Ravenstonedale Parish Council

Appendix 2 to Ravenstonedale PC Agenda 13th March 2008. From C & W Herald – 8th March 2008

“Future shape of Eden Council should be put to public debate”

Yet again, it is only through your reports and letters pages that we learn of significant activities within Eden District Council that impact on all residents of the area.

This time we learn that there are plans to restructure the organisation and I would submit that from the reports to date the decision appears to be "cut and dried".  I must agree with Brian Nicholls (Herald, 1st March) that the decision appears to be a rushed one and that politicians are seeking a way that will probably best serve their own (and party political) interests rather than the community they are supposed to serve.

This latter view is strengthened by the disingenuous letter in the same issue of the Herald from the joint, group and party political leaders where they seek to assure us all that all business will normally be conducted in open and public session.

This assertion would hold more credibility if the signatories were not those individuals perhaps having most to gain from the new structure.

The authors must also know that we are well aware that although meetings might indeed be open to public witness, group and party political stances are often formed ahead of meetings. In many cases decisions are indeed "cut and dried" before either public consultation or debate. We are repeatedly told that  we face the highest possible district council required increase to our council tax bills, continued cuts to our services and yet we the taxpayers (not the district council) own excessive and seemingly sacrosanct financial reserves that are of no defined use.

Whilst, services reduce, there is no perception of consequent reductions in staff or associated costs.

I submit that a root and branch review of service delivery should precede the rush to any restructure.  Presently Eden District Council includes within its role that of pseudo town council for Penrith and by doing so provides ample suspicions about its even handedness when dealing with urban and rural  needs. It seems hard to credit that in a region where the majority of the population is rural, that only of, recent origin all decisions taken by the council now have to be tested for rural effects.

Comparison of services in urban and rural areas require little study to see the hitherto clear bias in favour of the urban communities and how long overdue is the safeguard to delivery of equitable services to our remote communities.  The two responsibilities — pseudo town council and district council — should always have been very clearly segregated,  especially financially, so that all suspicions of unfair bias could have been easily identified or allayed.

We still await Eden District Council to honour its promises of delivering closer working relationships between our county, district and parish councils consequent to the decision not to adopt the unitary Cumbria proposal. Whilst we have heard of various possible initiatives for improved partnership working from Cumbria County Council, Eden District Council remains ominously (predictably?) quiet on the subject — as it was when considering the  original unitary Cumbria proposal.

The proposed tinkering with the structure might well produce some improvements to service delivery but I suggest that there is a more fundamental weakness in the make up of our district council — for example, the attraction of high quality and innovative thinking individuals to serve as district councillors.

At the last election, in 2007, people were hardly falling over themselves to join. Of the 38 wards, 14 returned nominees unopposed, meaning almost half of our councillors only had to put their names forward for them to represent their ward and to act on our behalf.

Party politics also played an unwelcome role.  I suggest that any future change to the structure should have as one of its aims to make the role of district councillor much more  attractive and appealing to a broad range of potential candidates. All organisations need new blood to flourish and this is certainly the case within EDC.

The proposed change to put the bulk of decisions in the hands of a single leader and a very small number of other councillors might well prove counterproductive when it comes to attracting this much needed and hopefully younger "new blood".  Who would want to serve if they felt unable to have an effective voice?

I very strongly support councillor Mike Eyles and Brian Nicholls that the decision to restructure EDC should be put to the public for debate, that the decision should not be rushed and that various fundamentals need prior review.

Yours etc,        DERICK COTTON    Glebe Byre, Bolton.