Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber
Contact: Will Stevenson
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: There were apologies from Cllr Barnett, Cllr Eagland and Cllr Salter. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: There were no declarations of interest during this item. Cllr A. Little later declared an interest during Item 7 as a resident of Stonnall. |
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting PDF 49 KB Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were taken as read and approved as a correct record by the Chair. |
|
Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No. 1 (part) in the parish of Whittington. PDF 282 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The report was presented by footpaths consultant Robin Carr. The committee were informed that this application had been submitted too late to be considered under Town and County Planning Act so was instead being considered under the Highways Act.
RESOLVED: The committee approved the Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No. 1 (part) in the parish of Whittington. |
|
Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No. 7 (part) in the Parish of Elford PDF 274 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The report was again presented by Mr Carr. No issues were raised.
RESOLVED: The committee approved the Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No. 7 (part) in the Parish of Elford. |
|
Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No 8 (part) in the Parish of Mavesyn Ridware PDF 276 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The report was once again presented by Mr Carr. It was clarified that this would represent a minor change to enable development on the site. Members were reassured that the proposed new path would be clear as part of this development.
RESOLVED: The committee approved the Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No 8 (part) in the Parish of Mavesyn Ridware. |
|
Community Governance Review PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Minutes: The review was presented by the Governance Manager and Monitoring Officer Mark Hooper. The committee were informed that 98 written responses and a petition had been received as part of the review. These responses had then been filtered into proposals that indicated a degree of community consensus, or proposals for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of existing arrangements. Community cohesion, size, boundaries and effective governance were among other metrics also considered.
· Fradley and Streethay: The report concluded that both settlements were considered geographically separate, were experiencing considerable growth, and should be split into two separate parishes. Consideration had been given to making Streethay a Ward of Lichfield City council, however the City Council was already one of the largest councils of its kind in the UK and Fradley and Streethay Parish Council had previously stated a preference for two separate parishes. The proposed size for the new Streethay parish would be five members, whilst Fradley would have nine members.
· Lichfield City Council: It was proposed that three small one-member wards would be merged with neighbouring larger wards. This would help to address the uneven allocation of councillors to some extent, narrowing the disparity between Wards.
· Longdon: It was proposed to reduce the council size from eleven to nine members.
A large number of representations were received in relation to Shenstone parish council. Members asked if there was any variation in the number of signatures on differing variations of the petition that was circulated. It was confirmed that the petition received was the one that members had received in the supplementary report and that this petition would have needed more signatures to trigger a community governance review.
It was confirmed that these changes would ideally be implemented before the May 2023 local elections.
RESOLVED: The committee approved the recommendations set out in the report. |
|
Minutes: The committee noted the current contents of the work programme and were informed that this may be amended before the next meeting. |