Browse

Agenda item

Electoral Review of Wiltshire Council - Supplementary Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Report by Dr Carlton Brand, Corporate Director

 

The original submission to the commission is included for reference, and the final submission will be circulated as a supplement.

Minutes:

A report was presented by the Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Housing, Heritage, Arts and Tourism, Councillor Richard Clewer, setting out a proposed supplementary submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).

 

This had been requested by the LGBCE following the meeting of Council on 20 February 2018, where Council had approved a submission arguing a council size of 99 was the most appropriate moving forward. Councillor Clewer detailed the specific additional questions that had been raised in response to the Council’s initial submission, as well as other communication with the LGBCE.  Following additional meetings, the Electoral Review Committee had concluded that the evidence continued to demonstrate that a council size of 99 was most appropriate.

 

The draft supplementary submission in response to the comments of the LGBCE was set out in Supplement 2, and it was explained that a further annex setting out technical details would be included when it was submitted. Additional information included the impact of disclosable interests on quoracy at Area Boards, the number and scale of planning committees, comparisons with local authorities as suggested by the LGBCE, and at what point committees would be unable to function at their most effective level.

 

A motion was moved by Councillor Richard Clewer, seconded by Councillor Christopher Williams, as follows:

 

That Council:

 

i) Notes the current position and the request from the Commission seeking

supplementary information on the Council’s original submission (Annex

A);

 

ii) Approves the supplementary information set out in Annex B as the basis

of the response to the Commission’s letter, subject to any minor drafting

and consequential changes to be delegated to the Director of Legal and

Democratic Services after consultation with the Chairman of the

Electoral Review Committee.


Group Leaders then commented on the proposal as follows:

 

Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE supported the proposal and emphasised the unique local decision-making arrangements in Wiltshire which made comparisons with other local authorities inappropriate.

 

Councillor Ian Thorn stated he could not support the proposal, as he considered that using the relevant criteria as detailed by the LGBCE the evidence did not support a council size of 99, as although the Council rightly prided itself on its area board arrangements, the communication of the LGBCE indicated they would not give that the weight the Council would prefer. He also noted a compromise proposal of 93 had been raised as a possibility, and that the officers of the council and the public were a relevant audience in making their recommendation.

 

Councillor Ernie Clark stated he supported the comments of the Leader of the Council, and raised concerns that a significant reduction in councillors would prohibit many members, particularly those with full time work and other commitments, from serving an electorate appropriately.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers stated he supported the proposal which was supported by strong evidence, and highlighted that the fundamental issue was that of democratic representation, not costs, and noted the already significant decrease in councillors in 2009 following the creation of the Unitary Authority.

 

A debate was then opened for other members of the Council. During debate an amendment was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant, seconded by Councillor Clare Cape, as follows:

 

That on the basis of the evidence, and in light of the questions raised by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, to amend the recommendation that Full Council support a proposed council size of 85.

 

That this size of Council:

 

·         Enables the full and effective functionality of the current structure of this Council’s committees above the absolute minimum number presented to the Electoral Review Committee with a modest reduction in the number of committee places on Scrutiny Committees from 54 to 44, and of Planning committees from 52 to 43, and small reductions in the number on both Licensing and Audit Committees.

·         Recognises the appropriate weighting of the roles of this council’s Chair and Vice Chair, Cabinet Members and Portfolio Holders, Chairs and members of Committees and Panels

·         Enhances democratic fairness and community cohesion in recognising that the likely electoral size of wards will be that already serviced by several existing councillors.

·         Sustains our existing Area Board structure

·         Recognises the uniqueness of Wiltshire and its Council, while aligning our number of councillors more consistently with other unitary authorities and in particular those most recently reviewed by, or engaged with, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

That this Council authorises the delegation of the drafting and consequential changes to the Council’s submission to the Director of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee and, if necessary, seek a short extension to the deadline for receipt of this submission from the Electoral Review Commission for England.

 

Comments in support of the amendment included that evidence considered during the electoral review process indicated the Council’s committee structure could be reduced to some degree without compromising the effectiveness of their operation, and that as administrative arrangements already existed for several community areas and Area Boards which had fewer than four councillors, such arrangements could be replicated in other areas and sustain the existing structure even with a reduction of 13 councillors overall. It was also said that the original historic and academic work to identify the community areas of Wiltshire did not identify areas which matched precisely the areas as had been adopted in 2009, and could therefore be further amended by some amount.

 

It was further stated that the amendment was more realistic in light of the comments and previous actions of the LGBCE, in particular that they did not accept an increase of population and electorate meant no change was needed.

 

Comments in opposition to the amendment included that while a small reduction in committee places in some instances was possible, a reduction as required by the proposed amendment would be at a level beyond their effective limit in not allowing for contingencies. Additionally, community areas and boards would effectively cease to exist as the reduction would in effect require entirely new administrative boundaries which did not reflect genuine communities. This would also have an impact on council partners who based their council interactions and public consultation arrangements on the existing boards.

 

Other comments included that the amendment would have an unacceptable impact on the council’s effective scrutiny operations, that public representation would be reduced in particular for rural areas, that as the electorate was increasing there was no need to reduce councillors, and that further combinations of communities necessitated by a reduction suggested by the amendment would be artificial and reduce effectiveness of localised decision making.

 

Following a vote, the amendment was rejected and debate continued on the original motion.

 

Additional comments raised in debate on the motion included concerns that the LGBCE’s comments might indicate they had a predisposition to reduce councillor numbers, that as vital as Area Boards were to the council’s position they required further support, that the cohort of comparator councils provided by the LGBCE was illogical, and that a reduction requiring the combination of rural and urban divisions was not suitable. It was also raised the county underwent significant change in 2009 when the Council was created, and after several years developed into an effective new body. Disrupting that effectiveness for several more years from 2021 without need was felt to be unnecessary.

 

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

 

Resolved:

 

That Council:

 

i) Notes the current position and the request from the Commission seeking supplementary information on the Council’s original submission (Annex A);

 

ii) Approves the supplementary information set out in Annex B as the basis of the response to the Commission’s letter, subject to any minor drafting and consequential changes to be delegated to the Director of Legal and Democratic Services after consultation with the Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee.

 

Supporting documents: