Issue - meetings

(See report at Agenda Item 5  of the Cabinet papers of 31 March 2016)

PROPOSED  RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the recommendations of the Boundary Review Panel andapproves 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.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101