Minutes:
Councillor Gowrley, Leader of Council introduced report MC/17/14 and informed Members of an amendment to recommendation 2.1:
That the tabled proposal B replace the Appendix.
Councillor Gowrley said that the proposal had been worked on by a Task and Finish group and drop-in sessions for Members. Mid Suffolk District Council would submit Proposal B to the Local Government Boundary Commission and the Boundary Commission would evaluate all submitted proposals before forwarding their preferred option back to Mid Suffolk District Council for consultation. He commended all who had worked on this challenging project, which had resulted in Proposal B.
Councillor Gowrley moved the recommendations in 2.1 and 2.2. and was seconded by Councillor John Whitehead.
Councillor Whitehead described to Members how the process of creating viable ward patterns had been developed. He said all Members had had the opportunity to comment on the proposal throughout the process and constructive suggestions had been incorporated into the proposal. Suggestions of new wards patterns had been shared with Members throughout the course of the development. He continued that the proposal had not just been a numerical exercise and that other factors supplied by Members had been included in the final plan. Councillor Whitehead felt Proposal B had achieved the best ward pattern possible but recognised that this was only the beginning of the boundary review and that the proposal would be developed further once the Boundary Review Commission had considered all the submitted proposals.
Councillor Andrew Stringer proposed an amendment to the recommendations to include the Green Boundary Proposal version 2 tabled at the meeting.
The motion was seconded by Councillor John Matthissen.
Councillor Stringer considered the possibility of submitting the four proposals currently suggested to the Council as they all carried some merits, and reminded Members that the administration could submit more than one proposal.
Councillor Matthew Hicks made a point of order with regards to the title of the Green Boundary Proposal version 2 as it contained the word ‘administration’ He asked this to be removed from the title of the proposal, on the grounds that the Green Boundary Proposal did not represent the administration’s proposal for the ward pattern.
Councillor Penny Otton informed Members that the Liberal Party would submit their own Boundary Review proposal as Members had not had enough time to consider their proposal.
Members then debated the amended recommendation and some Members felt that the representation to the Boundary Review Commission from the District Council should be a cohesive proposal and therefore only Proposal B should be submitted. Others felt that the proposed wards had not been constructed round the historical collaboration between parishes, and that the division of some parishes previously in the same ward, had now been divided into new wards. Suggestions were made that the administration and each political party should submit each their own proposal as the Boundary Review Commission considered all proposal submitted.
Councillor Tim Passmore said a reduction of the numbers of Councillors had been agreed by all Members and Councillor Matthew Hicks follow this up with that the Proposal B had been agreed by the administration and should therefore be the proposal submitted from Mid Suffolk District Council.
Councillor Andrew Stringer said since that Proposal B was a tabled proposal Members had not had the opportunity to consider this proposal properly.
Councillor Derrick Haley announced an adjournment of fifteen minutes for Members to consider the proposals before them.
The Meeting adjourned at 6.00pm and reconvened at 6.15pm.
Councillor Derrick Haley reiterated the proposed amended recommendation:
That the Green Boundary Proposal and Green Boundary Proposal version 2 be added to the Mid Suffolk District Council Boundary Review proposal and submitted to the Boundary Review Commission for consideration.
The amendment was lost by 9 votes to 24.
Members then debated the recommendations proposed by Councillor Gowrley and put forward various points including:
· That rural parishes often shared facilities such as schools, village halls, shops, sports facilities and other amenities and that the warding pattern did not always reflect this.
· Some parishes had natural boundaries which some Members felt had not been taken into consideration.
· The division to the North of the District was considered to be acceptable.
· The division of Parish Councils sharing facilities, which had been divided by the new warding pattern, were not considered practical.
· Concerns regarding future population growth in wards, which had large developments planned.
· That Members had already decided to reduce the total numbers of wards to 34 wards.
· Parish Councils sharing facilities and working together would not be influenced by the warding pattern.
· Three Member wards did not work in rural areas.
· Because of the strength of identity large villages should have an allocation of one ward member each.
· The allocations of wards patterns were based on a percentage range of +/-10% of the total population.
· Some Members felt that the combination of rural parishes included in wards with larger villages or towns was not a satisfactory combination as they did not share the same issues.
· That the Boundary Review Commission considered the population growth in the individual to ensure the correct number of wards members.
· It was the wards which were to be merged and not the parishes.
In response to Members’ questions of how the new wards were calculated, Emily Yule, Assistant Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer explained how the predicted population growth for 2022 was determined by the Boundary Review Commission. The electoral roll for 2015 was used as the baseline and had therefore not been affected by the General Election or European Election. Only built out and occupied properties would be included in the calculation by the Boundary Commission.
Councillor John Whitehead asked Members to vote on the ward boundaries outlined in the tabled Proposal B map.
By 22 votes to 9
RESOLUTION 1
That the proposal attached as an appendix to the report be submitted as Mid Suffolk District Council’s formal response to the consultation
RESOLUTION 2
That the Chief Executive be authorised to submit the consultation response on behalf of the Council, and to include any relevant information arising from the Council’s debate which provides further context and rationale behind the proposal
The business of the meeting concluded at 6.55pm.
Supporting documents: