Summary: Mrs X says the Council did not follow proper process when consulting about changes it made to local boundaries. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is a member of a local group. She complains the Council did not effectively consult with local people when it proposed plans (which were later implemented), to change the boundaries of her parish. She said this caused an injustice because, among other things:

• The boundary changes mean the group she is a part of will now not be consulted about planning applications and able to influence decisions concerning the area previously demarcated by prior boundary lines.
• Mrs X feels a sense of injustice about about the way the Council consulted on the proposed changes.
• Mrs X feels this has been a cause of upset for other residents in adjoining parish councils who also, she says, feel their views were not properly considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. I have considered whether the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to consider this complaint. The Council says Mrs X is a parish councillor. We do not have jurisdiction to consider complaints made by parish councils which deliver public services. However, Mrs X says she resigned from the Parish Council in April 2019, before this complaint was made to the Ombudsman.
5. Mrs X has complained the Council’s actions affect others in the area. She says the decision to change the boundaries affects everyone in a settlement, not just newcomers and not just residents.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the complainant’s file and researched the relevant law and guidance.
7. I made enquiries with the Council.
8. I gave both the complainant and the Council the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments and have made appropriate amendments as a consequence.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance

Consultations

9. The Local Government Association has guidance on consultations. It says, among other things, that

• Residents should be asked about significant changes or proposals that affect them;
• It is important to give people enough time to respond to consultations;
• Enough time should be left to analyse the results of any consultation;
• The time of year the consultation takes place in should be considered. School holidays and election periods should be avoided;
• Best practice suggests providing six to 12 weeks for a consultation exercise; and
• When deciding who to consult, councils should identify the people or groups who are likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the focus of the consultation.

Community Governance Reviews (CGRs)

10. Councils have the power to carry out CGRs and put in place or make changes to local community (parish) governance arrangements.
11. A review can consider a number of issues, including whether to create a new parish, whether to alter the boundary of an existing parish and whether to group a number of parishes together.
12. The Council is responsible for setting the terms of reference for any review and must undertake consultation when considering what changes to make.
13. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is responsible for changing the ward or division boundaries following a CGR. It was involved in producing guidance for local authorities to follow, called the Guidance on community governance reviews, March 2010, (“the Guidance”).
14. Councils are required to have regard to the Guidance. It requires that local people are consulted during a CGR, that representations received in connection with the review are taken into account and that steps are taken to notify local people of the outcomes of the reviews, including any decisions. (para 7, The Guidance).
15. The Guidance anticipates that communities may expand because of housing developments. In such circumstances, councils should consider undertaking CGRs, the terms of reference to include consideration of the boundaries of existing parishes. (para 12, The Guidance)
16. The Guidance says that ultimately, the recommendations made in a

community governance review ought to bring about improved

community engagement, better local democracy and result in more

effective and convenient delivery of local services. (para 21, The Guidance)

17. The Guidance says councils must consider the wider picture of community governance in carrying out their reviews. It notes that in some areas there may be well established forms of community governance such as local residents’ associations, which local people have set up and which help make a distinct contribution to the community. (Para 35, The Guidance)
18. It says that, when undertaking a review, Councils should take these bodies’ views into account. (Para 93(5), The Guidance)

Background

19. On 20 November 2017 the Council decided at a meeting to undertake a CGR. The minutes show this was partly triggered by housing growth across the borough and population movements. It viewed that it was an important time to conduct a review of its community governance arrangements to ensure they were reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area and to ensure they were effective and convenient.
20. The minutes also show that a full consultation process would form part of the reviews, taking into account the views of local people.
21. It said it would ensure all affected residents were given the opportunity to comment and feedback.
22. The Council says it carried out a first stage consultation between December 2017 and January 2018. Parish councils within the area were invited to put forward recommendations or requested changes to their boundaries. A final consultation period was planned to take place between March and May 2018 with the final implementation of any changes planned for August 2018.
23. The consultation concerned a number of boundary change proposals but for the purposes of this draft decision, I am only concerned with the proposed changes to Mrs X’s parish boundaries.
24. The results of the first stage of the consultation were reported to the Council’s Administration Committee, (“the Committee”), on 20 February 2018.
25. Mrs X’s parish Council, “Parish B” proposed to adjust the boundary between Parish B and an adjoining parish, “Parish C”. The rationale was that the community of Parish C was considered an integral part of the community of Parish B. The letter from Mrs X’s parish council to the Council stated that residents share services such as schools, community facilities and shops.
26. Mrs X did not agree with the views expressed by her parish council. She also objected to a proposed change of the boundary which would mean that part of her Parish B would move within the boundary of another boundary, “Parish D.”
27. At the Committee meeting, the chair of Parish C opposed the move from Parish C to Parish B.
28. The Council recommended that residents in the area of the potential change be consulted. It was recorded that the Council had no preferred outcome at that stage.
29. Mrs X’s association was aware of the second consultation. It announced, in its newsletter, that the Council’s public consultation “with those affected” is to begin on 4 May 2018.
30. The newsletter cites the proposals made to the Council regarding the proposed boundary changes following a consultation meeting. The newsletter says that the “…general feeling amongst our members seems to be one of despair.”
31. The Council says responses to the second part of the consultation could be made via online survey or in writing. It says a drop-in session was held on 15 May 2018 at a community centre. It says this was aimed at the residents of Parish C, which it viewed as being the largest group of residents potentially affected by the proposals in the consultation.
32. It says it wrote to around 600 households and businesses in areas potentially affected by the proposed change in parish boundaries and invited them to respond.
33. It also says it made a general notification of the consultation through the Council’s ‘E-News’ which was sent to all 13,600 residents on the database.
34. Mrs X feels the consultation should have been announced via the local newspaper and does not believe enough residents were consulted.
35. The outcome of the consultation was reported to the Committee at a meeting on 25 June 2018.
36. Responding to the question whether there should be a boundary change between Parish B to Parish D, 85% of those asked opposed the change. The records state that 153 households and businesses in the relevant area were asked. There were 57 responses.
37. Responding to the question whether there should be a boundary change between Parish C to Parish B, 58% of those who responded, opposed the change. The records state that 366 households and businesses were asked. There were 127 responses.
38. The results were not considered to be statistically significant.
39. At the Committee meeting, various speakers from the concerned parishes put across their views on the proposed changes. There was no mutual agreement between Parish C and B’s parish councils about the proposed boundary change. Because of this lack of agreement in the concerned parish councils and because the consultation had not provided statistically significant results, the Committee decided that the residents from Parish C, that would be directly affected by the proposed changes, should be given the final decision by means of a ballot.
40. With regard to the other boundary change, from Parish B to Parish D, the Council says it considered that there was a clear boundary in the landscape. A motorway already acts as a division, cutting through Parish B. The Committee noted that the consultation was just one part of the evidence that had to be considered as part of the review. It says it felt that a number of residents from Mrs X’s parish were opposing the proposals for what was perceived as non-community governance reasons. It notes Mrs X’s residents’ association were concerned about the rights of way, “…given the active group in [Parish B], which did not exist in [Parish D].”
41. The Councils said that there was nothing to stop the association campaigning for the protection of rights of way in Parish D.
42. The Council says it did not undertake a ballot on the move from Parish B to Parish D because, even though there was opposition, there was no opposition in either parish council to the proposed changes.
43. The ballot was undertaken between 28 June and 16 July 2018. The results were reported to the Full Council meeting on 19 July 2018. The majority voted to support a change to boundaries by moving from Parish C to Parish B.
44. The Council published its decision. It informed all the relevant parish councils of the changes and placed an article in a newspaper that is delivered to all households in the area.

Analysis

45. The Council has a duty to observe good practice when consulting on decisions that affect its service-users. The CGR guidance sets out that it is important to take into account the views of groups such as local residents’ groups. The records show that at the first stage of the consultation, parish councils who, it is fair to say, have a role in representing the views of their parishes, were invited to put forward their views to the Council. At the second stage it wrote to a proportion of the population in the relevant parishes to invite their views. Mrs X provided her views. These were taken into account but it was felt that they were inconclusive.
46. Mrs X does not believe enough local people were consulted. She says this may have caused her injustice because, if more people had been consulted, the Council might have made a different decision. But it is impossible to say what would have happened if more people had been consulted. Out of those consulted about the move from Parish B to D, there was only a 37 per cent response rate. Of those consulted about the move from Parish C to B, there was only a 35 per cent response.
47. While the changes were opposed, they were opposed in small numbers and the Council was entitled to take other factors into consideration as well.
48. I consider that given there was opposition to the plans for the change to the boundary in Parish C’s parish council as well as in the consultation, it was prudent for the Council to undertake a further ballot. The majority approved of the move.
49. Of those consulted about the move from Parish B to D, only 33 people objected. That was out of the 153 consulted. That does not represent a strength of feeling in the community. Given that neither parish council objected and less than 22 percent of those consulted, objected, I consider it was reasonable for the Council to decide that a ballot was not necessary.
50. Mrs X says the consultation ignored how the boundary changes affected those in her parish whose parish did not change but whose boundary did. But the Guidance does not say that the Council has to consult everyone in the community. I consider that efforts were made to involve a reasonable proportion of the community. There is no fault.
51. Mrs X had other concerns about the way the consultation was carried out. She was concerned that it was carried out during the Christmas period. I consider it was reasonable for the Council to initiate the consultation at or around this period as it was the first stage of its consultation process. The second part of the consultation, when over 600 residents’ and businesses’ views were sought, was conducted well after the Christmas period. The CGR advises councils leave enough time to process a consultation and the final outcome was not determined until late July 2018.
52. Mrs X was concerned that the changes occasioned changes to precepts for people whose parish changed. I made enquiries on this issue. There were some changes. However, they were not significant and, in any event, did not cause Mrs X a personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have not found the Council at fault and have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman