Leader of the Council – Nick Gowrley
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 expressed for this approach. He indicated that Needham Market on its own is too large to be a single member ward but too small to be a standalone two member ward. Accordingly some of the hinterland villages must be included in the new Needham Market ward to produce good electoral equality.
The Assistant Director – Law and Governance referred to a consequential amendment that would be required to make the county division boundaries co-terminous with the town and district ward boundaries.
Councillor Haley referred to Members making their own submissions about matters of particular concern to their Wards, particularly in relation to areas where considerable growth was anticipated.
RESOLUTION
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 MC/17/23 at Appendix 2, together with the further comments of the Administration as circulated to Members at the Council meeting and points made by Members as above.
Supporting documents: