Agenda item

To seek approval to a submission document to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, including a proposed Council size and forecast electorate.

Council’s approval was sought to a submission document to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE), including a proposed Council size and forecast electorate.

Members were aware that the submission document had been produced by the Electoral Review Working Party, chaired by Councillor Honeywood and that the Working Party had broad representation from across the Council.

It was reported that the guidance from the LGBCE advised that the submission on Council size should take four broad areas into consideration:-

Each of the above areas had been considered and addressed in the submission document in reaching a proposal on Council Size. The submission document was before Council as Appendix A to item A.1 of the Report of the Management and Members’ Support Manager.

Council was informed that the Council’s submission on Council size would be considered by the LGBCE alongside any other submissions received. The Working Party’s submission proposed a Council size of 48. The LGBCE would consider all submissions received on Council size and make a final decision. The LGBCE decision on Council size would be final.

Members were advised that the forecast electorate in 2022 had been undertaken following the guidance of the LGBCE and was forecast to be 116,000. This included an assessment of the number of new electors arising from additional housing build. The data for house build was the same as that used in the Council’s emerging Local Plan although the Local Plan had a timescale to 2033 and beyond whilst the electoral forecast was to 2022.

Council was made aware that, once the revised Council size and forecast electorate were agreed they would inform the second stage of the review. One of the elements considered in looking at ward boundaries was electoral equality and the figures of Council size and both current and forecast electorate would be used to judge where electoral equality was significantly different in any ward from the average.

It was brought to Members’ attention that, when the stage of looking at ward boundaries was reached, the use of electoral equality was a guide to how boundaries should change. Another very important factor was the local community in geographical, social and demographic terms and all Members of the community – individuals, residents associations, Town and Parish Councils etc. would be able to provide submissions on where they believed the ward boundaries should lie.

The Chairman of the Electoral Review Working Party (Councillor Honeywood) thanked the Members of the Working Party for their hard work and constructive input into the submission document.

Councillor Honeywood moved and Councillor Stock seconded: “that the submission attached at Appendix A to item A.1 of the Report of the Management and Members’ Support Manager be agreed and be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.”

Councillors Stephenson, Everett, Stock and Howard participated in the debate on Councillor Honeywood’s motion.

It was then moved by Councillor Everett and seconded by Councillor Bray that Councillor Honeywood’s motion be amended to read as follows:

“that the submission attached at Appendix A to item A.1 of the Report of the Management and Members’ Support Manager be amended to agree to 60 Councillors and be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, following agreement by the Working Party of the figures.”

Councillors Scott, Broderick, Stock, Honeywood, Miles, G V Guglielmi, Bucke, Parsons, Calver, Newton, Steady, Cossens and Bray participated in the debate on Councillor Everett’s amendment.

Councillor G V Guglielmi asked that, in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 18.4, a record of the vote on Councillor Everett’s amendment be taken.

Councillor Parsons’ amendment was thereupon declared LOST.

Councillor Honeywood’s motion, on being put to the vote, was declared CARRIED.

NOTE: in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 19.5, Councillors Bennison, Bray, Broderick, Bucke, Cawthron, Davis, Everett, Hones, King, Khan, Newton, Parsons, Pemberton, Raby, Stephenson, Whitmore and Winfield each requested that they be recorded in the minutes as having voted against Councillor Honeywood’s motion.