Agenda item

Members will receive an update from the Boundary Review Panel which will be held on Tuesday 15 November to consider the Parliamentary Boundary Review proposals as set out here: BCE Consultation Portal (bcereviews.org.uk).

 

Any recommendations from the Panel will be circulated as a supplement to the agenda.

Cllr Oakley as Chair of the Boundary Review Panel introduced the item. He thanked officers for their time on the recommendations.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Cllr Oakley and seconded by Cllr Lintill.

 

Cllr Oakley outlined all the options detailed within the report. He then spoke in favour of option 2.1c as outlined in the report. He explained that it would mean that it includes the whole of the A286 from the city to Midhurst in the Chichester constituency and avoids upper Lavant valley parishes being detached.

 

Cllr Brown spoke in favour of option 2.1b. He referred to maps he had provided to members prior to the meeting. He spoke against the Boundary Commission proposals as it results in areas of Bognor being included in the Chichester constituency and the exclusion of the South Downs within the Chichester constituency. He explained that proposals should be kept as simple as possible. Option 2.1b is a straight swap to put Bognor areas into Arun and South Downs.

 

Cllr O’Kelly explained that Harting Parish Council had debated the matter. She spoke in favour of the footprint of the constituencies being in line with local authorities for collaborative work. She added that the other local authorities should all be in line in order to get the changes through.

 

Cllr Hobbs spoke in favour of Lodsworth remaining in Chichester constituency. He requested the council responded with a preference to option 2.1c.

 

Cllr Duncton spoke in favour of option 2.1c.

 

Cllr Potter spoke in favour of option 2.1d in order to maintain the Goodwood ward within the Chichester constituency.

 

Cllr Plowman agreed with Cllr Potter about maintaining the Goodwood ward within the Chichester constituency. He also commented that it would be good to maintain Lodsworth too.

 

Cllr Moss agreed with the comments made to bring everyone in line to the same view. He included the MP in that. He wished to support option 2.1b at this stage.

 

Cllr Purnell supported a combination of option 2.1b and option 2.1c in order to achieve the optimum.

 

Cllr Dignum supported maintaining Harting, Easebourne and Midhurst and whatever else was mathematically possible.

 

Cllr Moss requested comment from the Chief Executive to provide members with a solution.

 

Cllr Purnell explained that the Boundary Commission appeared open to change. She added that the numbers presented to the Boundary Commission would be presented in order that they are checked rather than calculated.

 

Cllr Sharp commented that Pagham and Bersted are better linked to Bognor Regis. She spoke in favour of option 2.1c.

 

Cllr Briscoe drew members attention to the recommendation which allows for a combination of the options to be put forward. He spoke in favour of option 2.1c but could support a combination of options 2.1b 2.1c and 2.1d.

 

Cllr Brown explained that Cllr Oakley and Mr Mildred had carried out work to establish the different number options. He wished to note that Cllr McAra who was not present had spoke in favour of option 2.1a. He requested members vote on whether to include option 2.1d and then vote between 2.1b and 2.1c. He suggested submitting both options to the Boundary Commission to have 2.1c as the preferred option with 2.1b as a second preference if 2.1c is not workable.

 

Cllr Lintill supported Cllr Brown’s approach.

 

Cllr Oakley proposed that given the council’s desire to include as much of the district within the Chichester constituency that options 2.1b and 2.1c be put forward with equal weighting to the Boundary Commission. The proposal was seconded by Cllr Brown.

 

Cllr O’Kelly raised concerns about not aligning the options with other stakeholders.

 

Mrs Shepherd explained that a counter proposal would have to be made in order to put forward a preferred option with a second preference.

 

Cllr Purnell put forward a counter motion to put forward option 2.1c as the preferred option with option 2.1b as a second preference. This was seconded by Cllr Duncton.

 

The Chair took a short break in order to compile the amendments.

 

Mrs Shepherd clarified that option 2.1d would be a separate vote. She added that of the two counter motions members would vote first on Cllr Purnell’s and if that were successful then not on Cllr Oakley’s counter motion however if Cllr Purnell’s counter motion fell then Cllr Oakley’s motion would be voted on.

 

The Chair clarified the two counter motions:

 

·         Cllr Purnell, seconded by Cllr Duncton put forward that option 2.1c be put forward as the preferred option with option 2.1b as a second preference.

·         Cllr Oakley, seconded by Cllr Brown put forward that options 2.1b and 2.1c be put forward with equal weighting.

 

Mrs Shepherd explained if both fall then the vote would be on the substantive recommendation.

 

Cllr Hobbs wished to add a preamble that the aim of the council is to ensure the maximum amount of the district falls within the Chichester constituency. Cllr Purnell clarified that the additional recommendation in the report would give delegated authority for Cllr Oakley and Mr Mildred to word the response and therefore that would be included. Cllr Oakley confirmed that would be the principle of the response.

 

Mr Bennett asked members to maintain the discipline of speaking through the Chair for all comments.

 

The Chair then asked members to vote on Cllr Purnell’s counter motion.

 

The vote was tied. The Chair gave her casting vote to the counter motion.

 

In a vote the following resolution was carried:

 

RESOLVED

 

That option 2.1c be put forward to the Boundary Commission for England as the preferred option with option 2.1b as a second preference.

 

The Chair then moved to a vote on option 2.1d.

 

In a vote the following recommendation was carried:

 

RESOLVED

 

To recommend that the Boundary Commission for England move the whole of the Goodwood CDC ward from the Arundel and South Downs constituency into Chichester constituency. This would need to be offset by the parish of Lodsworth remaining within the Arundel and South Downs constituency rather than moving with the rest of Easebourne CDC ward into the Chichester constituency.

 

The Chair then moved to a vote on option 2.2

 

In a vote the following recommendation was carried:

 

RESOLVED

 

That it is delegated to the Chairman of the Boundary Review Panel supported by the Divisional Manager for Business Support to set out detailed proposals as appropriate and finalise the consultation response to the Boundary Commission for England.