District council to hold review into Kidderminster parish

7:50am Monday 4th March 2013 in News

A REVIEW is due to take place into whether Kidderminster should be granted parish status and its own town council.

Wyre Forest District Council unanimously agreed at a full council meeting on Wednesday last week that a Community Governance Review should take place.

Deputy chairman Liberal councillor Fran Oborski said that the council was "obliged" to carry out the review following a petition being handed to the council.

A total of 5,800 Kidderminster residents signed the petition which was handed to the district council in December.

The petition requests that the unparished area of Kidderminster becomes a parish called Kidderminster Town.

It also details plans of proposed electoral wards including Broadwaters, Greenhill, Offmore and Comberton, Aggborough and Spennells, Oldington and Foley Park, Sutton Park, Habberley and Blakebrook and Franche.

Tributes were paid at the council meeting to the work of Conservative cabinet member Anne Hingley and town clerk Charles Talbot.

Mr Talbot said: “I appreciate that very much. It is indeed something I have been working for since 1974.

“The council had no option to agree to a review. The law says, because they had a valued petition, they must hold one.

“What they have had to do, quite simply, is to agree to the terms of reference for the review. They will now start a series of consultations with the electorate.

“At the end of the day, they have to bring all those strings together to come to a conclusion whether there should be a town council for Kidderminster.”

An introductory stage of the Community Governance Review will now take place where initial submissions will be collected until Friday, May 31.

Comments(16)

Craig Bateman says...
8:19am Mon 4 Mar 13

Becoming a council means we get more direct authority, however dis-establishing the Charter Trustees means that we loose a huge active historical factor of the town - it's either a win win situation, or a loose loose one

Report this post »

Poppasmurf says...
9:31am Mon 4 Mar 13

On the plus side, the local residents of Kidderminster will at last get a say on what will happen in their town. On the minus side, does everyone who signed up to the petition - and more importantly those that didn't - want to pay another, say, £30, on top of their current council tax to enable yet another layer of local government? Those of us who already have a parish council have the following layers of government - parish, district, county, national and European. All areas except England have an additional layer. Do we in all honestly really need all those layers? We are the most over-governed country in the world.

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
10:54am Mon 4 Mar 13

As far as i'm concerned the scrapping of Kidderminster Town Council in the first place was a massive faux-pas on the residents of not only Kidderminster, but for the residents of the other two major towns that make up Wyre Forest. The creation of a Kidderminster Town Council is the first step in the right direction for the abolition of WFDC as a governing body; and will see the hopeful creation of a North/South unitary authority at some point in the future, that would be beneficial to everybody.

In the meantime, Kidderminster residents should take note of how having their own town council will impact on their individual tax contribution, and how they will be expected to finance their own facilities as is the case in Stourport-on-Severn. As it's a very current issue; it's worth highlighting that when a town council is created, Kidderminster will be expected to finance the running of its own town hall, possible leisure centre and the £6,000+ costs of running the Brintons Park Splash Pad, that is currently under construction.

A Kidderminster Town Council will for sure have its benefits for a better democratic Wyre Forest; but it will definately come at some cost for the Kidderminster taxpayer !

Report this post »

HowardM says...
11:51am Mon 4 Mar 13

Just a point in answer to Craig Bateman's comment above. The Charter Trustees are not that historical. They were only formed in 1973 to fill the void left by the scrapping of Kidderminster Borough Council when Wyre Forest DC was formed. The main purpose was to enable the election of a Town Mayor which was originally performed by the Town Council, and will be again if this proposal is carried through.
Also, whilst broadly agreeing with Jon Cooper, the actual issue of what functions and responsibilities pass from WFDC to a new Town Council will be for negotiation and agreement. Some functions automatically transfer but other do not - the issue of the splash pad being one that isnt automatic. Stourport Town Council were given the option to run and maintain the splash pad planned for Stourport, they declined to subsidise it and WFDC had no power to insist they did. The "given" powers of a Town/Parish Council are limited but the option does exist for agreement for more to transfer. As for a step towards unitary council status, absolutely - bring it on!

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
12:36pm Mon 4 Mar 13

... I think in a fair and democratic system, it goes without saying that ALL town councils in the district should be expected to function in exactly the same way as each other. You cannot simply expect to waver responsibility in a selective fashion.

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Mar 13

I am all in favour of local democracy and town councils having more power; but before people start thinking that a unitary authority is some kind of panacea - I would ask on what basis? To save money? Be more acountable?

In my view, a unitary authority would not best serve the people of this district or the county and probably would be even worse than the existing county council which is a one party junta that does what it likes mostly.

So seriously? You think things would improve?

It is more likely we would see further erosions in our democracy, less councillor influence, more bureaucracy and more 'paid officer' power. That spells yet more alienation of voters to me and yet more falling turnout.

Whether a unitary north/south or a whole county authority comes about is pure speculation but worringly the move is already happening - with shared services and without any democratic mandate. This, in a single party set up, without any accountability. And commissioning out services is its mantra. Who voted for that exactly? I didn't. Councillors ultimately are making themselves redundant and further unable to offer accountability with this wholescale move to using taxpayers money to fund 'privatised' public services.

The problem with our democracy (locally and nationally) is that councils are unaccountable full stop and the voting system and internal machinations (cabinets etc) encourage it. Until that changes along with a move back to true local representation we'll just be re-organising the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
1:27pm Mon 4 Mar 13

... Do you honestly think that WFDC is the authority that serves all and sundry in a fair and unbiased fashion Stephen ? If you do, then i'm prepared to be "lowered away" !

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
1:59pm Mon 4 Mar 13

Jon, of course not I think you miss the point of my post.

Until the voting system changes, and council administration structures around it change, then the act and outcomes of representating us won't change at all either.

We can have whatever councils we want, serving whichever constituencies, but if they use the same flawed systems we have now - they won't serve anyone well let alone better than the current unrepresentative self-important WFDC, WCC included and more.....the current system means we might get the odd individuals who do their best but they will remain frustrated, like the rest of us, about how representative structures function and fail us.

Report this post »

DOEPUBLIC says...
5:27pm Mon 4 Mar 13

The way in which this has been facilitated shows more about vested interests than anything else. It also shows how certain groups are not prepared to share space appropriately.
Especially when the objective is clearly to get their own way. Has anyone noticed the campaign promised by last year's returning officer to increase turn out?

Report this post »

DOEPUBLIC says...
6:39pm Mon 4 Mar 13

The reality is 70% choose not to register an 'x'. Showing an unwillingness to even sign up to any official level of political literacy.
Showing the poverty of purpose that is presently pursued by those in control, regardless of how structures are manufactured or manipulated.
Thinking Local gets no further than selfishness.

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
8:43pm Mon 4 Mar 13

DOEPUBLIC - I believe those structures have played their part in this alienation for voters along with the self-interest of those in control who have been allowed to exploit those structures. Those in control do not seem answerable to anyone but their own inner circle and that is probably a tightly knit tightly controlled environment of self congratulation and self-approval.

A start would be for those who claim to dislike this system and who have some influence to reject it. They can now do so in opposition united if they see fit and if they stick with it; but they do not seem interested to do so, unlike some other councils. Instead all we get is posturing and manouvering to gain more influence with that discredited inner circle and blame previous government for giving uis this system. Total Cop out and shameful.

Report this post »

HowardM says...
11:33am Tue 5 Mar 13

I think self interest by some has been evident in the past. Putting "party " interest aside for the purposes of this post, both a unitary authority and all out elections once every 4 years (already enjoyed by many councils like WF) do not favour the small parties. If Wyre Forest changed its elections from thirds to "all out" every 4 years, parties like the local Liberals and ICHC would be hard put to compete on financial and candidate number grounds. When the boundaries changed several years ago (2004 I think) and all 42 seats were up for election, only the Tories at that time managed 42 candidates and they won 26 of the seats - before that election there was no overall majority with ICHC the biggest party on 16 - since then elections have returned to thirds and changes in political balance have been relatively small. Several attempts to move to "once every 4 years" have been rejected in the past because of the logistical difficulties it would give every local party. Probably only the Tories and now probably also Labour, would be able to field a full slate - so the democratic involvement of the smaller parties is minimalised. Is that democratic?
The same applies with the Unitary option - one election every 4 years and some local WF smaller parties have no structure outside the District so are marginalised. So basically it becomes a two party fight between Tories and Labour with some strength from the Lib Dems in the Malvern area. If, as is widely presumed, the County became two authorities, say North (WF, Bromsgrove and Redditch) and South, then in our area the balance of power would ALWAYS be between Labour and Tories. Why, therefore, for instance, would the WF Liberal Party ever vote for the option on a North Worcs Unitary? Turkeys voting for Christmas? Self interest? You decide.
Also its been suggested in the past that Stourport need not be in the same Unitary as Kidderminster. However the likely structure will group areas by parliamentary boundries to retain a co-terminus structure with the 3 North Worcs Constituencies being grouped together and that wont be up for local negotiation, it will be determined by the Boundary Commission.
However with one local authority and elections once ever four years instead of every year, as now, there is much more likelyhood of the electorate turning out to vote in greater numbers which is an up side to change.
The reasons for me strongly favouring a Unitary are many
but that's another debate and not for this particular thread.

Report this post »

DOEPUBLIC says...
2:29pm Tue 5 Mar 13

Interesting observations HowardM, that appear to confirm an inevitable fait accompli promoted by a Labour/Con unofficial alliance. Financial clout and structures dominating the voices of the people. 70% of whom choose not to speak officially. Community depression compounded by lack of realistic engagement from those with the power.

Report this post »

emjaypee says...
7:19pm Tue 5 Mar 13

Another trough for the noses to gorge on. If any of us want a voice we have more than enough cllrs to approach irrespective of party colour or which tier of council. There is no good argument for yet another talking shop funded by the tax payer. If all you cllrs want it then sign an agreement that you will do so without drawing any expenses. Do any of you know about council cut backs or are you all on another planet.

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
12:45pm Wed 6 Mar 13

HowardM says: "Also its been suggested in the past that Stourport need not be in the same Unitary as Kidderminster. However the likely structure will group areas by parliamentary boundries to retain a co-terminus structure with the 3 North Worcs Constituencies being grouped together and that wont be up for local negotiation, it will be determined by the Boundary Commission".

Howard: Pre-1974, it was considered a long shot that Stourport would merge within the constituency of Wyre Forest. It was also a close run thing that Stourport in fact could have merged with Wychavon District Council, (i think it was down to one vote ?). It is strange to discover when reading the archive of public opinion from 1974 that a large bulk of Kidderminster, Stourport and Bewdley residents didn't want the creation of Wyre Forest in the first place, not even their respective town councils - so this is why i feel the creation of a Kidderminster Town Council is the real step in the right direction of a long overdue seperation !

Like the many district councils that were created at the time of Wyre Forest, it is proven that they've been costly disasters to the people they are supposed to represent !

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
12:55pm Wed 6 Mar 13

... PS: It would be of great interest to see the results of a possible poll on the general public's thoughts on the breaking up of Wyre Forest as a local authority right here in 2013. I have a funny feeling the public perception would be of little difference to 40 years ago !

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree