees for applications that are beingproposed in their area. The unitary authority would informcouncils once applications had been determined and explainthe reasons for the decision.

To enable decisions to be made by councillors, areaplanning/licensing committees and sub-committees, basedon the footprint of the Spatial and Economic Boards, wouldbe established. The committees would meet monthly withmembership from unitary councillors from the area.

We recognise that devolving the delivery of services to localcommunities is an important way of securing improvementsin public services and re-engaging citizens with government.This devolution of decision-making has to be built on a twoway relationship: it requires informed, skilled and confidentcommunities on one hand and a local authority withappropriate community governance structures and a citizenfocused culture on the other.

We have described, elsewhere in this document, and in our“Flying the Flag for Devon” concept, some of the ways inwhich a single unitary authority for Devon would fostereffective citizenship:

● Community Boards that would make decisions oninvestment to meet local priorities and influence localservice delivery.

● Community Forums which provide a focus for localengagement, involve all sectors of the local community.

● A City Board for Exeter with resources to take the visionfor the city forward.

● Opportunities for town and parish councils to take onresponsibilities for services and an enhanced role for townand parish councillors through their membership ofCommunity Boards.

Devolved Decision Making A single unitary authority for Devon would develop aframework for service delivery which could embrace adiversity of circumstances for decentralised and devolveddecision-making. Devon County Council already has adecentralised structure which provides the foundations forthat framework. The delivery of services through area basedstructures and teams would enable the:● Establishment of work hubs and shared use of office

accommodation and facilities.● Creation of integrated teams to provide services at area

level.● Grouping and centralising of back office functions● Reduction of staff commuting with the associated

environmental benefits.

Highway management services are already providedthrough three area-based teams responsible for road andpavement maintenance, public rights of way, hedge, tree and


“How the County Council’s proposed community governance structures will be constitutedby the new authority in order to ensure clear accountability for matters such as servicedelivery.”

CASE STUDY



Devolution of decision making with Adult Social Care

Devon already operates devolved managementarrangements for Adult Social Care services withsignificant resources deployed at team based level andlocal accountability for performance with designated localmanagers. The local managers would be key links withthe Community Boards. Our approach with the NHS onjoint needs assessment linked to joint commissioning andintegrated Health and Social Care delivery models meansthat we would also be well placed to developarrangements with the NHS for local input to decisionmaking in the health sector.

We see the potential for Community Boards to use thecapacity of Community Forums to support their work byproviding local input to Adult Health and Social Care asfollows:

Local Scrutiny and ChallengeMuch of the day to day business for Adult Social Care isbased around meeting individual need with increasingemphasis on personalised services. Eligibility for serviceswill be set countywide to ensure fairness and consistencyin line with national “Fair Access to Care Services”guidance. Community Boards would scrutiniseperformance and have the opportunity to challenge localmanagers on the impacts and outcomes in their locality.

InfluenceThere are already a number of local groups and networksacross the key service areas. Community Boards wouldprovides focus for such groups and add significant value.Examples of existing or developing infrastructure in thisarea include:● Local Town Groups for Learning Disability Services● Carers Links Services● Senior Council for Devon ● Groups of key local Social Care providers

A development opportunity and significant addition tothe Community Board’s role would be to consider howhealth services might be incorporated in this arena. Wewould work with the Primary Care Trust to develop amodel that led to local input by Community Boards toPractice Based Commissioning for the NHS – this wouldbring significant benefits and bring democratic influenceto decision making processes that are currently outsidethe local government governance structure.

Decision MakingFor universal services (as opposed to those relating toindividual need and personalised services) we wouldcontinue to devolve decision making to locality level anduse the newly established Community Boards to makechoices on local investment. This would ensure localpriorities are met. Examples might be:● Allocation of Carers Grant to be invested locally.● Investment in preventative services to improve the

general health and well being of a community (thiswould be informed by analysis from the Joint StrategicNeeds Assessment).

● Any investment in support to the voluntary sector in acommunity.

The key challenge for adult health and social care is toincrease investment and support in these universalpreventative services. We will be looking to identifyadditional funds (and to provide local incentives) to dothis and work jointly with the NHS to promote the healthand well being agenda in each coastal and market town.




Exeter is a small city that exerts a wide influence. Thispresents a difficulty when considering any multiple unitaryauthority pattern in Devon. In order to create unitary councilsof sufficient size to both deliver high quality cost-effectiveservices and have the capacity and clout to deliver thenecessary investment in economic development, any modelruns the risk of losing the urban focus (which is the statedrationale) and leaving a weak residual council for theremainder of Devon.

We share the Boundary Committee’s view that the twounitary pattern, one for residual Devon and another forExeter and Exmouth, presents a number of challenges andthat there is insufficient likelihood that it would better meetthe outcomes set out in the five criteria than the Committee’sdraft proposal.

The map on the following page shows that the areas coveredby the suggested Exeter and Exmouth and residual Devonunitary authorities would include a mixture of both urbanand rural populations. The Exeter and Exmouth area doesnot, as a whole, exhibit social or economic characteristicswhich are fundamentally different to those in the rest of thecounty.

3.1 Two unitary pattern and leadershipDevon needs strategic leadership to bring together public,private and third sector agencies and interests. The two-unitary pattern would dilute the leadership needed to providethe long-term vision and foresight necessary to ensure thatpartners work together towards shared priorities and targets.

We showed in section 2.1 above that Exeter’s travel to workarea extends well beyond the confines of the area covered bythe suggested Exeter and Exmouth authority. The BoundaryCommittee used information about levels of commuting toExeter to identify the extent of the area covered by the Exeterand Exmouth authority. The scatter chart below showsdistances from the centre of electoral wards to the centre ofExeter (St David’s ward). It demonstrates that some areasthat are not included in the area of the Exeter and Exmouthunitary authority have a higher percentage of people workingin Exeter and are closer to Exeter than others that areincluded. The numbers on the chart refer to the followingwards:

1 Whimple, East Devon2 Cadbury, Mid Devon3 Bradninch, Mid Devon4 Lawrence, Mid Devon5 Boniface, Mid Devon6 Teign Valley, Teignbridge7 Starcross, Teignbridge8 Silverton, Mid Devon9 Newbrooke, Mid Devon



Devon - Urban/Rural Split

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission ofOrdnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and maylead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019783. 2008

0 9 18 km

Strategic [email protected]

Exeter & Exmouth AreaRest of Devon

Defra Rural UrbanUrban >10K - Less SparseUrban >10k - SparseTown and Fringe - Less SparseTown and Fringe - SparseVillage - Less SparseVillage - SparseHamlet & Isolated Dwellings - Less SparseHamlet & Isolated Dwellings - Sparse

As defined by DEFRAhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralstats/rural-definition.htm

R:/stratint/projects/temporary/DefraUrbanRuralJuly2008/defraurbanrural.mxd

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

% working in Exeter

In Exeter-Exmouth UA

Remaining Devon UA

9

7

1

32

4

56 8

Dis

tanc

e fr

om E

xete

r (k

m)

Proportion of employedpeople working in Exeter– 2001 Census (see page 25)

CASE STUDY



Achievements in Exeter: 2006/07 – 2007/08:

An argument put forward by the proponents of an Exeterbased unitary authority is that the two unitary pattern isessential to ensure an appropriate focus on the needs ofthe city. There is no evidence for this in the existing two-tier arrangement.

Devon County Council has a long standing commitmentto raising standards in Exeter’s schools and the city nowhas amongst the fastest improving education results ofany in England. This was the drive behind the successfulreorganisation of the 34 schools in the city in 2005.Capital investment has delivered five new secondaryschools, eight new primary schools and the enhancementof many others. The provisional results of this Summer'sexams have seen a significant improvement in thepercentage of students achieving five or more GCSE A*-C grades from 47.6 per cent in 2005 to 59.3 per cent in2008 - an overall increase of nearly 25 per cent. The gapin pupil performance at KS2 between Exeter and the restof Devon has been significantly narrowed. A unitaryExeter/Exmouth would not be in a position to concentratethe level of expertise and resources necessary to build onthese improvements.

Other achievements in Exeter over the last two yearsinclude:● Travel training initiative at Southbrook College: a

school for students with moderate learning difficulties.● Exeter for Learning Partnership (E4L) covering all

learning institutions in the city.● ‘Playing for Success’ partnership work with Exeter City

FC.● Completion of the £4million Monkerton Link Road

which has opened up possibilities for development andeconomic growth to the east of the city.

● Establishment of Skypark joint venture company.Skypark will be a sustainable business community,creating jobs in environmental technologies, ICT, foodand drink, marine and manufacturing industries.

● Better, safer cycle routes through the nationallyrecognised and supported Exeter CyclingDemonstration Town project which has led to adoubling of trips.

● Progressing the development of an energy from wasteplant and recycling centre serving the needs of Exeterand the surrounding area.

● Developing the plans for modernisation of ExeterCentral Library.

● Progression of the Exeter Science Park project withpartners.

● Enhancing Exeter’s Park and Ride services which areused by over 1 million people a year.

● Exceeding targets for local street and environmentalcleanliness with Exeter City Council.

● Investment in the enhancement of the city centreworking jointly with Exeter City Council

● Specialist domestic violence court hearings establishedthrough the Against Domestic Violence and Abuse inDevon partnership.

● Work with the then Exeter Primary Care Trust on a new‘Single Assessment Process’ involving a single set ofrecords held by the patient, cutting the number ofhospital admissions in Exeter.

● New Treetops state-of-the-art short breaks facility forfamilies of people with complex learning & physicaldisabilities.

These achievements have not been at the expense ofother areas of the county. So, for example in northernDevon the award winning £42million Barnstaple WesternBypass was completed in 2007 and progressing the£55million project to replace Bideford College.



3.2 Two unitary pattern and neighbourhoodempowermentA unitary authority for rural Devon would utilise the conceptof Community Boards as a focus for empowering citizens andcommunities and devolving decision-making. It is unclearhow a coherent set of community empowerment andneighbourhood engagement structures for an Exeter andExmouth unitary authority would be achieved, with structuresfor Exeter differing from those for Exmouth and the 20parishes.

In order to secure integrated and effective communitygovernance for the area as a whole there would be a needfor joint arrangements, coordination and partnershipbetween the two unitary authorities which the BoundaryCommittee’s draft proposal avoids.

Exeter City Council’s financial assessment of the affordabilityof the Exeter and Exmouth unitary authority made noallowance for the on-going costs of investing in communitygovernance or neighbourhood empowerment.

3.3 Two unitary pattern and broad cross-section of supportThe majority of responses to the Department forCommunities and Local Government’s 2007 consultation onExeter City Council’s proposal for a unitary authority forExeter were overwhelmingly against the proposal. Evidencecollected from discussions with partners and stakeholders inthe county, as well as specifically within the area of an Exeterand Exmouth unitary suggests very little support for the twounitary pattern. This is borne out by responses posted on theBoundary Committee’s website. There does not thereforeseem to be the prospect of the two unitary patterncommanding support from key partners, stakeholders andservice users/citizens across the affected area.

3.4 Two unitary pattern and value for moneyThe separation of Devon into two unitary authorities would: ● Require formal joint arrangements between the two

authorities for many local government services ● Require the dismantling of integrated service delivery and

management arrangements ● Increase cost and complexity for partners ● Deny the role that Exeter plays as the site for specialist

service provision serving a wide geographical area. ● Require the simultaneous aggregation and disaggregation

of county and district local authority services.● Mean that Exeter would not, under this pattern be the

local government capital of Devon.

The creation of two new unitary authorities would increasethe complexity and risks of the transition relative to thoseenvisaged for a single unitary. For example, disaggregatinginformation currently contained within county ICT systems,the novation and splitting and contracts currently held byDevon County Council.

The establishment of a two unitary pattern and creation of anartificial boundary between the two authorities wouldpresent them with complex challenges in ensuring thecapacity to commission, lead and procure the delivery ofservices. Joint arrangements and partnerships between thetwo authorities would almost certainly be required forservices such as:● Waste collection and management● Transport/land use planning and engineering design

services● Services for children, young people and families● School transport● Schools support functions

Many minority faith and ethnic minority communities fromacross Devon come together in Exeter. Exeter based initiativesor centres often serve communities across the whole county.Devon County Council has invested in the Exeter basedprojects that serve communities beyond the city’s boundarysuch as the Hikmat project aimed at elder members of theethnic minority communities in Exeter and the surroundingareas, and Ujima which supports members of black andminority ethnic communities.

Implications of the two unitary pattern for services forchildren and young peopleDevon has a single Children and Young People’s Directorateand strong county-wide professional associations for thesecondary, primary and special sectors and governors. Thereis also one, increasingly influential, Devon Education Forum,with a strong representation of school governors, and asingle Children's Trust, Admissions Forum and LocalSafeguarding Board. All these organisations share boundarieswith the Devon Primary Care Trust and schools workincreasingly closely with colleagues in health to deliverintegrated services to children and their families. This allowsfor strong, effective and accountable leadership across thewhole of Devon to deliver these vital services.

The two unitary pattern would not only have to duplicate allof this, adding to costs and impacting on service delivery, butwould risk a fragmentation of strategic leadership andduplicate arrangements to interface with the Devon PCT. Therange and complexity of statutory duties in this area of work



would necessitate the establishment of joint deliveryarrangements which would be complex and costly tomanage. These could put current efficiency gains at risk andit is hard to see how this would enhance outcomes forchildren.

Devon County Council currently administers 364 schools andseven Pupil Referral Units which generate economies of scale.The two unitary pattern would diminish the ability to providespecialised services such as curriculum support and a rangeof officers to deal with educational welfare, behaviour andother issues that have a big impact on the smooth runningof an authority and its schools.

Schools benefit from services like Devon Education Servicesand Devon Governor Services which provide high qualityservices and would continue under a single, unitary Devon.It is not clear how any other joint provision of such supportfor schools could be obtained more cost effectively from twounitary authorities. There would be extra costs associatedwith simply negotiating and managing these jointarrangements: funding which would otherwise have beenavailable to schools.

Devon has an excellent reputation for the work it does withyoung offenders. The strong performance of the DevonYouth Offending Team across the county relies on closeliaison with specialist facilities located in Exeter such as theAtkinson Unit, which offers secure accommodation for up to16 young people from across Devon who have been throughthe criminal justice system or who are a danger to themselvesor others. The creation of two unitary authorities would leadto the Devon Youth Offending team being split in two thusadding administrative complexity to a set of arrangementsthat already works extremely well.

A two unitary pattern would have an impact on accessservices to schools and lead to the dissipation of expertise inhigh performing teams e.g. school admissions. It wouldaffect both authorities operationally and there would be athreat to specialist support services, particularly for childrenwith special needs. Exeter is a major service hub for childrenwith special educational needs in the county - principallythrough its three special schools together with the RoyalSchool for the Deaf and the West of England School andCollege for young people with little or no sight, which wouldbe within the proposed Exeter/Exmouth unitary boundary.

Dawlish

Exmouth

SidmouthWest Exe

Clyst Vale

St James

The King's School

Isca College of Media Arts

Queen Elizabeth's

St Peter's

St Luke's

Secondary School Catchment Areas Around Exeter

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission ofOrdnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright andmay lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100019783. 2008



Children and young people with highly complex needs(learning, physical and emotional) are few in number butrequire specialist integrated working. Radical improvementsin providing these services, in line with government initiatives,have been made. Those improvements have requiredcomplicated restructuring of services across agencies andnow provide economies of scale for low incidence, highlycomplex needs. The improvements will be at risk if furtherrestructuring is required to accommodate two unitaryauthorities.

Complex recoupment arrangements would be needed inrespect of special educational needs provision becausefunding responsibility rests within the authority in which apupil is ordinarily resident, rather than being based onlocation of the schools. Many of the pupils who attend theseschools travel from the wider Devon area and so wouldreceive their education from one authority and their socialcare from another - not the integrated service to which weall aspire.

Exeter and Exmouth's vulnerable children benefit fromcounty-wide services too. A shortage of foster carers is anational problem but the county council has been moresuccessful in recruiting such carers in the areas surroundingExeter than in the city and town of Exmouth themselves.

Implications of the two unitary pattern for integratedadult health and social care servicesThe Committee’s suggested two unitary pattern would alsohave a significant negative impact on the provision of healthand social care services. Significant progress towards theintegration of those services has already been made throughthe Devon Primary Care Trust, which replaced six separatePCTs (one of which was in Exeter), being coterminous withthe County Council. The Devon PCT HQ is co-located withDevon County Council at County Hall in Exeter. The DevonPCT and Devon County Council have appointed● A joint Director of Public Health● A joint Director of Health and Social Care delivery● A joint Assistant Director of Strategic Commissioning

We are also sharing strategic intelligence and haveundertaken a joint strategic needs assessment for the countywhich includes analyses and evidence about each of theDevon town areas. Further development of this work wouldbe restricted under a two unitary pattern

There is a joint health and social care management structureacross Devon for all of the key service areas: older peopleand disability services; learning disability services and mentalhealth services. Appointments have been made to integratedteams of health and social care professionals with a strong

focus on prevention and delivery of services to individualsrather than organisational boundaries. In the casemanagement of individuals with long-term conditions in thecommunity, this approach has been nationally recognised asbest practice and leads to better quality and more cost-effective care in the community and reduced demand onacute hospital beds.

A two unitary pattern would reduce the planned efficiencysavings in management and staffing costs that will beachieved from integrating health and social care. It willjeopardise the current integrated management arrangementsand there will be additional management and overhead coststo be met by a second unitary authority which would have toestablish stand alone management and business systemswhich, at present, are shared.

The Devon PCT would face extra costs in having to relate totwo separate organisations, with the complication ofpotentially having to unpick recently established integratedservices. A two unitary pattern would undermine the abilityof both authorities to commission specialist and high costservices for people with complex care needs. All partieswould be potentially worse off. At best a two unitary patternintroduces additional partnership complexities, at worst itundermines current strategic capacity for health and socialcare commissioning and service delivery (as demonstrated bythe number of joint appointments and integrated servicedelivery arrangements) with dilution of skills, expertise,capacity and efficiency.

Implications of the two unitary pattern forenvironment, transport and culture servicesThe establishment of a two unitary pattern would prejudicethe delivery of strategic planning and transport services, bothin Exeter and Exmouth and also across the rest of Devon. TheCounty Council has had significant success as a strategicplanning and transport authority, which has been recognisednationally through its achievement of Centre of Excellencestatus for transport planning and transport delivery, Beaconstatus for Road Safety and the award of Local TransportAuthority of the Year. This has been possible through theretention of a significant pool of staff expertise, benefitingfrom the economies of scale of the current Devon CountyCouncil, and contrasts with the difficulties in taking forwardsuch issues seen in many of the smaller unitary councils bothin the south west region and nationally. The creation of twosmaller, and less well resourced teams, one for Exeter andExmouth and the other for Devon, neither of which would beable to command the same level of professional expertiseand experience, would put this at risk and would, inaggregate, cost more.



3.5 Two unitary pattern and affordabilityThe financial evaluations of the two unitary patterndemonstrate that significantly greater savings would be madeby the transition to a single unitary authority for Devon. Thefinancial assessment of the costs and savings of thesuggested Exeter and Exmouth unitary authority which ExeterCity Council submitted to the Boundary Committee on 12September 2008 demonstrated that there would be a netsaving of only £100,000 with payback achieved only justwithin the five year period. Devon County Council’s chieffinancial officer considered that figures shown in thetransition plan, which underpinned that assessment, to beunreasonable.

There is no margin for error in the assumptions that underliethe financial assessment: should any of them prove to beincorrect then the affordability test would not be met. DevonCounty Council’s detailed concerns about Exeter CityCouncil’s financial assessment of the suggested Exeter andExmouth unitary relate to: one off costs, on-going costs andto savings.

One off costs● There is insufficient provision for redundancy and early

retirement costs. In particular, the provision of £0.25mwould fund about five early retirements and yet the ECCsubmission shows 122 support staff and 12 senior staffposts being lost.

● The business case includes £2.1m of one off capital costsfor ICT capital expenditure. There is very little informationthat supports this figure so it can be neither challengednor defended. However a prudent amount for establishingIT systems that support county services would be manytimes this figure.

● There is an unrealistic time period for the transition team’swork to be completed. According to the ECC submission,the transition team will only be funded up until the 31March 2010. It is not realistic to assume that the team’swork would be complete by that date

On going costs● The financial assessment gives no recognition to the costs

of disaggregating services and the consequentdiseconomies of scale. This is surprising given that theSecretary of State, in rejecting the bid for a unitaryauthority for Exeter, particularly highlighted thediseconomies of scale inherent in disaggregating countyservices.

● There is no investment in community boards orneighbourhood engagement.

● There is insufficient recognition of the possible costs ofpay harmonisation. Exeter City Council believe that thepotential ongoing costs of pay harmonisation can bemanaged within the inherited salary budgets. Prudentialfinancial management would require a significantcontingency towards the potential cost of payharmonisation.

● There is no demonstration that the cost of implementingand running IT systems for county services can bedelivered for the amounts stated. No coherent case hasbeen put forward which shows how the three criticalsystems; Care First (Adult Social Care), Capita-Sims

“I have concerns over the extremely narrow margin(£100k) by which the key affordability test (to payback the costs of transition within five years) isachieved. The smallest adjustment to assumed costsand savings could breach the threshold.

1. There is no external, independent risk assessment(as recommended by the Boundary Commission)with scoped and quantified levels of risk to helpform a judgement and provide reassurance on theaffordability test. If such an exercise had beenundertaken then I could have increased confidencethat such a small margin was robust.

2. The estimates for redundancy and early retirementdo not appear to be realistic or prudent.

3. The failure to demonstrate that the cost ofimplementing and running IT systems for countyservices can be delivered for the amounts stated.No coherent case has been put forward whichshows how the 3 critical systems; Care First (AdultSocial Care), Capita- Sims (Schools and Children’sSocial Care) and WDM (Highways) will beintegrated into Exeter City Council’s existingcorporate systems.

4. There was no recognition or assessment of thediseconomies of scale inherent in disaggregatingcounty services.”

Devon County Council, Chief Financial Officer



(Schools and Children’s Social Care) and WDM (Highways)could be integrated into Exeter City Council’s existingcorporate systems. ECC’s “Risk Register”, which wassubmitted to the Boundary Committee, states that DevonCounty Council and ECC have in principle agreed to shareIT systems. No such principle has been agreed and so theExeter and Exmouth unitary proposal relies upon modelsof cooperation that are unspecified, unclear and wherethere is yet to be any agreement between the parties as tohow it will work.

Savings● The savings declared within support services may not be

achievable within the specified time period. The loss of132 FTEs from a total inherited base of 420 (31%) maybe possible once the process of restructuring is completebut it is highly unlikely that this could be achieved atcommencement.

● The savings from the business transformation programme:£13m over the first four years are the largest single areaof saving. However, there is no detail to support thefigures used. An independent risk assessment may haveprovided some reassurance here, if one had beencommissioned, but in the absence of any external checkthe figures appear speculative. It also appears likely thatsome of the saving declared within this area would accrueirrespective of a change of local government structure andshould not be included within this exercise.

Although the overall financial position of the Exeter andExmouth unitary is highly marginal, an independent, externalrisk assessment, as suggested by the Boundary Committee,could conceivably have provided reassurance that theunderlying assumptions were robust. The decision not tosubject the business case to external review means that thereis less confidence in the conclusions than would have beenthe case if one had been commissioned.


4. Conclusion

the consultation reflect the uncertainties and doubts thatpeople understandably have about such a significant change.It is however important to take a longer-term view andrecognise the benefits and opportunities that a single unitaryauthority for Devon would bring.

Responses from partners and key stakeholders demonstratethat the draft proposal clearly has a broad measure ofsupport at least equivalent to if not greater than that for thecounty unitary bids which were approved by the Secretary ofState in July 2007.

The financial assessments of the draft proposal andsuggested two unitary pattern showed that the transition toa single unitary authority would save £28.1million within thefirst five years. The two unitary pattern, by contrast, wouldonly achieve £1.2million in the case of the residual countyand the Exeter/Exmouth unitary only £0.1million, after all thecosts had been accounted for. The Exeter/Exmouth unitarywould also need to overcome the annual loss of £5.9m offormula grant: a figure calculated by independent experts asbeing due to Exeter and Exmouth and equivalent to 8% ofExeter and Exmouth’s net cost to Council Tax payers.

The establishment of a unitary authority would be thecatalyst to reinvigorating local democracy in Devon. It woulddevolve decision-making to local level and work with thethriving community sector to bring participative andrepresentative democracy together.

4. Conclusion

The people of Devon need a local council that has thecapacity to provide community leadership, value for moneyservices and with the ability to respond to the challenges ofa difficult economic climate. The government expects all localauthorities to make efficiency savings; to empower localcommunities and deliver better outcomes for local people.The structure of local government must also enable it torespond effectively to challenges such as the rising demandfor adult social care; the need to mitigate and adapt to theconsequences of climate change and environmentalpressures. The status quo is therefore not a realistic option:local government has to innovate, adapt and improve.

Our experience, and that of a number of other counties,shows that it is very difficult to take significant steps towardsaddressing these challenges within the current county anddistrict local government structure. The Boundary Committeeshould not assume that because some respondents haveexpressed a preference for the retention of the currentstructure that it will be possible to make the changes neededto exercise stronger leadership, deliver enhanced value formoney or better neighbourhood engagement.

The Committee recognises that many people will find theprospect of a change to a unitary structure of localgovernment in Devon daunting. Many of the responses to


Appendix 1

Political GovernanceThe Boundary Committee concludes that the leader andcabinet model which we put forward in our “Flying the Flagfor Devon” concept would provide a stable mandate for localgovernance in Devon. We have therefore given furtherconsideration to the size of a single unitary authority forDevon and the roles and responsibilities of its members.

Our view is that a unitary authority with about 100 members,with single member divisions to ensure clarity andaccountability, would be in line with the Committee’s draftproposal. Simply doubling up the size of the existing CountyCouncil or adopting a multi-member approach would notprovide that clarity or the clear, strong democratic leadershipenvisaged by the Committee.

Approximately two thirds of the 62 members of DevonCounty Council are also members of a district local authority.Our view is that community leadership would be enhancedthrough single unitary councillors who would moreeffectively represent the local community and electorate.

A council of about 100 members would be able to providestrategic leadership and effective, efficient governance. With,for example, 105 councillors, the average size of an electoraldivision would, based on 2001 figures, be in the order of6,000 which is consistent with the average size of electoraldivisions in Plymouth and Torbay. This would also achieve anequality of representation across the county as a whole inline with statutory guidance that the number of electorsshould “as nearly as may be, the same in every division inthe county”.

One option for Exeter would be to have 18 unitary councillorswhich would have the advantage of minimising electoralchange as it would be possible to utilise the existing 18 CityCouncil ward boundaries with perhaps some minor changesto even out existing differences in the size of wards.

Devon has traditionally had fewer divisions than Cornwalland Wiltshire. There is nothing intrinsically inconsistent withour suggestion of 105 members for Devon in comparisonwith the 123 suggested for Cornwall.

Democratic StructuresOur “Flying the Flag for Devon” concept envisages theappointment of a strong, visible leader by the council,consistent with the requirements of the Local Governmentand Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Excluding anExecutive of ten members and the chairman and vice-chairman, there would be 93 members of the councilavailable to serve in other capacities: members ofoverview/scrutiny committees, members of CommunityBoards, Spatial and Economic Boards, AreaPlanning/Licensing Committees and Strategic Boards.

Appendix 1


Appendix 1

We included, in our answers to the Committee’s May 2008questions, a diagram of the proposed democratic structure ofthe unitary authority which showed that it would comprisethe following elements:

The CouncilBudget and framework decisions

The ExecutiveStrategic county-wide key decisions.Whilst the details of the size of the executive and executivemembers’ portfolios would be determined by thoseforming the unitary authority, we suggest the followingportfolios

● Policy, strategy and resources (the responsibility of thecouncil’s leader)

● Performance, customer services and transformation● Children, young people and families● Adult services and health● Housing● Environment, sustainability and climate change● Highways and transport● Economy, regeneration, spatial planning and

regional/European affairs● Community safety and resilience● Culture

Strategic BoardsChaired by relevant Executive Member.

Devon AssemblyLeader, Executive, chairs of Community Boards and CityBoard, MPs and MEPs

Overview/Scrutiny CommitteesOne or more overview/scrutiny committees relating toservice areas/departments, supplemented by Task Groups.

