Rossendale Council to consider four year election cycle

The new election system, if agreed, could start this May, and the council was told a decision must be taken in good time to prevent uncertainty.

The change was debated in 2022 but rejected by councillors at the time. A fresh appraisal has come from the council’s new chief executive, Rob Huntington, who joined in 2023.

If agreed this year, the election change would end the current phased cycle where a third of councillors stand for election in three out of four years.

It is also recommended Whitworth Town Council elections should follow a the same four-year schedule. Laws allow the borough to make on order on the town council for this.

Rossendale borough councillors are to attend an extraordinary meeting on Monday, January 22, to discuss options and public consultation.

Elections may move from annual to every four years

A report states: “Moving to whole-council elections has advantages for the council including providing a clearer mandate and more stability and is likely to be more understandable to voters.

"To move to whole-council elections the council must first consult people it thinks appropriate on the proposed change.

“Following the Local Government Boundary Commission for England review, the council is subject to all-out election in May 2024 along with Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner elections.

"This presents a timely opportunity to move to whole-council elections with minimal disruption, if a resolution to change the election cycle is passed.”

Rossendale Council has previously rejected the idea

The government’s current policy is to encourage councils to consider four-year all-out elections to bring stability to council decision-making and encourage longer-term planning.

The four-year system would be easier for the public to understand and bring various benefits, supporters of change argue, including that current phased elections held in three out of four years take-up a lot of time and financial resources, and hinder other activity by councillors and staff, while elections can also cause disruption with use of public buildings for polling stations.

Furthermore, the overall number and regularity of elections can add to a feeling of ‘fatigue’ amongst residents, some people believe, leading to low turn-outs by voters.

Instead, increased publicity around high-profile all-out elections could generate higher voter turn-out, it is hoped, while political stability over four years would also provide clarity for businesses and investors about borough plans and priorities.

It would also encourage different party-political groups to work together on important projects, for example changes to services and finances, rather than competing as rivals for short-term party gains.

However, arguments to keep the current phased election cycle include allowing new councillors to learn from experienced councillors, and there being less risk of dramatic changes in councillors.

Other arguments include allowing voters to ‘judge’ a council every year at elections rather than every four years. This arguably increases political accountability and the ability to react more quickly to local situations, the report adds.

Regarding finances, the report adds: “Currently, the cost of local elections every three out of four years is around £90,000 per year. When local elections coincide with other elections, any fixed costs would be reduced by contributions from external parties, such as central government.

“In recent years, this has seen the council only paying half the main costs, such as for staffing, polling stations, postal vote packs and poll cards The potential saving from moving to whole-council elections exceeds the contributions from combined elections.”

A change to whole-council elections would secure significant savings over four years and assist the council’s financial strategy. Better value for money is obtained from whole-council elections, the report states.

In summer 2022, Rossendale councillors voted against  holding whole-council elections every four years. They said it followed low levels of public feedback in a consultation exercise. But Conservatives at the time said they still believed a change would bring benefits.