Chichester District Council
Decision details

Decision details

Chichester Electoral Review: Creating a Pattern of Wards

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Mr Dignum, seconded by Mrs Lintill, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet.

 

The Chairman drew attention to the report that had been considered by the Cabinet earlier in the day.

 

He reported a number of updates:-

 

Since the papers had been printed a formal representation from Selsey Town Council had been received, to add to the list of responses to consultation at Appendix 2, that read as follows:-

 

Selsey Town Council resolved to support a single 3 member ward for Selsey rather than two 2 member wards, one split with Sidlesham Parish. STC feels that there are irrefutably strong community identity grounds for treating Selsey as a separate entity and that due to population spread there is no obvious or sensible line to take if splitting Selsey to form a ward with Sidlesham. Equally, Sidlesham would be automatically disadvantaged due to population numbers and that there would be an inherent conflict for any single representative as the problems and priorities of the parishes are so different.”

 

Secondly, a further representation from the Sidlesham Parish Council had been received and emailed to all members yesterday evening, 30 March.

.

Thirdly, at paragraph 6.7 on page 18 of the Cabinet papers, the last sentence reads: “The small gains in electoral equality do not seem to justify the complication of splitting Fishbourne parish”. That was a misunderstanding on the part of the report writer and, in fact, the Boundary Review Panel did support the transfer of Apuldram Lane to Donnington Ward.

 

Finally, the Cabinet had proposed two changes to the recommendations. To recommendation 2.1 add the words, “subject to the reconfiguration of Selsey and Sidlesham into two 2-member wards, respectively for Selsey South and Selsey North with Sidlesham”, and then an additional recommendation as follows:

“That the Head of Finance and Governance Services be authorised to correct typographical errors and to make editorial amendments to the draft submission.”

 

Mr Dignum introduced the Cabinet’s recommendations, explaining that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) had agreed, at the Council’s request in the last Council term, to carry out an electoral review of Chichester District. The LGBCE had stated that it was ‘minded to’ recommend a Council size of 36 – also as requested by this Council - a 25% reduction from the present 48.

 

Having made that provisional decision on council size, the next stage was to divide the district into wards. The LGBCE had launched a consultation on 26 January 2016, inviting proposals on a pattern of wards to accommodate 36 councillors. The closing date for responses was 4 April. People and organisations might have made recommendations direct to the LGBCE of which the Council was not aware.

 

However, the Council’s Boundary Review Panel had drawn up a set of proposals, drawing on the product of three area workshops involving local ward members. Those proposals were set out in Appendix One to the report and had been the subject of a consultation exercise.

 

The consultation document had been sent, inviting comments, to all members, all parish councils and chairmen of parish meetings, the County Council, the National Park and the political parties. The consultation document had also been put on the Council’s website and a press release issued. Comments were invited by 14 March.

 

There had been a considerable response – see the 62 pages of comments at Appendix 2 to the Cabinet report. Some areas had proved more controversial than others. There had been no response at all from some areas.

 

The Boundary Review Panel on Monday 21 March had reviewed all the representations received from the consultation. These were set out in Appendix 2. The Panel had made recommendations which were set out in Appendix 3 in the form of a draft submission to the LGBCE.

 

In preparing proposals, the Panel and the Council had to consider three statutory criteria, which the LGBCE was bound by. These were set out in section 4 of the report:

·         Electoral equality

·         The interests and identities of local communities

·         Effective and convenient local government

In practice these aims were sometimes incompatible, and so there was scope for judgement. The Council’s judgement and that of the Boundary Commission might differ but the Boundary Commission had the final say.

 

The District’s projected electorate divided between 36 members gave a target size of ward of 2,744 electors per councillor. If possible proposals should keep within a tolerance of ± 10%, i.e. within a range 2,470 to 3,018.

 

Three of the Panel’s proposed wards were outside that tolerance:-

 

Oving Ward: -14.7%. But this included the Shopwhyke Lakes Strategic Development location so that headroom would be taken up over time.

Bosham Ward: +15.2%. This was dealt with in paragraph 6.7 of the report.

Harting Ward: +11.3%. But the Panel had looked carefully at options for transferring whole parishes elsewhere, and the parishes had made good cases on community interests grounds to stay in Harting.

 

There were only two areas of real controversy:

 

Selsey and Sidlesham. The local members and the parish council had made a strong argument that their communities had little in common and should not be combined. The solution suggested by Selsey members had been rejected by the Panel for reasons set out in paragraph 6.4 on page 17. Looked at alone, the Selsey members’ proposal might have merit but its knock-on effect would be likely to reduce the Council’s total size to 34. This further reduction was unacceptable as the proposed 36 was already a radical change from the present 48. An alternative solution also putting all of Selsey in one ward as local members requested and creating two 2-member wards for the area from Bosham to Sidlesham had also been rejected by the Panel.

 

Lurgashall/Northchapel and Lodsworth. These parishes too felt that they had little in common with the other parishes in the proposed wards that included them. Again, the Panel had considered many other options, but none of them worked.

 

On behalf of the Council, Mr Dignum thanked Mr John Ridd and the Boundary Review Panel and recognised the sterling effort provided by Philip Coleman to find the best possible compromise in the face of competing views and interests.

 

Mr Dignum then invited the Council to review the Cabinet’s recommendations area by area.

 

Mrs Kilby and Mr Plowman expressed their support for the proposals for Chichester City.

 

Mr Barrett expressed support for the proposal that The Witterings should be a single three-member ward, as this avoided warding West Wittering parish.

 

Mrs Purnell and Mr Connor stated that insufficient weight had been given to the views of the local community in the proposals for Selsey and Sidlesham. They re-iterated the opposition of local members and the Selsey Town Council and Sidlesham Parish Council to the inclusion of both parishes in a single warding arrangement. However, if the Council, nevertheless, approved this, they stated that two two-member wards was the preferred way of dividing the area.

 

Mrs Tull emphasised the opposition of Sidlesham to the proposal for the parish to be subsumed in a warding arrangement with Selsey. She felt that insufficient attention had been paid to community cohesion and that Birdham was a more appropriate partner for Sidlesham. Nevertheless, if Selsey and Sidlesham were to be combined, she agreed that two two-member wards was preferred and she proposed, seconded by Mr Connor, that the ward that included Sidlesham should be named “Sidlesham with Selsey North”. This motion was carried.

 

Mrs Plant expressed the view that, although the proposed Bosham Ward was the only ward proposed that was substantially above the +10 threshold, the parishes of Fishbourne, Bosham, and Chidham and Hambrook were a homogenous and happy grouping. Mr Cullen agreed that the high electorate was manageable and emphasised that it would not be appropriate to reverse the recent decision, after a community governance review, to include the Southbourne [6] polling district within Chidham and Hambrook.

 

Mr Oakley stated that a 25% reduction in the number of councillors was bound to produce some controversy about ward boundaries but emphasised that the purpose of the review was to produce district councillors to run a district council. The Council’s proposals should seek to minimise the need to trigger a premature review because of electoral imbalance. He pointed out that the electorate of Sidlesham would be about 40% of a single-member ward but only about 20% of a two-member ward. He also suggested some editorial changes to the draft submission.

 

Mrs Westacott pointed out that Fishbourne was a significant community with distinct characteristics. She moved an amendment, seconded by Mr Plowman, that the proposed Bosham Ward should be named “Bosham with Fishbourne”. Mr Cullen pointed out that Chidham was as large as Bosham, and Mr McAra said the the LGBCE tended to name wards after the largest settlement. On a vote being taken, Mrs Westacott’s motion was lost.

 

Mrs Hamilton reported that representatives of West Itchenor and Birdham parishes had expressed a preference for single-member wards in The Witterings as giving greater accountability and, probably, greater turnout at elections.

 

Mrs Tassell expressed dissatisfaction that Funtington would lose its identity.

 

On a vote being taken, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the Council adopts the recommendations of the Boundary Review Panel and approves the submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England  of the proposals in Appendix 3 of the Cabinet report as their preferred pattern of wards for a 36 member Council, subject to the reconfiguration of Selsey and Sidlesham into two 2-member wards, respectively for Selsey South and Sidlesham with Selsey North.

 

(2)  That the Head of Finance and Governance Services be authorised to correct typographical errors and to make editorial amendments to the draft submission

 

(Two councillors voted against and three abstained).

Report author: Mr Philip Coleman

Publication date: 13/07/2016

Date of decision: 31/03/2016

Decided at meeting: 31/03/2016 - Council

 

Top of page