Regulatory CommitteesStandards, Audit, Investment and Pension fund andPersonnel.

Planning-Boards/Sub-CommitteesCommittees dealing with significant area-wide planningissues with one or more area-based planning/licensingsub-committees for non-strategic/minor applications. Seepage 7 and 23 for further details of Spatial and EconomicBoards and planning.

Other CommitteesRelating to, for example, landlord and housingmanagement functions, personnel, public rights of way,appeals, licensing and farms.


Appendix 2 Key facts and figures

Service provision

Secondary schools 37 7 30

Primary schools 316 46 270

Special schools 12 3 9

Libraries 50 6 44

Demography (2006)

Population

0-15 126,478 27,622 98,856

16-Retirement 433,840 112,435 321,405

Retirement age+ 180,501 34,427 146,074

Total 740,819 174,484 566,335

Dependency ratio 70.8% 55.2% 76.2%

Unemployment

Unemployment (Aug 2008) 5,757 1,652 4,105

Percentage of working age 2.5% 1.7% 3.2%

Employment (2001 Census data)

All people 16-74 503,212 120,144 383,068

Employed 240,238 61,486 178,752

Skills

16-74 with no qualifications 134,114 29,095 105,019

% no qualification 26.7% 24.2% 27.4%

16-74 with level 4 qualifications 93,500 23,926 69,574

% level 4 qualifications 18.6% 19.9% 18.2%

Housing (2007)

Average house price £241,604 £216,653 £249,074

Average household income £30,522 £31,240 £30,303

House price:income ratio 7.9 6.9 8.2

Deprivation (2007)

Index of Multiple Deprivation Mean rank/ 17,295 16,942 17,402

Index of Multiple Deprivation Median rank 16,859 16,976 16,859

DevonUnitary

Exeter-Exmouthunitary

Residual Devonunitary

Sources: Devon County Council; Devon Primary Care Trust; ONS*; Land Registry*; CACI**, DCLG** Crown Copyright; **Derived from CACI data


