Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SERVICES MANAGER

To consider and approve the Council's response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England consultation on warding arrangements.

RESOLVED: That the Council approved the response to the LGBCE consultation, attached as Appendix A for submission to the LGBCE, subject to the following amendments:

·         Point 4.e to remove suggested ward name ‘Mimram’ and retain the suggested ward name by the Commission of ‘Codicote and Kimpton’.

·         Point 4.f to include objection of the proposed ward name ‘Langley, Preston and Walden’ and that the ward name should instead be referred to as ‘Hitchwood’ (being the former name for this area and a more accurate reflection of the different communities in the proposed ward).

·         Point 4.h to include objection of the proposed ward name ‘Offley and Pirton’ and the ward name should instead be referred to as ‘Offa’.

·         Point 7 to include that the Council ‘strongly objects’ to the proposals regarding Baldock and specifically the proposed Ashwell and Weston ward, rather than it ‘has significant concerns’.

Audio recording – 34 minutes 18 seconds

The Democratic Services Manager presented the report entitled ‘Electoral Review – Response to Local Government Boundary Commission for England on Proposed Warding Arrangements’ and advised of the following:

·         This was the second part of the ongoing consultation being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) and followed the conclusion of the information gathering exercise which concluded in August 2022 and the findings published on 1 November 2022.

·         As a statutory consultee on the process, the Council had been invited to make a submission to the consultation on the proposed pattern of wards for the district. Individuals and community groups could make separate submissions.

·         If the Council failed to approve a submission, then the LGBCE would base their final decision on other submissions received.

·         The recommendation at this meeting was to approve the submission at Appendix A, which had been agreed following comments made by Councillors and discussion amongst Group Leaders at the Boundary Review Project Board.

·         The deadline for submission was 9 January 2023.

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg proposed and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the proposals. Following this, the Chair opened up the debate to Members.

Councillor Morgan Derbyshire proposed an amendment to the wording of Point 7 in the appendix, to suggest that it highlight ‘the Council strongly objects’ to proposals regarding Baldock and surrounding areas, rather than has ‘significant concerns’. This was seconded by Councillor Claire Strong.

Councillor Dennis-Harburg and Councillor Brown agreed to incorporate the amendment into the original motion.

Councillor Terry Tyler raised concerns regarding the proposals for the current Chesfield ward. He noted that Great Ashby already had an identity crisis and these proposals would destroy and confuse the community, who will not be represented by the same people. It would make more sense to include GA1 and GA2 in Great Ashby Parish Council, as creating a community was more important than making numbers work.

Councillor Michael Muir noted his concerns regarding the Baldock warding proposals. He advised that he agreed with the proposed names, but disagreed with proposals to make the proposed new housing to the north of Baldock part of a wider Gravely and Ashwell rural ward. These 3000 new houses would become part of the town of Baldock, just as the Clothall Common development in the current Baldock East ward had previously. He would prefer to see these houses included within the Baldock East ward, with an additional Councillor, and would make a separate submission to the consultation.

Councillor Richard Thake commented that although he did not agree with all the proposals, following discussions with residents on the issue it had become apparent that most were in favour of the process. However, many had raised issues with the proposed ‘Mimram’ name of the ward and requested this be changed. He proposed that this be changed to ‘Codicote and Kimpton’ ward and this was seconded by Councillor Ralph Muncer.

Councillor Dennis-Harburg and Councillor Brown agreed to incorporate the amendment into the original  motion.

Councillor Steve Jarvis noted that he agreed with comments made by Councillor Muir with regard to the new houses in Baldock and suggested that these residents would not consider themselves part of Bygrave and it would be inappropriate to do so. There would be issues with the villages becoming part of a larger ward and the focus would be on the highest populated area in the new Baldock housing. Overall he agreed with the proposal, but suggested this ward was reviewed again. 

Councillor Alistair Willoughby agreed with other comments regarding the Baldock proposals and noted that there was consensus that the new houses would be part of Baldock. Therefore these new residents would be part of the town and could not have their needs met by being part of a wider rural ward.

Councillor Tom Tyson noted the aim of the review was to create a good pattern of wards that should reflect community evidence and links, but the proposals to combine new housing in Baldock with the rural surrounding areas did not meet these requirements and there would be an obvious conflict between town and rural residents.

Councillor Claire Strong noted that following consultation with Parish Councils they had advised that they were not content with the proposed names of some of the Southern Rural wards. She noted that concerns had been raised about the name ‘Offley and Pirton’, as this omitted Lilley, and that the proposed ‘Langley, Preston and Walden’ ward name was inappropriate as there was no village called Walden. Councillor Strong proposed that the wording be amended to highlight that the Council objected to the ward names of ‘Offley and Pirton’ and ‘Langley, Preston and Walden’ and recommend that these instead be named ‘Offa’ and ‘Hitchwood’ respectively.

Councillor Dennis-Harburg and Councillor Brown agreed to incorporate these amendments into the original motion.

Councillor George Davies echoed comments made by Councillor Terry Tyler and noted that the exclusion of the development sites from Great Ashby was not satisfactory. He highlighted the section in the report which confirmed that this review could only affect district boundaries and could not impact parish boundaries. Therefore it was important that a Community Governance Review was carried out to amend the boundaries of the parish and this could be completed in the future following these changes proposed.

Having been proposed by Councillor Dennis-Harburg and seconded by Councillor Brown, with proposed amendments from the debate incorporated, the Chair moved to a vote and it was:

RESOLVED: That the Council approved the response to the LGBCE consultation, attached as Appendix A for submission to the LGBCE, subject to the following amendments:

·         Point 4.e to remove suggested ward name ‘Mimram’ and retain the suggested ward name by the Commission of ‘Codicote and Kimpton’.

·         Point 4.f to include objection of the proposed ward name ‘Langley, Preston and Walden’ and that the ward name should instead be referred to as ‘Hitchwood’ (being the former name for this area and a more accurate reflection of the different communities in the proposed ward).

·         Point 4.h to include objection of the proposed ward name ‘Offley and Pirton’ and the ward name should instead be referred to as ‘Offa’.

·         Point 7 to include that the Council ‘strongly objects’ to the proposals regarding Baldock and specifically the proposed Ashwell and Weston ward, rather than it ‘has significant concerns’.