Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Association of Local Councils

Report on Buckinghamshire County Council Meetings

To Discuss Proposal for a Unitary Level of Government

Background

Buckinghamshire County Council took the decision at a recent Cabinet meeting and agreed at Full Council to develop a business case for a new model of local government. This decision was based on, a report by Bucks Business First (A Strategic Financial Case for Local Government Reorganisation), produced in September 2014 which indicated that there were savings to be made by developing a new model of delivery for local government.

BMKALC wanted to ensure that all Councils and Councillors had the opportunity to air their issues and concerns regarding the proposal and for them to be taken into account in the Business Case Proposal. As Parish and Town Councils are the first tier of Local government it was very important that their voices were heard on this matter as there are implications for them should the proposal be accepted by the Secretary of State.

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Association of Local Councils (BMKALC) agreed to host and facilitate the meetings/workshops to discuss Buckinghamshire County Council’s (BCC) proposal to build a Business Case for a single Unitary Authority in Buckinghamshire.

BMKALC also wish it noted that they are and have been neutral throughout all these meetings.

Meetings / Workshops

The meetings were arranged to capture as many views as possible and took into consideration Larger Councils (6000+ electorate or £250,000 + income), Clerks and Councillors north and south of the County, plus time of day to encompass those who worked during the day.

Monday 6 June, daytime session, Aylesbury Town Council Chamber, for Larger Councils. This was attended by representatives (6 clerks, 1 councillor) from 6 councils, Justin Griggs, NALC and Cabinet Member, Cllr Mark Shaw.

Tuesday 7 June, evening session, Green Park, Aston Clinton. Attended by representatives (2 clerks, 6 councillors) from 8 councils and Cabinet Member, Cllr. Warren Whyte

Wednesday 8 June, daytime session. Cancelled due to lack of attendees but Paul Hodson and I met with one councillor who wished to give his views.

Thursday 9 June, daytime session, Hilltop Community Centre, Wycombe. Attended by representatives (3clerks and 3 councillors) from 5 councils and Deputy Cabinet Member, Cllr Wendy Mallen

Friday 10 June, evening session, Fitzwilliam Centre, Beaconsfield. Attended by representatives (1clerk and 27 councillors) from 18 councils and cabinet Member, Cllr Zahir Mohammed.

Workshop Agenda

All meetings/workshops followed the same outline agenda.

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Familiarity ExerciseAttendees were asked to put a coloured dot on a piece of paper with a scale of 0-5 to indicate their knowledge on the streamlining of local government debate. 0 = I know nothing1 = I’ve heard but don’t know2 = I’m aware there have been discussions in the press about council structures changing but little else3 = I have a good overview but don’t understand the evidence for each argument4 = I understand the different proposals and have an initial preference but would require further information before making a final decision5 = I understand and have formed a definite view based on substantial information

Attendees were asked to repeat this exercise at the end of the session to note if their knowledge had changed/improved

3. Knowledge of Services providedAttendees were asked to rank a number of different services provided under County Council, District Council, and Parish/Town Council responsibility.

Service cards:- Taxi Licensing, Cutting Grass Verges, Libraries, Benefit Payments, Waste Management, Housing, Homelessness Support, Leisure, Coroner, Voter registration, Environmental Health, Street cleaning, Community Centres, Cemeteries, Planning Permission, Play areas, Collecting Council Tax, Off-street Parking, Green Spaces, Public toilets, Economic Development, Allotments, Parks, Waste Collection, Archives, Drug and Alcohol Services, Public Health, Trading Standards, Flooding, Adult safeguarding, Adult social Services. Children’s Social; Services, Looked after Children, Children’s Safeguarding, Highways, Public Transport, Transport Planning, Education (support to schools, school admissions and school transport), On-street Parking.

An extension of this exercise was to ask delegates to then order the service cards under the following headings:

What is doing well?What needs improving?Don’t know/Neutral

4. Opportunities and ThreatsThis exercise was done as a post-it-note exercise and gave delegates the time to give their views as to what they saw as opportunities or threats to Parish and Town Councils if a new model of Local Government was to be developed.

Outcome of Exercises

All the exercises generated discussions about both the present system of Local Government within Buckinghamshire (County Council and 4 District Councils) and the development of a new model. The new model was referred to by most attendees as a single unitary council model.

Comments were passed regarding the Bucks Business First report 2014. Some attendees questioned the value of this report as being relevant to 2016 since it had been produced in 2014 as a private paper for the Business World. However, most attendees agreed that the Strategic Financial Case for Local Government Reorganisation in Buckinghamshire provided useful background information and assisted them with understanding the proposed ways forward.

Familiarity Exercise

See Appendix 1

Knowledge of Services Provided

This exercise was not carried out with the Larger Councils Meeting.

The exercise/question was posed as “Which local council is responsible for which service” was found to give considerable differences of opinion and knowledge for each meeting. There were a number of cards which on first sight the cards could be assigned to at least one if not more tiers of local government. However it was then explained at the end that some of the cards provided were not the responsibility of any tier of local government. It was concluded by BCC that even experienced clerks and councillors were not fully aware of the distinctions as to which tier of council was responsible for which service.

It was unfortunate that at the start of this exercise it was not made clear that attendees were meant to put the cards under the correct council who has statutory responsibility for the service. Hence the confusion especially with Parish and Town Councils who have the power to run cemeteries, burial grounds, play areas, devolved service of cutting grass verges, off street parking and public toilets etc. The outcome of this exercise limited Parish and Town Councils to only being responsible for Allotments. This is a statutory responsibility of Parish and Town Councils but as stated above they do have powers to run other services should they resolve to do so.

BMKALC consider that if the exercise had been correctly stated with question being formulated as “Who has statutory responsibility for which services” a different outcome would have been achieved.

The attendees at the meetings on 09/06/16 and 10/06/16 were asked to further group the services under the headings, Going well, Need to be improved and Don’t know/Neutral. The meeting on the 10/06/16 consisted of three tables, each of which produced individual outcomes for this exercise.

See Appendix 2 for the outcomes of the exercise.

Opportunities and Threats

Attendees were asked to comment on ‘What opportunities do you see for the potential change in developing a new model for local government’ and ‘What concerns do you have about the potential change in developing a new model for local government’ by the use of post-it-notes. At each meeting, many of the comments had a recurring theme so not all comments made have been reported in this paper.

Opportunities

Parishes would be in control of their residents’ destinies??? One plan, one strategy Economies of scale More resources for parishes from the savings Financial benefits – infrastructure investment Resolves complication for the public Chance of opportunity to be totally revolutionary or innovative Scope to take on more services and run things locally More say / involvement in wider issues Greater control of your parish, closer to decision making More powers (that are acknowledged) to parish councils and more services to be

devolved – works better being on the ground level Amalgamation of smaller parishes with a set structure they have to follow One locality plan versus all district plans with potential to add a project to merge

parish councils Potential of reducing overheads after implementation Central funding would increase with less staff to pay One central place to go for help and information would make life easier. An increase generating service e.g. car parks would help P?T councils to provide

other services Local authorities should not hide behind government cuts. Parishes should be helped

to offer services to each other –‘cluster’ and claim income. Reduce potential on infighting and cost of current numbers of members on both

District and County Chance to remove historic bureaucracies and introduce fit for purpose services.

Concerns/Threats

Bigger parishes = less focus Parishes stretched further – lack of resources Unnecessary duplication

Increases need for communication Loss of accountability Need to have more trained councillors Parish councillors don’t have capacity to absorb additional provided services – will

need employees Stagnation / loss of service during a prolonged re-structuring Impact on parish ability to influence thinking and decision making Over reaching of capability of parish councils to effectively deliver devolved services Location of offices and loss of contacts we currently have Cost to implement – how much involvement a P?T council would have Reduction in local influence and knowledge in planning Concern that unitary and devolution will adversely affect small rural parishes Planning decisions being made out of area (non-familiarity) Overloading of capacity of parish councils to effectively deliver devolved services ? more funding going away from small areas Potential tendency for devolved services to lead to clustering of parish councils,

leading to diminution of local identity Raising of ‘hidden’ taxation by increased precepts to council costs of devolved

services to parishes Transition period and the problem of getting things done Size of council a big concern – services may be spread too thinly Greater taxation to residents Staffing structure to cover extra responsibilities Formalised structure for parishes. All areas need to be parished in order that all

areas are represented. Income stream to find more councillors for the extra work and commitment The size of the County, the knowledge of staff of local area issues You will end up with parish and town councils becoming the old district council

without knowledge, resources or finance to cope Threat to High Wycombe being excluded as unparished and they wish to stay that

way not introduce a Town Council Decisions centralised and remote from communities A lot of hot air and money wasted and no change Even more un-responsive services unless we take them on ourselves Delegation down to a level of local government that can’t cope with what will

potentially be foisted on them Lack of resources for parishes for extra work More services squeezed financially to fund social care Contrary to principle of sustainability if all services centralised in Aylesbury and

contrary to government policy of devolving power to local areas No upper accountability for parishes when trying to get services done We go to District and CC meetings and the main concern is that councillors do not

reflect the views of the voters. Current local plans that parishes have had input into will be defunct and will have to

start again. What happens if unitary to local plans Devolving planning to T/PC’s could be a disaster but some planning could be

devolved? Need access to planning professionals Not enough notice is taken of services provided by volunteers at a very local level County Council statutory obligations should not be devolved down to parishes.

Parishes do not want to increase their precepts just to cover what CC won’t do My parish council do not see any benefit in tacking on services from CC, economies

of scale work much better Inadequate funding for devolved services Generally parish councils do not have expertise or professional knowledge to take on

any further devolved services

Round Table discussions on Current Services from meetings (first three meetings)

General Comments:

Clerks are vital to keeping council and councillors in check and often take on more that paid for so will be a burden on small parish council clerks if they have to take on more work.

Is there anything to be learnt from the implementation of MK unitary council? Coast savings are the driver for this proposal given the budget constraints Appears to be a communication issue, no amount of shuffling of services will improve

situation, need to break down barriers and let people know who the councillor officers are that should be contacted. There appears to be a triaging of problems, can’t speak to officers. Customer Service are reluctant/don’t want to tell officers or pass on messages.

County boundaries, people go across boundaries for health, so where would unitary boundary stop?

It is confusing for people to communicate with Local Authorities, plus break up of services to Trusts etc. e.g. Health – Public Health, National Health, local GP’s can be confusing as to who should contact.

Makes sense to throw up in the air and re-organise again. There is a wide difference between small PC’s and TC’s – towns are more active and

aspire to do more. Plus council tax disparity between small and large local councils. Can’t do localism with 5 tiers of council Residents do not distinguish between the tiers of Council, ‘it is the council’s

responsibility’ The BBF report mentions efficiency savings but when examined are really cuts.

Important to distinguish between proper efficiency saving as opposed to cuts e.g. devolved services – is a cut not a saving as there is a loss of service for rural (40+mph areas) areas by the reduction of weeding and cuts to verges

BBF report only mentions the word parish twice. Big county for one single unitary but would support unitary as long as there is at least

2 physical buildings for residents to visit Public frustration when speaking with Customer Service and trying to explain, they

need officers to understand areas. High Wycombe Town is not represented as unparished. Need a local community

Highways

BCC do not consult on Planning Applications for larger strategic plans BCC Officers do not carry out site visits to look at Highway issues especially when a

Planning Application needs a response regarding highway issues. A desk top exercise is often insufficient and does not show the extent of issues on the ground. Google Earth is not the answer need site visits

Consider it dreadful that RJ have had contract extended to 2013 without consultation with P/T C’s who are on the receiving end of their work.

Devolve everything TfB do as PC can do it for a fraction of the price of TfB

As BCC no longer carry out hedge cutting, the rural lanes are narrowing. Landowners do not see it as their problem and as PC’s do not have the power to force the landowner to cut hedges it ends up with the P/TC’s against residents.

In rural areas, some PC’s would like to take on the repair of potholes but presently not possible. Would also only be possible by a Council with appropriate structure and staff

Planning

Would be loath to loose planning to a unitary council. 3 distinct divisions in the AVDC area – urban, Aylesbury town and other major towns, northern rural areas.

PC have no influence or power in planning decisions. Comment but it appears that their comments are not taken into account.

Planning needs local knowledge and this could be lost if unitary Most planning applications from DC, BCC plans are rare Too many consultations especially on Local Plans Process of objections to Town Plan complicated

Licensing

The relationship between Licensing and planning is confusing for councillors. Licensing does not have to consult and P/T C’s need control over the issue of licences. However one council has recently been consulted and asked for comments on a proposed alcohol licence.

Parking

Enforcement of off street parking is an issue. Local councils that have implemented yellow lines rarely see an enforcement officer,

they concentrate on towns.

Waste Collections

The combination of WDC and Chiltern was the right thing to do Waste collection is a problem with the different lorries for re-cycling and green

collections. Often miss areas and do not answer phone when reporting non-collection Lorries too big for rural roads and often damage roads and verges

Fly Tipping

Fly tipping is a big issue especially in rural areas. Also confusion over whether should be reported to DC or BCC

Parish Councillors

Feel they have no real power, have responsibilities but are not paid for time Should be sufficient allowances/structure of payment for councillors to take on more

and give up more time

Libraries

? sustainability of libraries, local communities that volunteered to take on their libraries are now aging and tiring.

Current structure of services

Lack of logic for residents – County does strategic, DC responsible for client. County is seen as remote as parishes don’t always know CC Lay people find it difficult to understand the 3 tiers of local government – can be

confusing. Would need more trust and delegation of power. If unitary in services could be conceived as even more remote, opportunity for P/TC’s

to pull things together

Engagement

AVDC is perceived as being closer to county than the other DC’s. AVDC do not engage with parishes

LAF engagement - ? regionalise under unitary Too few residents. Local Councils understand the present debate, Communications

on unitary could be improved by attendance at P/TC meetings, holding public meetings information given to clerks for publishing on websites or newsletters or coffee mornings.

Geographic identity Each area has its own characteristics which has been evolved over generational

change District boundaries have not changed since they formed from the religious/poor law in

1894 areas. Don’t think people identify with district areas. May be time to cast identity differently.

Ceremonial role of Buckinghamshire versus the civic role Would require at least 2 buildings – one north and one south as a minimum for

residents There is a perception in the North that most of the population and funding comes

from, and goes to, the South. This has the potential to cause a rift/divide to the county

Future devolution

Small parishes might find it a burden to take on more services which may lead to a loss of councillors

Future devolution would have to allow for sufficient funds being given to parishes, worry about increasing amounts of council tax at parish level

Issue of amount of work that councils can take on given their differing size and reluctance to cluster

Accepted that councils need to be more business-like but will need time to develop as a business with expertise to take on further services

BCC may find a loss of goodwill from PC’s if they push too much too soon.

Larger Council Comments:

Present at this meeting was Justin Griggs, Head of Policy and Development, NALC and Mark Shaw and Mark Shaw, Cabinet Member for Transportation, BCC, both of whom made comments on the proposal for a business case for a change of local government

Justin Griggs, Head of Policy and Development, NALC:

There is an increasing importance within Government circles for town and parish councils to have the ability to and take on and deliver better and more cost effective services locally.

It is important to note that there are other things happening around the country that it would be helpful to take into consideration. Consider, health Partners, Our Place etc.

Other unitary areas are fully parished and residents find it easier to understand a unitary system. Wycombe is a problem as it is unparished and runs with a Town Committee.

There appears to be little enthusiasm for working with Milton Keynes, apart from Buckingham who due to proximity of MK see themselves as more closely allied with them. This will be extending with the plans to extend MK area further to the west.

Opportunity to address preventative and health services locally.

Mark Shaw, Cabinet Member for Transportation, Buckinghamshire County Council: The challenge is how you empower and enable the smaller parishes to take on

devolved services. Rural challenge. E.g. rural grass cutting of grass verges is not devolved. Hazlemere and Buckingham would be interested in discussions about taking on

their respective libraries.

Chesham Town Council: Budget pressures have caused a lot issues. The challenge of BCC having commissioned out many services makes it harder to

devolve or change services. People are confused about the three tiers of local government. Planning is particularly difficult. Windsor and Maidenhead are piloting delegating

more planning decisions to local councils.

Aylesbury Town Council: Devolved services have been good for ATC as now hands on and the response to

issues and requests is quicker and better than before. County Officers work well with ATC Have requested devolution of some services from AVDC but are getting nowhere at

present. Shrewsbury and Wiltshire are great examples, including asset transfer. But have

still not completely solved the small parish’s issues. ATC working with 6 parishes to provide devolved grass cutting etc. Interested on taking on the Estate from BCC, i.e. Judges Lodgings, the Market, Old

Town Hall, Crown Court. There is some frustration about this as there is no feedback or information from BCC regarding this matter.

Iver Parish Council The PC do not want to take on devolved services due to issues presented by the

insurers over liability.

Hazlemere Parish Council: The PC is interested in exploring Children’s Centre’s and the possibility of taking

them on. PC do resent the fact that they do not receive allowances in line with those received

by DC’s. The clerk acknowledges that there is the power for councillors to have an allowance but it is set by the District panel and considerably lower than DC’s

Buckingham Town Council: The open, honest BCC approach about the devolved services offer was valued. When discussing future devolution, conversations regarding finances especially if

they will be ceasing after 4 years, T/PC’s need to know this information as early as possible to enable them to make alternative arrangements for funding the continuation of the service

Local councils require a mix of income raising services and devolved services with funding attached

There is a threat to larger town councils regarding the possible plan to cap them from increasing their precepts above 2%. Buckingham has doubled their budget in the last 4 years.

The housing development growth in the North of the County means that Buckingham is taking on more with added pressure being placed on their resources. Present plans are suggesting that Buckingham and the environs of MK will become joined together.

Councils are aware of the financial pressure being placed on Principal Authorities by Government and that a way forward is the ‘privatisation’ /devolving services out but P/TC’s are also concerned of the contract implications especially TUPE.

Section 106 discussions have often excluded Towns and Parish Councils especially in the north of the county. There is no firm commitment to community development which are marginalised regarding passing on of S106 monies which are held at District Level

The devolution of Youth Services was discontinued before we could take it further. The unparished area of High Wycombe is an issue as this is the largest town area

within the County and it is difficult to see how devolved services etc. could be undertaken by this area.

Most of the scope for devolved services is with District services, such as Leisure, Green Spaces and Car Parks. Some of these could become income generators. Car Parks could give an income stream.

Would like more openness on costings of services such as Libraries, recruiting Foster Carers, etc. One on one conversations needed with larger councils to talk through budgets in their area. Needs to be specific.

The transition period to a unitary model will be difficult which is supported by the County Durham experience. Possibility that there will be a loss of staff members, especially good ones, during the periods before and after the set up.

Overall it will be easier if there are only two levels of authority for residents to approach.

There needs to be open and honest discussions/conversations regarding the sustainability of services before the Council agrees to take further devolved services. Residents and councillors are happy with the present devolved service.

Buckingham town Council are will not take a view on the unitary debate until a proper business case is presented and the operating strategy drafted.

Council would be prepared to increase the precept to cover further service devolution but would also like to see the business rates being passed on to assist with these services.

Comments from the meeting on 10.06.16

This was the largest of the meetings and many comments from attendees were similar, so not all reported.

BCC is excellent at its core business, however, they don’t have sufficient budget which has been the case for many years. They need a thorough business management review, creating synergies and a realistic strategy for the future even if unitary in some form in the future

Devolved services work well in our parish Highways are very slow to respond We get excellent service for our LAT and devolved services are going well. WDC does an excellent job of consulting on wider planning issues e.g. local plan and

informing local councils on planning issues via the planning forum. Would not like to lose the expertise or knowledge of the DC

My council feels frustrated that things like highways defects (pot holes, street lights etc.) are not addressed on a timely basis

We have taken on devolved services, i.e. grass cutting but in the full knowledge that overtime BCC support will diminish and our council tax payers will effectively be double taxed to pay for these. We have done this because we believe that we can best serve our residents more locally.

Our concerns for the future when T/PC’s may be capped and we will be unable to deliver these services to the standards required by residents

The LAF process is frustrating – many officers “talking at” the public and councillors – much talk, no action. It would be a more effective use of funds and salaries if the LAF monies be given either direct to Pc’s or to local BCC Members to spend in their own divisions.

Road repairs insufficient, many roads require re-surfacing rather than the odd repair and it takes too long for rural roads. Gully cleaning is insufficient and leads to flooding and then more damage to the roads.

Libraries – it is disgraceful that communities have had to take over their libraries to keep them going albeit more successfully!!

Public transport is derisory- if it was better it may improve the parking issues. Yellow lines do not solve parking, just displace the problem

Developers seem to be getting around permissions by putting in retrospective applications having already not complied with the original application and being granted it.

By definition the majority of services are creaking, because there has been a dramatic reduction of numbers of officers employed in local government, so fewer people have to do the same work as many.

In broad terms response times for fairly normal requests to BCC/WDC would be totally unacceptable in the commercial world.

There will be no financial savings from a unitary, because government will simply reduce funding to produce minimum level of services electorally tolerable. Local government has been re-organised too often – if it ain't broke don’t fix it

Focussed CC is too remote from S. Bucks and is unable to monitor or respond effectively. Many county and district service are run inefficiently and do not embrace new technologies for monitoring highways

T/PC’s are not taken seriously by County and District Councils. There needs to be a formal relationship between all levels of local government with T/PC’s being included in any unitary model discussions. Parishes not classed as a “partner”

More devolution is required but this must include the Authority to do things. BCC/DC’s sending information to Parish without enough lead time to respond fully to

consultations. No consultation with TVP It was interesting to note that our table put most things under “needs to improve”

whereas the next table with double hatters put most things under “going well” – just shows how far apart we are! Stop double and treble hatting which prevents opportunities for representation being fair.

There is a disconnect between County’s ‘no money’ message and the ongoing production of glossy publicity material, glitzy conferences with giveaways like mugs, keyrings etc.

TfB is very lax in providing consultation responses on planning applications. Our clerk doesn’t get prompt responses to queries/enquiries made to officers.

To centralise everything in one council will not work and will reduce services for our parishioners not improve them

If the CC and DC’s worked together on a way forward, I would see that as both welcome and essential.

The accountability of democracy get economies of scale, if loose the DC level the it will be difficult to get heard if a small parish

There is a limit of what can be pushed down to small PC’s, they need resources. Presently all councillors are volunteers and we only have a part time clerk, so limited in what we can do

The money offered for grass cutting under devolution was insufficient to allow us to employ a contractor to carry out the work. Was enthusiastic following conference re the Stewkley model but was rejected by my fellow councillors

Savings suggested by going unitary are astronomical and equivalent to the Adult Social Care budget.

If unitary made Highways better that would be good Parish meetings do well on no budget but risk losing them if too much pressure put

on them. Need strong chairman. DC’s seem to have different attitudes and need to look at synergies between all DC’s

as well as CC What is the budget for this exercise - £50K ?? Will the Business case take account of the four local plans; DC’s should be planning

together. The four plans should be complimentary because of duty to co-operate.

This report has been produced using comments from the meetings. As Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Association of Local Councils has remained neutral throughout this exercise, the report has been written as noted without any political alignment.

Carole Burslem

County Officer, BMKALC

Table of Familiarisation Exercise Outcomes Appendix 1

Date 06/06/16 07/06/16 09/06/16 10/06/16

Question Before After Before After Before After Before After

I Know Nothing0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I’ve heard but don’t know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I’m aware there have been discussions in the press about council structures changing but little else

2 2 3 0 1 0 9 1***

I have a good overview but don’t understand the evidence for each argument

1 0 2 3 0 1* 10 13****

I understand the different proposals and have an initial preference but would require further information before making a final decision

4 5 1 3 5 4** 1 4

I understand and have formed a definite view based on substantial information

0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

* = 1 attendee marked this as between 3 / 4 following the meeting

** = 4 attendees marked this as between 4 / 5 following the meeting

*** = 1 attendee marked this between 1 / 2 following the meeting

**** = 1 attendee marked this between 2 / 3

NB Differences in numbers between before and after (especially meeting 10/06/16) is accounted for by attendees leaving before completion of the meeting.

Views of Services Appendix 2

Meeting Date 09/06/16 10/06/16

Services Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Going well LeisurePlanning PermissionTaxi LicensingPlay AreasCommunity CentreArchivesCemeteriesAllotmentsCollecting Council TaxVoter RegistrationStreet CleaningWaste ManagementPublic TransportParksCoroner

Collecting Council TaxWaste CollectionVoter RegistrationBenefits PaymentsCoronerArchivesCemeteriesParksPlay AreasAllotments

LibrariesTaxi LicensingBenefits paymentsCutting grass vergesWaste managementHousingHomelessness supportLeisureCoronerVoter registrationEnvironmental HealthStreet CleaningCommunity CentresCemeteriesCollecting Council TaxPlanning permissionOff-street parkingPlay areasGreen spacesPublic toiletsEconomic developmentAllotmentsParksWaste CollectionArchivesDrug and alcohol services

AllotmentsCommunity CentrePlay areasGreen spacesPlanning permissionCemeteriesVoter RegistrationEnvironmental HealthStreet CleaningCollecting Council TaxFloodingWaste ManagementWaste CollectionTrading StandardsHomelessness SupportChildren’s SafeguardingParks

Needs to Improve

Public toiletsTransport PlanningEconomic DevelopmentOn-street parkingHighwaysEducationOff street parkingLibrariesFloodingWaste CollectionCutting grass verges

HousingStreet cleaningEnvironmental HealthTransport PlanningLooked after childrenHighwaysPlanning permissionWaste managementLibrariesCutting Grass VergesFloodingPublic TransportChildren’s safeguardingChildren’s social servicesAdult safeguardingAdult social servicesOn-street parkingOff-street parkingCommunity centresTrading StandardsHomelessness supportDrug and alcohol servicesPublic toiletsLeisureEconomic development

Adult SafeguardingAdult Social ServicesChildren’s social servicesLooked after childrenChildren’s safeguardingHighwaysPublic TransportTransport PlanningEducationOn-street planning

Adult SafeguardingOff-street parkingLooked after childrenCutting grass vergesOn-street parkingTaxi LicensingPublic toiletsPublic transportHighwaysTransport planningLibrariesPublic HealthBenefits PaymentsHousing

Don’t Know / Neutral

HousingChildren’s servicesChildren’s SafeguardingAdult social CareAdult SafeguardingHomelessness supportLooked after childrenGreen spacesBenefits paymentsTrading Standards

Green spacesTaxi LicensingPublic HealthEducation

Public HealthTrading StandardsFlooding

CoronerArchivesEconomic DevelopmentDrug and alcohol servicesLeisureAdult social servicesEducationChildren’s Social Services

Drug and alcohol servicesPublic HealthEnvironmental Health