Agenda item

That Council approve the consultation response as set out in Section 3 of the report attached for submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission (England).

The report summarised the progress made with the ongoing electoral review by the Local Government Boundary Commission (England) (LGBCE). The Leader explained that Councillor J Philip was leading the Boundary Review Portfolio Holder Advisory Group (PHAG) and had done most of the work. Going forwards councillors would be elected by thirds. The PHAG had looked at the proposed warding patterns and the Council was of the opinion the very large Rural East ward was not the best option and was instead proposing three one-member wards. The public consultation on the proposed warding patterns had closed on 12 December 2022 but the LGBCE would accept the Council’s late decision from its meeting tonight, as this meeting had been rescheduled. Councillor S Murray’s comments about the proposed ward of Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge had been provided for information.

The following debate highlighted some key concerns.

·     Councillor D Murray explained that his submission showed why the proposed ward for Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge did not have a strong community interest, as all the key components were different. It had been a mistake to agree to elect councillors by thirds, which he had voted against, over communities. The Leader advised that it had been very clear at the time when three-member wards had been discussed that the Council needed a strong argument. With the more urban areas in the south of the District, there was more of a divide in some communities, but he supported the LGBCE’s warding patterns with the exception of Rural East.

·     Councillor H Kauffman supported Councillor Murray’s arguments for not joining Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge into one new ward.

·     Councillor R Brookes, who had voted for all-out elections every four years, also thought there was a special case for the Buckhurst Hill East and Whitebridge ward. She remarked that the Broadway ward would divide the street in half yet there was a strong community interest.

·     Councillor J Philip was not denying there were differences between Buckhurst Hill and Whitebridge, but they were not significantly different in his opinion. Councillor H Brady had six parish councils in her ward, and the residents would go to different towns. The strongest approach was to accept the other proposed wards with the exception of Rural East. This was a bad idea because of the sheer physical distance, so the proposal was for three-one member wards from west to east.

·     Councillor S Heap commented on devolution at the first-tier authority level but not for local government. The Council would hopefully have an adopted Local Plan soon, but who knew when local government would be reformed.

·     Councillor A Lion commented that his Grange Hill ward had different communities, but he looked after all the residents. Councillor J Philip replied that wards did have different communities within constituencies, but it was not a reason to split up a ward.

            RESOLVED:

            That the Council approved the consultation response as set out in Section 3 of this report for submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission (England).