Agenda item

RECOMMENDED

That the Council informs the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) that it supports the Commission’s draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Chichester District Council, with the following exceptions:

1)          Its proposal to include the parish of Elsted & Treyford in Midhurst Ward. Instead this parish should be included in Harting Ward, as in the Council’s original submission, on the grounds that in this case the criteria of community identity and effective and convenient local government should outweigh the fairly marginal electoral inequality.

2)          Its proposals for the proposed Bosham & Donnington and North Mundham & Tangmere wards are accepted, but the wards should be named respectively Harbour and Tangmere Wards.

3)          Its proposal to transfer Velyn Avenue from Chichester South Ward to Chichester Central Ward; the flats on the western side of Velyn Avenue, with Peter Weston Close should be so transferred but the eastern and southern sides of Velyn Avenue should remain with the rest of Whyke in Chichester South Ward with which it has more community identity.

4)          Its proposal to transfer the Pound Farm area from Chichester South Ward to Chichester East Ward, thus creating a very small and unviable city council ward. Under the Commission’s proposal, electors in this area will be in Chichester South for County Council elections, Chichester East for District Council elections, and Chichester Pound Farm for City Council elections. This will be confusing for electors, and is not conducive to convenient and effective local government.

5)          The name of its proposed Chichester Portfield Ward; Chichester Arundel Park Ward is preferred.

Mr Ridd (Chairman of the Boundary Review Panel), seconded by Mr McAra, moved these recommendations.

Mr Ridd advised that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) published its recommendations for ward names and boundaries for the Council to take effect in May 2019. The consultation period runs until 10 October.

A small number of recommendations contained within this Council’s original submission to the LGBCE were not agreed and the LGBCE had instead devised their own different proposals for those areas. The Council’s Boundary Review Panel had focussed on these differences, and had not considered matters where the LGBCE had simply accepted the Council’s original submission. Firstly, the Harting ward, to include the parishes of Elsted and Treyford, were not agreed by the Commission who thought that they more realistically sat with Midhurst. Mr Shaxson had submitted his defence of the original recommendation on the basis of community identity and of convenient and effective local government. The panel had considered this and now recommended this option. Both parishes had also submitted their recommendations to the LGBCE.

Secondly the LGBCE had not accepted the whole swathe of parishes from Bosham to Tangmere due to the variances proposed. They reconsidered the whole group and proposed a three member ward with Bosham in the west stretching across to Donnington via Fishbourne in the centre and south of the city and this three member ward also included Chidham and Hambrook and Donnington. The panel considered this revised proposal and as there was no overwhelming evidence to overcome this it was accepted with a change of name to Harbour Ward.  This then threw up problems to the east because Hunston (which was to be included with Donnington) then had to be accommodated with the eastern ward. The Commission then came back with a two member North Mundham and Tangmere ward (consisting of the parishes Hunston, North Mundham, Oving and Tangmere) with a variance of 4% and again there was no overwhelming evidence to counter that and it was accepted by the panel.

There were some minor changes in Chichester City which the LGBCE discussed directly with the City Council. Finally the panel recommended that name of the proposed Chichester Portfield Ward be changed to Chichester Arundel Park Ward.

Mr Oakley advised that in his view the best way of representing wards was by single member wards. There was an issue with development at Shopwyke which would increase the numbers by 2021. The Council’s estimates had been very conservative and at variance with what developers were saying. He didn’t support the revised LGBCE recommendation as there would be issues with community identity, no co-terminosity with County divisions and ineffective local government.

Mr Ridd, along with Mr Ransley and Mr Cullen, also members of the panel, confirmed that Mr Oakley’s views had been considered by the panel, however after a lengthy debate it had been agreed to stick to the LGBCE’s recommendations. 

Mrs Purnell and Mr Connor were concerned that the LGBCE was driven by numbers in determining boundaries and did not take into account the best scenario for communities and they would not be supporting the recommendations. Mr Ridd accepted the comments made by the Selsey members, stating that the panel had not revisited any recommendations that had previously been successfully approved through Cabinet and Council and where the LGBCE had accepted those recommendations.

Mr Dignum referring to recommendations 3, 4 and 5, stated that Chichester City Council would be liaising with the LGBCE in respect of redrawing the city wards. 

RESOLVED

That the Council informs the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) that it supports the Commission’s draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Chichester District Council, with the following exceptions:

1)          Its proposal to include the parish of Elsted & Treyford in Midhurst Ward. Instead this parish should be included in Harting Ward, as in the Council’s original submission, on the grounds that in this case the criteria of community identity and effective and convenient local government should outweigh the fairly marginal electoral inequality.

2)          Its proposals for the proposed Bosham & Donnington and North Mundham & Tangmere wards are accepted, but the wards should be named respectively Harbour and Tangmere Wards.

3)          Its proposal to transfer Velyn Avenue from Chichester South Ward to Chichester Central Ward; the flats on the western side of Velyn Avenue, with Peter Weston Close should be so transferred but the eastern and southern sides of Velyn Avenue should remain with the rest of Whyke in Chichester South Ward with which it has more community identity.

4)          Its proposal to transfer the Pound Farm area from Chichester South Ward to Chichester East Ward, thus creating a very small and unviable city council ward. Under the Commission’s proposal, electors in this area will be in Chichester South for County Council elections, Chichester East for District Council elections, and Chichester Pound Farm for City Council elections. This will be confusing for electors, and is not conducive to convenient and effective local government.

5)          The name of its proposed Chichester Portfield Ward; Chichester Arundel Park Ward is preferred.