• Abbots Bickington • Abbotsham • Abbotskerswell • All Saints • Alverdiscott • Alwington • Arlington •Ashburton • Ashcombe • Ashford • Ashprington • Ashreigney • Ashton • Ashwater • Atherington •Aveton Gifford • Awliscombe • Axminster • Axmouth • Aylesbeare • Bampton • Barnstaple • Beaford •Beaworthy • Beer • Belstone • Bere Ferrers • Berry Pomeroy • Berrynarbor • Bickington • Bickleigh •Bickleigh • Bicton • Bideford • Bigbury • Bishops Nympton • Bishops Tawton • Bishopsteignton • Bittadon• Black Torrington • Blackawton • Bondleigh • Bovey Tracey • Bow • Bradford • Bradninch • Bradstone •Bradworthy • Brampford Speke • Branscombe • Bratton Clovelly • Bratton Fleming • Braunton • Brayford• Brendon • Brentor • Bridestowe • Bridford • Bridgerule • Brixton • Broadclyst • Broadhembury •Broadhempston • Broadwoodkelly • Broadwoodwidger • Brushford • Buckerell • Buckfastleigh •Buckfastleigh West • Buckland Brewer • Buckland Filleigh • Buckland in the Moor • Buckland Monachorum• Buckland Tout Saints • Budleigh Salterton • Bulkworthy • Burlescombe • Burrington • Butterleigh •Cadbury • Cadeleigh • Chagford • Challacombe • Chardstock • Charleton • Chawleigh • Cheriton Bishop• Cheriton Fitzpaine • Chittlehamholt • Chittlehampton • Chivelstone • Christow • Chudleigh •Chulmleigh • Churchstow • Clannaborough • Clawton • Clayhanger • Clayhidon • Clovelly • Clyst Honiton• Clyst Hydon • Clyst St George • Clyst St Lawrence • Clyst St Mary • Coffinswell • Colaton Raleigh •Coldridge • Colebrooke • Colyton • Combe Martin • Combe Raleigh • Combpyne Rousdon • Cookbury• Copplestone • Cornwood • Cornworthy • Coryton • Cotleigh • Countisbury • Crediton • CreditonHamlets • Cruwys Morchard • Cullompton • Culmstock • Dalwood • Dartington • Dartmoor Forest •Dartmouth • Dawlish • Dean Prior • Diptford • Dittisham • Doddiscombsleigh • Dolton • Dowland • DownSt Mary • Drewsteignton • Dunchideock • Dunkeswell • Dunsford • Dunterton • East & West Buckland •East Allington • East Anstey • East Budleigh • East Down • East Portlemouth • East Putford • EastWorlington • Eggesford • Ermington • Exbourne • Exeter • Exminster • Exmouth • Farringdon • Farway• Feniton • Filleigh • Fremington • Frithelstock • Frogmore & Sherford • George Nympton • Georgeham• Germansweek • Gidleigh • Gittisham • Goodleigh • Great Torrington • Gulworthy • Haccombe withCombe • Halberton • Halwell • Halwill • Harberton • Harford • Hartland • Hatherleigh • Hawkchurch •Heanton Punchardon • Hemyock • Hennock • High Bickington • Highampton • Hittisleigh • Hockworthy• Holbeton • Holcombe Burnell • Holcombe Rogus • Hollacombe • Holne • Holsworthy • HolsworthyHamlets • Honiton • Horrabridge • Horwood, Lovacott & Newton Tracey • Huish • Huntsham • Huntshaw• Huxham • Iddesleigh • Ide • Ideford • Ilfracombe • Ilsington • Instow • Inwardleigh • Ipplepen • Ivybridge• Jacobstowe • Kelly • Kenn • Kennerleigh • Kentisbeare • Kentisbury • Kenton • Kilmington • KingsNympton • Kingsbridge • Kingskerswell • Kingsteignton • Kingston • Kingswear • Knowstone • Lamerton• Landcross • Landkey • Langtree • Lapford • Lewtrenchard • Lifton • Little Torrington • Littleham •Littlehempston • Loddiswell • Loxbeare • Loxhore • Luffincott • Lundy • Luppitt • Lustleigh • Lydford •Lympstone • Lynton & Lynmouth • Malborough • Mamhead • Manaton • Mariansleigh • Marldon •Martinhoe • Marwood • Mary Tavy • Marystow • Meavy • Meeth • Membury • Merton • Meshaw •Milton Abbot • Milton Damerel • Modbury • Molland • Monkleigh • Monkokehampton • Monkton •Morchard Bishop • Morebath • Moretonhampstead • Mortehoe • Musbury • Netherexe • Newton & Noss• Newton Abbot • Newton Poppleford & Harpford • Newton St Cyres • Newton St Petrock • North Bovey• North Huish • North Molton • North Tawton • Northam • Northcott • Northleigh • Northlew • NymetRowland • Oakford • Offwell • Ogwell • Okehampton • Okehampton Hamlets • Otterton • Ottery StMary • Pancrasweek • Parkham • Parracombe • Payhembury • Peter Tavy • Peters Marland • Petrockstow• Pilton West • Plymtree • Poltimore • Poughill • Powderham • Puddington • Pyworthy • Queens Nympton• Rackenford • Rattery • Rewe • Ringmore • Roborough • Rockbeare • Romansleigh • Rose Ash •Salcombe • Sampford Courtenay • Sampford Peverell • Sampford Spiney • Sandford • Satterleigh &Warkleigh • Seaton • Shaldon • Shaugh Prior • Shebbear • Sheepstor • Sheepwash • Sheldon • ShillingfordSt George • Shirwell • Shobrooke • Shute • Sidmouth • Silverton • Slapton • Sourton • South Brent • SouthHuish • South Milton • South Molton • South Pool • South Tawton • Southleigh • Sowton • Sparkwell •Spreyton • St Giles in the Wood • St Giles on the Heath • Starcross • Staverton • Sticklepath • Stockland• Stockleigh English • Stockleigh Pomeroy • Stoke Canon • Stoke Fleming • Stoke Gabriel • Stoke Rivers• Stokeinteignhead • Stokenham • Stoodleigh • Stowford • Strete • Sutcombe • Swimbridge • SydenhamDamerel • Talaton • Tavistock • Tawstock • Tedburn St Mary • Teigngrace • Teignmouth • Templeton •Tetcott • Thelbridge • Thornbury • Thorverton • Throwleigh • Thrushelton • Thurlestone • Tiverton •Torbryan • Totnes • Trentishoe • Trusham • Twitchen • Uffculme • Ugborough • Uplowman • Uplyme •Upottery • Upton Hellions • Upton Pyne • Virginstow • Walkhampton • Washfield • Washford Pyne •Weare Giffard • Welcombe • Wembury • Wembworthy • West Alvington • West Anstey • West Down• West Putford • Westleigh • Whimple • Whitchurch • Whitestone • Widecombe in the Moor •Widworthy • Willand • Winkleigh • Witheridge • Woodbury • Woodland • Woodleigh •Woolfardisworthy • Woolfardisworthy • Yarcombe • Yarnscombe • Yealmpton • Zeal Monachorum

If you would like this in a differentformat such as large print, Braille ortape, or in a different language, pleasecontact the Council’s Information Centreon 01392 380101or email: [email protected]

This is printed on 100% recycled paper

If you don’t want to keep it, help the environmentby giving it to a friend or put it in your recycle bin.

One tonne of recycled paper saves – 17 trees, 32,000 litres of water, enoughelectricity to heat an average house for 6 months and 27kg of air pollutants

devon county council’s response to the boundary … county council’s response to the boundary...

Documents