Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Gavin Grant and Graham Wright.

Councillor Grant was substituted by Councillor Ruth Hopkinson.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no announcements.

Statements

If you would like to make a statement at this meeting on any item on this

agenda, please register to do so at least 10 minutes prior to the meeting. Up to 3 speakers are permitted to speak for up to 3 minutes each on any agenda item.

Please contact the officer named on the front of the agenda for any further

Clarification.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such

questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 1 October 2018 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on 3 October September 2018. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

A statement was received from Mr Francis Morland. He noted the principles applied to develop division proposals and queried why the Warminster area included further proposed divisions with an urban/rural split, which was not sought in the principles. It was explained that representations from local members had indicated in that particular instance such a split was an appropriate solution.

Mr Morland also noted the division proposals combined the entirety of Heywood Parish within a single division, and asked that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England be requested to de-ward the parish as a result, as it had only been warded since at present the parish was split across two unitary divisions.

The Committee is meeting on 2 October 2018 to consider a draft Stage One Submission.

This meeting has been arranged in the event further proposals require approval.

The Chairman updated the Committee on developments with the Electoral Review since the meeting held on 2 October 2018, at which the Committee had approved the draft division proposals with the exception of the divisions comprising Melksham Area Board, where further work was requested. The Committee had also noted that urban division lines were indicative and that further adjustments would follow in many areas.

In relation to Salisbury specific changes were outlined in the Bemerton Heath area, to retain as much of the older established part of the community as possible within a single division, and other adjustments were also detailed including retaining the church of St Paul’s within the area formerly covered by the St Paul’s division.

The Committee then discussed at length the draft division proposals which included the Bishopdown area, now wholly within Laverstock Parish, within a division assigned to the Southern Area Board. Members representing Salisbury divisions in attendance remained strongly of the view that the area was a clear urban extension of the city, and that ideally the area should be included within a city based division. It was noted by the Committee that such a decision would have significant implications for the proposals across the Southern region as a whole, and was felt not to pay due attention to the Community Governance Review decision in 2016 which had moved the area wholly into Laverstock Parish.

It was raised that the proposed Laverstock division comprising the areas of Bishopdown, Longhedge and Old Sarum, could be included within the Salisbury Area Board, without compromising the integrity of the parish by formally including any part of it with a part of the city parish. However, it was noted that this would mean the parish was still divided between two area boards, which was strongly opposed by some members.

After debate the Committee agreed to note that which divisions were included in which area board was a decision for Full Council, and could be analysed fully once the draft recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE)were known.

The Committee then discussed revised proposals for the Melksham area. It was explained that further meetings had been held with local members and some parish council representatives. It had been noted that the initial proposals to divide the Bowerhill area of Melksham Without had been strongly resisted as inappropriate on a community basis. As the town of Melksham itself was too large to contain 3 divisions, and too small for 4 divisions, and because the parish of Melksham Without was also required to be divided, it was proposed instead to join an area of north Melksham with the areas of Whitley, Shaw and Beanacre with which there was close connection, and create three other town divisions. Broughton Gifford would then be included in a division containing the southern section of Melksham Without not containing Bowerhill, and the remaining parishes. It was acknowledged this was not an ideal solution due to the geography of Broughton Gifford, but on balance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Any other items of business, which the Chairman agrees to consider as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items.