Agenda item

To consider the Council’s submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.  

114.1         The report of the Head of Democratic Services, circulated separately at Pages No. 1-23, asked Members to agree a pattern of Borough Wards to be provided to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in response to its consultation on Warding arrangements; and to delegate authority to the Head of Democratic Services, in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, to prepare the written submission to accompany the approved arrangements.

114.2         In introducing the report, the Head of Democratic Services explained that, as Members were aware, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was in the process of undertaking an electoral review of Tewkesbury Borough. There were two stages to the process; the first being the decision on Council size; and the second being the Warding arrangements. In December 2016, the Council had approved a submission on size which proposed that the number of Members remain at 38. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England had accepted that Council size and, in January 2017, had commenced a consultation for the pattern of Wards for the Council; this consultation was due to close on 20 March 2017. The aim of the review was to agree Ward boundaries which would ensure that each Councillor represented approximately the same number of voters within a tolerance of +/-10%.

114.3         Currently, nine of the Council’s 22 Wards had an electoral imbalance outside the +/-10% ranging from -17 to +26. The submission in December had contained a projection of the development taking place in the Borough (only that where there were ‘spades in the ground’ in accordance with the Commission’s requirements) and this information had been used to show the likely projections for 2022 which had resulted in a declining position in terms of being outside of the +/-10% variance. The Commission’s statutory criteria, in addition to electoral equality, stated that the Wards should reflect the identities and interests of local communities and secure effective and convenient local government. To this end, the Boundary Review Working Group had met to consider proposals which had used the existing Parishes as building blocks. Those proposals had also been discussed individually with the Members whose Wards would be most affected and via a ‘drop in’ session for all Members. Following those sessions, some other options had been worked up in line with the wishes of local Members and any that met the criteria were also presented as options for consideration by the Council.

114.4         In terms of proposals, there were changes suggested for every Ward with the exception of the Highnam with Haw Bridge, Northway and Shurdington Wards, all of which would be within the +/-10 tolerance in 2022, and in the case of Highnam with Haw Bridge and Northway had strong definable boundaries such as the River Severn for Highnam with Haw Bridge and the M5 motorway and the railway line for Northway. In terms of the Wards to be changed these were set out in detail at Appendix 1 to the report, including options in respect of Bishops Cleeve, Churchdown and Tewkesbury/Twyning. Currently the Council had 22 Wards; 9 x single Member, 10 x two Member and three x 3 Member. Depending upon the choices made in respect of those areas with options, the overall proposals would result in either 20 Wards with 5 x single Member Wards, 12 x two Member Wards and 3 x three Member Wards or 21 Wards with 7 x single Member Wards, 11 x two Member Wards and 3 x three Member Wards. In respect of naming  the new Wards, some suggestions had been made which were included at Appendix 1, otherwise existing names had been applied but the Council could change this if it wished to put forward alternatives.

114.5         Particular attention was drawn to the Brockworth Ward which had expanded through development to such an extent that it needed to have four Members rather than three. As the Commission’s guidance did not accept four Member Wards, it was suggested that the Ward be split into 2 x two Member Wards; as far as the Head of Democratic Services was aware the local Members were broadly in agreement with the proposals made. In terms of Churchdown, the current arrangement would not work in 2022 so it was suggested that part of the Churchdown Brookfield Ward would go into Churchdown St John’s and the rest of Churchdown Brookfield would combine with Hucclecote; these would be 2 x two Member Wards. There were two options on the papers before Members and it was up to the Council which, if any, it chose for its submission. A number of areas highlighted in blue on the plans were pieces of land, with no electors, which it was proposed would be moved to ‘tidy up’ the Borough Ward boundaries. Referring to Bishop’s Cleeve, the Head of Democratic Services explained that, again, there were a number of options which would work in terms of the numbers so it was for Members to decide which they preferred. The local Members had expressed a preference towards Option A which was the most similar to that which currently existed. As before, there was a blue area which could be used to tidy up the Borough Ward boundaries but which contained no electors. Finally, in terms of Tewkesbury, the Head of Democratic Services explained that the current Wards had five Members but, looking ahead to 2022, the electorate could not sustain that position and would have to reduce to four Members. Currently, there were two Members for the Tewkesbury Town with Mitton Ward; two for the Prior’s Park Ward; and one for the Twyning Ward. Officers had worked with local Members to try and get agreement on a new arrangement but none of the options put forward were ideal from their perspective. Option A was strange in the way it linked Tewkesbury Town with Mitton and Prior’s Park leaving Twyning on its own; Option B combined Twyning with Mitton and a small part of Tewkesbury Town and was much neater in the way the boundary ran as well as retaining Tewkesbury’s identity; these would result in a North Tewkesbury Ward and a South Tewkesbury Ward with two Members representing each. The current Newtown Ward would be combined with the highly developed area of Wheatpieces to make a Tewkesbury East Ward which was similar to the County Council’s Tewkesbury East Division. Option C was a variation on that option but took in a different part of Tewkesbury Town.

114.6         The Head of Democratic Services explained that the Council could decide to use a mixture of the options within the Council papers to make a submission; or it could decide to make a part submission, if there were areas that it did not wish to support; or it could agree not to make a decision at all. In the event that the Council did not make a submission, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England would put together its own proposals. The Commission’s consultation would run until 20 March and anyone that wished to make a submission was entitled to do so.

114.7         During the discussion which ensued, a Member suggested that the names Tewkesbury North, Tewkesbury South and Tewkesbury East would help people to understand the Ward boundaries better; he also suggested that Option B for Tewkesbury would be his preference. In terms of Bishop’s Cleeve, a Member expressed a preference for Option B and indicated that the names Cleeve Grange, Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West would remain appropriate for the new Wards.

114.8         It was proposed and seconded that the revised pattern of Borough Wards, as set out at Appendix 1, be approved for submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in response to its consultation on Warding arrangements for Tewkesbury Borough Council with the inclusion of Option A for Churchdown, Option B for Bishop’s Cleeve and Option B for Tewkesbury (the names of those Wards would be as set out above); and that authority be delegated to the Head of Democratic Services, in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader, to prepare the written submission to accompany the approved Warding arrangements. The proposer of the motion offered his thanks to the Head of Democratic Services and the Electoral Registration Assistant for their hard work in preparing proposals upon which Members could base their views.

114.9         Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          1. That, subject to the inclusion of Option A for Churchdown                                        (Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote and Churchdown St                               John’s), Option B for Bishops Cleeve (Cleeve Grange,                                                     Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West) and Option B for                                            Tewkesbury (Tewkesbury North and Tewkesbury South), the                                    revised pattern of Borough Wards, as set out in Appendix 1                                     to the report, be approved for submission to the Local                                                 Government Boundary Commission for England in response                                   to its consultation on Warding arrangements for Tewkesbury                                 Borough Council.

                                                2. That authority be delegated to the Head of Democratic                                            Services, in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader,                                 to prepare the written submission to accompany the                                              approved Warding arrangements.