Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council
(See report at Agenda item 11 (pages 106 – 109) of the Cabinet papers of 7 July 2015)
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION
That the Boundary Review Panel be authorised to respond to West Sussex County Council’s proposed scheme of county electoral divisions for Chichester District, to West Sussex County Council and/or to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by the end of August 2015.
Minutes:
Mrs Hardwick (Cabinet Member for Finance and Governance), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved the recommendation of the Cabinet
She reminded the Cabinet that the Local Government Boundary Commission was carrying out a review of West Sussex County Council in order to rectify electoral imbalance. This was separate from any electoral review of the District Council. On 3 July 2015, the County Council had published proposals for boundary changes to some county electoral divisions in the District, as follows:-
“It is considered that the current division pattern in Chichester works well both in terms of electoral equality and in community identity, so minimum changes would be considered rather than more radical re-drawing of divisions. As Chichester East is too large at present, two proposals were put forward and agreed:
a) “North Mundham parish (nom1 polling district) from Chichester East to Chichester South
b) “Sidlesham parish (sid2 polling district) from Chichester South to the Witterings
“It was proposed that Bostock Road, Graylingwell Drive, both sides of Palmersfield Avenue and Kingsmead Avenue be moved from Chichester North to Chichester East to better future proof the electoral size of each division. The proposal would also make more sense for the local community, as there was not direct vehicular access to the rest of Chichester North division from those roads, but they were directly linked to Chichester East, so felt like a natural part of Chichester East. The proposal was discussed and agreed.
“It was proposed to rename the ‘Fernhurst’ division as ‘Rother Valley’ as the division covered a number of villages spread over some distance – the name ‘Fernhurst’ simply referred to the biggest settlement. The proposal was discussed and agreed.”
Mrs Hardwick explained that there was insufficient time for the Council’s usual process of consideration by the Boundary Review Panel, whose recommendations would then be reported to the Cabinet and the Council for approval. Therefore, the Council was asked to authorise the Boundary Review Panel to respond on its behalf to the County Council’s proposals. Members who wished to make comments for the Panel’s consideration should communicate them to Mr Ward (Head of Finance and Governance Services) or Mr Coleman (Member Services Manager).
Mr Shaxson expressed surprise at the proposal to change the name of the Fernhurst Electoral Division to Rother Valley, because the Rother Valley also encompassed many of the settlements in the Midhurst and Petworth Electoral Divisions.
Mr Oakley offered to explain the proposed changes to electoral division boundaries to any member, on request.
RESOLVED
That the Boundary Review Panel be authorised to respond to West Sussex County Council’s proposed scheme of county electoral divisions for Chichester District, to West Sussex County Council and/or to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by the end of August 2015.