Agenda item

To consider the Final Recommendations of the Electoral Review Committee.

Introduction

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, the Chairman invited Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling to introduce the Final Recommendations of the committee and set out the process which had been followed during the 2022/23 Community Governance Review Prior to the introduction the Chairman set out the process that would be followed for debate on the item.

 

Cllr Blair-Pilling moved the proposals as set out in the Final Recommendations, which was seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler. He then set out the background to the Final Recommendations of the committee, detailing the statutory criteria the council must follow during the process, relating to community interest and identity, and effective and convenient governance. He made clear that once an area was chosen for review the committee considered all options, not only those initially proposed to it.

 

Details were provided of the public consultations and engagements with local councils which had taken place, with some recommendations being adjusted through the process. Some of the recommendations, if approved, would require the consent of the Local Governance Boundary Commission for England in order to be enacted.

Cllr Blair-Pilling referred throughout to details and reasoning for changes as set out in the Final Recommendations document attached to the Summons.

 

Before explaining and debating specific recommendations, the Chairman invited Group Leaders to comment upon the process generally.

 

Group Leaders and procedural points

Cllr Richard Clewer, Leader of the Council, welcomed the work of the Committee in performing detailed review of boundaries and governance of parishes.

Cllr Gordon King, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, expressed his appreciation for the work of the committee and adherence to process, though would speak as an individual divisional member in relation to specific recommendations, noting he was a member for Westbury, which was involved in the first recommendation.

 

Cllr Ernie Clark, Leader of the Independent Group, as a member of the Committee thanked officers and fellow committee members for their work on the recommendations and supported the proposals.

 

Cllr Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, welcomed the consistent and down to earth approach the committee had developed since its formation.

 

The Chairman then made a number of procedural points related to any potential amendment and requirement for additional consultation depending on the detail of any such amendment.

 

Cllr Blair-Pilling was then invited to introduce the detail of the recommendations.

 

Recommendation 1 – Heywood and Westbury

This was a proposal to transfer land from Westbury to Heywood, and a smaller area from Heywood to Westbury. This was principally to unify the area known as The Ham within a single parish, recommended by the committee to be Heywood. The proposals also sought to unward the parish of Heywood.

 

Cllr Blair-Pilling provided details on the background of the review in the area and the reasoning of the committee, as set out fully in the report including details of proposals which had not been agreed by the committee. Details highlighted included but were not limited to that the number of electors proposed to be transferred to Heywood represented under 2% of the Westbury electorate, and the issue and ownership of Vivash Urban Park and how the proposed new boundary was developed. It was noted the councils involved were not in agreement, with Westbury Town Council opposed to the recommendation.

 

Members of the public were then able to make statements to the meeting.

 

Cllr Phillip Harcourt, Westbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the recommendation. He commented on the benefits of separation between urban and rural communities, considering the proposal to be arbitrary and counterintuitive.

 

Cllr John Masson, Chairman of Heywood Parish Council, confirmed his council’s support for the proposals of the committee.

 

Francis Morland stated he was a member of both Westbury Town Council and Heywood Parish Council but confirmed his contributions to the review had been in an individual capacity not on behalf of either council, which was detailed within the background information of the review. He stated he was in support of the recommendation of the committee.

 

Cllr Stuart Wheeler made a point of order on receiving comments from Group Leaders on proposals.

 

The Chairman stated several approaches had been adopted in the past, and that previous convention had included seeking comment from Group Leaders as with other agenda items, and so invited comments from Group Leaders on the recommendation if they wished.

 

Councillor Richard Clewer stated he made his comments on the boundaries in a personal capacity. He stated when the electoral divisions had been formed this area had been difficult, and he felt that the committee had arrived at a reasonable and sound conclusion to the issue when considering the statutory criteria.

 

Comments in support of the proposal during debate included that the Heywood community was active and collaborative despite its size and somewhat discrete nature. The Parish Council and residents had responded to proposals from Westbury Town Council and made its own proposals to reflect what was considered the best boundary between the communities. The committee was thanked for its analysis of the issues in the area. The cross-party nature of the committee work was highlighted, along with the detailed consultation and extensive reasoning in the Final Recommendations.

 

Comments in opposition to the proposal during debate included that retaining the status quo between Westbury and Heywood was the most appropriate option and therefore the recommendation should be rejected. It was noted the review process could be adversarial, and that some of the proposals which had initiated the review may have been considered by some as harmful to Heywood, but that the committee’s proposals were likewise harmful to the Westbury community. It was argued the committee’s reasoning did not take appropriate consideration of the juxtaposition and history of the communities in the area, and that it was not uncommon for a road to form a boundary and houses to be located either side. The urban character of the area was argued, as well as development of housing in the area.

 

There were also arguments relating to the housing, industry, and road layouts to the north of what was currently the town boundary, and it was argued would more appropriately have been recommended to be unified within the town.

 

Other comments made included that the area of The Ham, though still within Heywood Parish, had been within a Westbury based electoral division previously.

 

In response to debate and public comments Cllr Blair-Pilling noted that development would take place, or not, regardless of where the parish boundary was set. He defended the extensive consultation and other engagement which had taken place over and above statutory requirements. He emphasised that in the view of the committee was that the current boundary was not in align with the statutory criteria, that the area, though including some new development, involved an established community, and he urged council to support the recommendation as an improved governance and boundary arrangement.

 

Details of the vote are included with the resolution.

 

Recommendations 2-7

Cllr Blair-Pilling then provided details of the remaining recommendations of the committee together. These involved the parishes of Tidworth, Netheravon, Fittleton cum Haxton, Figheldean, Grittleton, Castle Combe, Nettleton, Yatton Keynell, Biddestone & Slaughterford, Warminster, Donhead St Mary, and Monkton Farleigh. The full explanation and reasoning for each recommendation is included within the Final Recommendations document in the Summons. Cllr Blair-Pilling particularly thanked those communities and parishes which had worked together to develop proposals for their area, such as with Netheravon, Fittleton cum Haxton, and Figheldean.

 

Group Leaders did not have any further comments.

 

One comment was made in debate appreciating the work taken to consult even down to individuals in some cases. There being no further comments it was then,

 

Resolved:

 

That Council:?

 

Approve the changes to community governance arrangements as set out below as recommended and detailed by the Electoral Review Committee in the Final Recommendations:?

?

Recommendation 1 – Heywood/Westbury?

Recommendation 2 – Tidworth?

Recommendation 3 – Netheravon/Figheldean/Fittleton cum Haxton?

Recommendation 4 – Grittleton/Castle Combe/Nettleton – “The Gibb”?

Recommendation 5 – Yatton Keynell/Castle Combe/Biddestone & Slaughterford?

Recommendation 6 – Warminster?

Recommendation 7 – Donhead St Mary/Monkton Farleigh?

 

2) To authorise the Solicitor of the Council to take all necessary measures to make and approve the Community Governance Order(s) to bring into effect for 1 April 2025 all of the changes detailed under resolution 1, subject to any required consents by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England;?

 

3) To authorise the Electoral Registration Officer to make any necessary changes to polling districts to bring them into line with the agreed governance changes at the appropriate time, to be reported to the Electoral Review Committee.?

 

In accordance with the constitution there were recorded votes for this item. 

 

Vote 1 (Recommendation 1 inclusive of resolutions 2 and 3)

Votes for the motion (67) 

Votes against the motion (9) 

Votes in abstention (7) 

 

Vote 2 (Recommendations 2-7 inclusive of resolutions 2 and 3)

Votes for the motion (79) 

Votes against the motion (0) 

Votes in abstention (3) 

 

 Details of the votes are attached as an appendix to the minutes.