The Community Governance Review Steering Group (CGRSG) gave consideration to the two options proposed for the consultation process, as follows:

Option 1 – the creation of one Parish Council for the whole of Bexhill-on-Sea (to be styled a Town Council)

A Parish Council be created for the whole of Bexhill-on-Sea, to be styled as Bexhill Town Council (BTC) based on the existing Bexhill Ward External Boundary.  BTC to contain nine Wards, based on the 2019 District Wards and that two Town Councillors be elected to each ward, making a total of 18 BTC with the first elections to be in May 2021.

Option 2 – no change and retain the status quo

This would see the continuation with the current governance arrangements for Bexhill-on-Sea and the decision making arrangements. 

Both options were approved for the consultation process.

During discussion, consideration was given to the examples of other town councils across the country of a comparable size to Bexhill which had been appended to the report for information.  It was noted that some indicative costings had already been completed however, it was impossible to assess the exact financial implications for the residents of Bexhill-on-Sea, as it would depend upon the nature and extent of functions transferred to the new BTC from Rother District Council (RDC).  The Council’s Financial Services Team would be tasked with supporting the development of the initial precept anticipated to be levied in 2021/22 by the new BTC.  It was agreed that this information should feature in the consultation documentation.  

In order to ensure full participation / engagement and understanding of the process, it was important that the consultation documentation was informative and enhanced awareness of what a Town Council for Bexhill-on-Sea could actually do.  Therefore, it was also suggested that the following information be included:

·        town council boundaries;

·        potential devolved functions and services;

·        location of BTC (at Town Hall, Bexhill or elsewhere);

·        staff resources (shared with RDC or standalone);

·        potential to set an allowance or payment for BTC Members; and

·        election cycle (to coincide with future RDC elections etc.).

The CGRSG was advised that current RDC Members could stand as BTC Members.  Concerns were raised that it could be potentially difficult to fill all 18 BTC seats. The population of Bexhill-on-Sea was considered sufficient to find enough interest.

A discussion ensued on whether open-ended questions should be used.  The Consultation Officer advised that these types of questions were challenging, time consuming and difficult to analyse.  It would be simpler to ask residents / organisations to answer tick box questions.  However additional information could be forwarded in writing or by email. 

Members agreed that officers be tasked with developing clear and concise consultation documentation using plain English, including tick box questions, flowchart and financial implications.  The CGRSG was encouraged to forward additional questions / information as soon as possible to officers for inclusion within the documentation.  The draft consultation documents would be presented at the next meeting.

RESOLVED: That:

1)     Options 1 and 2 be approved for the consultation process;

2)     draft consultation documentation using plain English, including tick box questions, flowchart and financial implications be developed and presented at the next meeting; and

3)     additional questions / information be forwarded as soon as possible to officers for inclusion within the documentation.