Concurrent Expenditure
Community and Town Council Boundaries
Minutes:
Concurrent Expenditure
No progress to date on the above, it was still with the Cabinet Member who was reviewing the options. In the meantime, the contribution was fixed for the next 12 months.
Community and Town Council Boundaries
Nash Community Council referred to the lack of communication during the previous change in boundaries, resulting with them being included with Lliswerry. They felt that this was not suitable boundary agreement and used to be part of Goldcliffe and Whitsun boundaries which were rural and not densely populated. Any PACT meetings focused on the Lliswerry boundary and was not Nash which had its own rural Police issues. Residents of Nash therefore hoped that consideration should be given to their views in any future consultation.
The Chair explained the boundary commission consultation had nothing to do with the Council. The only input that the Council could give would relate to new communities, such the Glan Lyn development near Spytty or Jubilee Park in Rogerstone and extra wards were required.
The Boundary Commission were currently consulting in Torfaen, this was a rolling consultation, Newport was due for consultation in 2019 and this would be an extensive public consultation. The Chair advised that every Community Council had the right to be consulted.
Goldcliffe Community Council recalled the issue being discussed at the last Boundary Commission consultation approximately 20 years ago. The Community Council Clerk for Nash did not consult with Goldcliffe.
The Graig Community Council representative referred to the recent South Wales Argus article and green paper published by Alun Davies recently on the council mergers within the 22 Welsh local authorities. The Chair advised that there was no information from the Council as yet and could therefore not speculate. Any information relating to changes to the unitary authorities would be shared with the Community Council.
Wentlooge Community Council mentioned a Wales Audit Office survey out at the moment inviting Community Councils to give their opinion on local authorities and potential devolved responsibilities etc.
Other Community Councils had also completed the survey. The Chair suggested that feedback from the survey could be discussed at a future meeting.
Bishton Community Council asked if community councils took on more responsibilities, would that be reflected in the concurrent payment. The principal of the grant was to provide double taxation, therefore any responsibilities taken on by community councils would be remunerated by the Council. For example, if community councils approached the council on fly tipping, which they could provide a cheaper service for, the council would be eager to negotiate funding for it to be carried out at a local level. Small services such as litter picking would be reasonable unlike disposal of asbestos or matters that might involve enforcement powers. Grass cutting, litter picking, children’s playground maintenance would be services that could be taken over by community councils by contacting Newport City Council.
Due to the recent snow, Goldcliff Community Council mentioned that it had its own snow plough, which would be helpful for local communities.
Finally, the Chair advised that any information that community councils would like to share with Newport City Council was welcome.