97 MC/17/23 Boundary Review - Response to Stage Two Consultation on Warding Patterns PDF 150 KB
Leader of the Council – Nick Gowrley
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Whitehead introduced Paper MC/17/23 which had been circulated with the agenda. Members also had before them the Administration’s response to the LGBCE which Councillor Whitehead had circulated prior to the meeting and which he read out. The draft proposals had generally received the Administration’s support except in two ward areas for which counter-proposals had been put forward. He referred to the recommendation in Paper MC/17/23 which allowed for further comments arising from the meeting to be included in the Council’s response.
During the course of the ensuing debate, Members put forward views and comments on various aspects of the proposals, as referred to below, for inclusion by the Chief Executive as part of the Council’s formal response.
· Councillor Eburne – Haughley and Wetherden – proposals are based on an erroneous number for the electorate because an incorrect boundary with Stowmarket has been used – if not corrected, this would lead to a further review being triggered almost immediately after the current one because the population could be 26% under the required number.
· Councillor Matthissen – Harleston – Onehouse, Shelland and Harleston work together and have a number of shared community facilities – concern about the percentages if the current proposals go ahead unless changes are made to Haughley and Wetherden – request for concerns to be included in the response.
· Councillor Mansel – disappointed at basic spelling errors in the LGBCE’s report and that the East had been confused with the west. Supported comments about Haughley and Harleston, also general concern about western parishes expecting considerable planning growth potentially leading to significant increases in electorates.
· Councillor Otton – queried the wording ‘best reflected the communities in this area’ under para 35 on page 49 of the report as she agreed with the views expressed about Harleston as above. She also had reservations about the suggested ward name of Onehouse.
· Councillor Stringer – would have preferred to see a joint response with the administration.
· Councillor Norris – queried the Creetings being put with Needham Market – they have little in common.
· Councillor Whybrow and others – agreed that the Haughley issue should be raised.
· Councillor Gibson-Harries – concerned about the distance north-south in some of the proposed wards to be covered by one Member eg Hoxne / Horham / Redlingfield, but understands the difficulties in the very rural areas.
· General concerns were expressed about the effect of planning growth on electoral numbers, the balance between community interests and electoral equality, and whether some of the single member larger wards, eg Needham Market, should have two Members, also the inaccuracies in some of the figures used by the LGBCE.
Councillor Whitehead responded to the comments made by reiterating that the LGBCE was particularly focussed on electoral equality, although he recognised the concerns expressed about the community interest aspect. He was happy to work with the officers on the Council’s response, and would include the comments about Haughley / Harleston in the administration response, and general support was ... view the full minutes text for item 97
52 BC/17/19 BOUNDARY REVIEW – RESPONSE TO STAGE TWO CONSULTATION ON WARDING PATTERNS PDF 150 KB
Leader of the Council – Jennie Jenkins
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Jennie Jenkins, Leader of the Council, introduced Paper BC/17/19 seeking member approval to submit the Council’s formal response to the Stage 2 Consultation as set out in the report, together with any further comments arising from the meeting.
During the course of the debate, Members put forward comments as referred to below for inclusion by the Chief Executive as part of the Council’s formal response.
· Councillor Arthey – reiterated the comments made by Cockfield Parish Council to avoid Cockfield being in a horseshoe-shaped ward with Long Melford.
· Councillor Davis and others – made reference to the lack of community or geographical connections between Bentley and Chelmondiston (incorrectly spelt by the LGBCE)
· Councillor Ward – referred to other errors in LGBCE report and to the prosaic nature of the ward names chosen which meant a loss of the sense of history on names such as ‘Berners’ – he will circulate his views
· Councillor Ferguson and others – could we ask LGBCE to look again at suggestions for two / three member wards and possible warding of eg Hadleigh.
· Councillors Bavington and Beer – it would be difficult to come up with an acceptable division into wards for Great Cornard, but the Parish Council will submit a proposed alteration about the Cats Lane boundary –
· Councillor Simon Barrett also referred to Sudbury Town Council’s view on Cats Lane
· Councillor Rose – Holbrook and Shotley in discussions about possibly becoming a single ward
· Councillor McCraw – will submit his comments on various models and suggestions. Other Members also indicated that they were making their own comments direct to LCBCE
In response to a query about the timing of the review, bearing in mind the current discussion about a possible merger of the two Councils, the Chief Executive explained that if any new authority accepted the numbers of Councillors agreed under the present review, there would be a more limited review. Mid Suffolk had a requirement to review prior to the 2019 elections because of the unequal electoral ratios and Babergh Council had agreed that it would be sensible to review at the same time. He also explained that the LGBCE position on growth was that electoral numbers, rather than house numbers, were taken into account, and that planning permissions granted, but not the draft Joint Local Plan projections, could be used in this context.
RESOLVED
That the Chief Executive be authorised to submit the Council’s formal response to the stage two consultation on warding patterns, including the comments appended to Paper BC/17/19 at Appendix 2, together with the points made by Members at the meeting, as above.