Agenda item

Cllr Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee presented a report and submission approved by the Committee to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (“The Commission”) regarding their draft recommendations for a pattern of electoral divisions for the Council.

The Chairman explained the process for debating the proposal and considering amendments. It was highlighted that an amendment from Cllr Nick Murry was circulated in Agenda Supplement 1.

Cllr Clewer moved the recommendation, seconded by Cllr Gavin Grant. Cllr Clewer stated that the majority of the Council’s initial proposals to the Commission had been accepted, however some key areas had been challenged by the Committee. The Committee had accepted some of these, but felt that a number of them were not in accordance with the statutory criteria of the review and were proposing the Council object to those proposals. Cllr Clewer thanked Cllr Grant in particular for his support and cross-party working to develop the Committee’s proposals.

Cllr Clewer explained he would present the key areas where proposals were substantially different to the Council’s original submission. It was felt the Commission’s proposals for Malmesbury misunderstood the town and did not reflect local community identity and the Committee recommended something similar to the Council’s original proposal. For Warminster, the Commission’s proposals were more straightforward and were recommended to be accepted with minor amendments. For the Westbury community area, the Committee recommended the Commission be strongly challenged on the grounds that an urban/rural split would be preferable and there was strong public sentiment to support this.

In Melksham, the Commission’s proposals were challenged on the grounds they did not match the distinctive communities in the area, therefore the Council’s original submission was recommended, with one minor change, and that there was strong public and town and parish council support for this approach. In Chippenham, the Commission’s proposals were challenged due to inappropriate mix of a rural community and an urban division at Lowden and Rowden. It was noted there would also be implications on Community Governance reviews, although this was not a material consideration for the submission. In the Salisbury and Laverstock area, the draft recommendation that Odstock be moved into the Chalke Valley Division was accepted by Committee. However, the Commission’s proposals for Britford and Laverstock were to be challenged. It was highlighted that both Salisbury City Council and Laverstock and Ford Parish Council supported the Council’s proposal for the Laverstock area, whereas the Commission’s proposals arbitrarily divided the communities in the area. For Harnham, an adjustment to the boundary line was to be recommended by the Committee.

During public statements Mr Francis Morland challenged proposals for expected population growth and expressed concern about the implication on electoral equality if the population did not increase as expected in some divisions.

Cllr Clewer explained the population numbers were based on Spatial Planning estimates and a general population uplift was required by the Commission, who had accepted the estimates.

Group leaders were then invited to comment on the proposals. Cllr Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE gave her thanks to Cllr Clewer and the Committee for their work to develop the proposals and expressed support for the recommendation.

Cllr Ian Thorn gave his support for the proposals and thanks to Cllr Grant for his work on the Committee. These sentiments were shared by Cllrs Clark and Rogers.

The Chairman then invited comments in debate.

Cllr Grant thanked Cllr Clewer for his dedication to the work of the Committee and commended the cross-party working at Committee. The councillor explained how well Wiltshire councillors knew their local areas and this should carry great weight with the Commission. Councillors were encouraged to submit their own thoughts independently to the Commission. Cllr Grant thanked officers, particularly Maggie Mulhall and Kieran Elliott, for their excellent work supporting the Committee.

Cllr Christopher Devine spoke against the proposal and suggested political motives had been a factor.

Cllrs Philip Whalley and Ruth Hopkinson spoked against the proposals for Corsham, suggesting they divided the historic areas of the town and also that the town divisions already had a very high population and this would likely increase with infill developments. It was suggested the name Corsham Town division could be renamed if it was misleading.

Cllr Fleur de Rhé-Philipe spoke in support of the Council’s submission and highlighted the spelling of Deverill Valley and a number of other areas.

Cllr Ross Henning spoke in support of the proposals objecting to the Commission’s proposals around Notton.

Cllr Ian McLennan thanked officers and spoke in support of the proposals in particular around dividing Laverstock & Ford between two rather than three divisions.

Cllr Jon Hubbard noted the Committee had listened to parish arguments and recommended the Commission take note of the representations received.

Cllr Nick Murry moved an amendment for the Chippenham Monkton Division, seconded by Cllr Bill Douglas. The amendment proposed to include the existing division of Chippenham Monkton minus the Ivy Lane and New Road area, and would be of suitable electorate variance.  Cllr Murry also argued that it would be difficult for a councillor to represent the divisions proposed by the Commission and considered the amendment better reflected local community identity.

Group Leaders were then invited to speak to the amendment.

Cllr Thorn and Cllr Clark spoke in support of the amendment.

Cllr Clewer in response then explained he could not support the amendment as he felt it did not reflect the area the residents identified with on the ground.

In summary to the debate Cllr Murry advised business properties only were located on one side of New Street and so identification of residents to an area was not applicable here.

On going to the vote, the amendment failed.

In returning to debate on the original motion Cllr Mark Connolly stated he would support the substantive motion however he would also write to the Commission seeking some changes in the proposed Tidworth divisions.

Cllr Brian Dalton and Russell Hawker spoke in favour of the proposals, Cllr Dalton request references to the Harnham Slope in the document be corrected to Harnham Hill.

Cllr Allison Bucknell spoke against the proposals as two parishes would be moved against their request and it would be challenging for a councillor to represent two extra divisions in that area.

Cllr Jerry Wickham and Cllr Christopher Newbury spoke in support of the proposal. Cllr Newbury questioned the Commission’s population figures and the impact this would have in the future if the population of a division became overweight.

Cllr Mike Hewitt and Fred Westmoreland spoke of the impact of the proposals on local communities.

In summary to the debate Cllr Clewer replied to comments made, explaining the Committee’s proposals worked well as a county-wide scheme and that town wards would change once the electoral divisions were confirmed. Cllr Clewer strongly rejected the suggestion of political motives, noting the cross-party nature of the work preparing the proposals and adherence to statutory criteria. He noted that alternative proposals some preferred in Winterslow and other had been deemed wholly unacceptable by the Commission on the grounds of electoral equality.

Resolved:

That Council approves the draft response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as set out in report, subject to any necessary consequential changes and any additional supporting evidence, with the final wording of the response to be delegated to the Director of Legal and Democratic Services after consultation with the Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee.