To consider the Council’s response to the recommendations made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the Borough Ward Boundaries.   

39.1           The report of the Boundary Review Working Group, circulated at Pages No. 35-42, asked Members to agree the Council’s response to the draft recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on a revised pattern of warding for Tewkesbury Borough.

39.2           The Chair of the Boundary Review Working Group explained that, several months ago, the Boundary Review Working Group had commenced its review of the Borough Ward Boundaries so that the Council could submit a warding pattern for consideration by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as part of its consultation. The Council’s proposals had been submitted and, with the exception of four minor variations, the Commission’s draft recommendations reflected that initial submission made by the Council.  The Boundary Review Working Group had met to consider the recommendations - specifically the proposed variations to the Council’s Scheme - and had commented that it supported the Commission’s recommendation that the Ward to include the Parishes of Uckington, Norton, Sandhurst, Boddington and Down Hatherley be named ‘Severn Vale South’; that the boundary between Tewkesbury North and South Wards be amended to take account of an existing polling district boundary adjacent to the High Street, behind the houses and roads along Oldbury Road, and that the Tewkesbury North Ward be renamed ‘Tewkesbury North and Twyning’. In addition, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England had suggested a change to the boundary of the Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West Wards of Bishop’s Cleeve so that Huntsmans Close was included within the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward to allow for better access. The Working Group was in support of the revised boundary but felt it created an anomaly by leaving six properties in Pecked Lane in the Cleeve West Ward whilst the remaining 65 properties were in the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward already, or within the area that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was proposing to move into Cleeve St Michael’s – with this in mind the Working Group had proposed to Council that, in respect of Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West Wards, the proposed boundary be further amended to include all of the properties in Pecked Lane in the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward.

39.3           On behalf of the Boundary Review Working Group, the Chair thanked the Officers who had supported the Working Group for the enormous amount of work they had put in to help the Group formulate its proposals. He felt the fact that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England had proposed only a few changes to the Council’s submission was testament to the hard work put in. He proposed, and it was seconded, that the Council support the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s proposals on the revised Borough Wards but that, in respect of the Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West Wards, the proposed boundary be further amended to include all of the properties in Pecked Lane in the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward.

39.4           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned whether the map attached to the Council papers in respect of Tewkesbury was correct as it did not seem to match the information on the Boundary Commission’s website. In response, the Head of Democratic Services indicated that without access to the Boundary Commission maps she was unable to clarify; however, the proposals from the Boundary Commission were what was being considered so that was the information on which the Council’s response was based. The Member indicated that he also had concerns about the criteria the Boundary Commission used to judge electoral equality as he felt the average used for electors per Councillor was wrong - in some cases one Member in a two-Member Wards would represent 4,000 residents whereas some single-Member Wards would represent only 2,000 - he was of the view that all Wards should be single-Member. In addition he felt that Tewkesbury North and Twyning should be two separate Wards as combining the areas was not helpful.

39.5           Another Member thanked the Officers and Members involved in the work to date and indicated that, whilst he understood the Member’s concerns about Tewkesbury and Twyning, unfortunately the Local Government Boundary Commission for England had expressed the view that to separate the areas would result in bad electoral equality; as such there would be no point in the Council recommending that as an amendment. Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the Council supports the draft recommendation put                                     forward by the Local Government Boundary Commission for                                  England in its consultation on a revised pattern of warding for                           Tewkesbury Borough but that, in respect of the Cleeve St                                        Michael’s and Cleeve West Wards, the proposed boundary be                                further amended to include all of the properties in Pecked Lane                               in the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward.