Agenda item

Report No: COU/SE/18/010

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/18/010, which presented proposed options for the warding boundaries for the new West Suffolk district.

Following the distribution of the agenda and papers, the following typographical amendments were circulated:

Paragraph 2.6.2 of the above covering report, as shown in bold:

2.6.2  The options in Appendix A have been subject to consultation with the Future Governance Steering Group. The FGSG recommended that all options should be submitted to MHCLG for consideration, and that:

a) The “other options” for the rural wards should include the potential of moving Icklingham to the Manor Ward, albeit recognition should be given that the current proposal – including Icklingham in a Risby Ward – follows the A1101 giving a natural community cohesion corridor;

b) Option C for Brandon should be the preferred option in light of the feedback received from local members at the Councillors drop-in session;

c) Option H for Haverhill should be a preferred option in light of feedback from the consultation;

d) Option I for Mildenhall should be a preferred option as it reflects the views of the recent Mildenhall Parish Council meeting; and

e) Option K for Newmarket should be a preferred option (reflecting the views of Newmarket Town Council)

In addition, the following amendment to the table in Appendix A: Option A – Rural Wards, as shown in bold:

Ward No: 17

Risby Ward

No. of electorate: 1938 2237

%Away from Average:minus 5.74% +8.80%

Councillor Carol Bull, Chairman of the Future Governance Steering Group introduced this item and provided some background.  As there were several issues and Options to consider, the Mayor then invited the Service Manager (Democratic Services) to set out how the debate would be handled, which included inviting the Director and Electoral Services Manager to speak during the item to provide background to the particular Option under consideration and assist with any questions Members may have.

The Service Manager (Democratic Services) duly set out the procedure to be followed and the Mayor then asked Members to turn to the Options in Appendix A, which were intended to be considered individually, starting with Option A for the Rural Wards.

The Electoral Services Manager provided background and the debate proceeded with comments made from the following Members:

(a)     Councillor Mary Evans:  Expressed concern regarding the reduction in the overall number of West Suffolk councillors from 72 to 64 and the option presented to abolish Hundon Ward. Councillor Evans identified that community links were not established between some of the smaller villages within the draft proposals.

(b)     Councillor Sara Mildmay-White: Was not in agreement with Option A, but agreed with Option B, which would be considered later. She added that Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council would submit its own response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).

(c)     Councillor Peter Stevens: Agreed with this Option for Cavendish Ward for his reasons given.

(d)     Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger: Two of the three villages within the existing Fornham Ward had expressed concern to her regarding this Option for her reasons given. Concerns expressed over equal representation should the new two-Member ward option be accepted by the LGBCE.

(e)     Councillor Karen Richardson: that community links were not established between some of the smaller villages within the existing Kedington Ward and the key service centres identified. Concern expressed that two-Member wards could be ineffective with one Member wards being more productive.

The debate continued with some Members of the urban wards seeking clarity on what they were voting upon, particularly where there were conflicting opinions between some rural ward Members that represented the residents’ views of those located within their own wards.  It was therefore considered not to be clear whether an Option should be accepted, amended or deleted. 

As it was the LGBCE’s responsibility to determine the council size and new warding pattern, it was suggested that all Options set out in Appendix A be submitted for its consideration. It was noted that the LGBCE would undertake its own consultation on its warding pattern proposals later in the year, therefore there would be a further opportunity to submit responses to that consultation. This was agreed to be a sensible approach.

On the motion of Councillor Andrew Speed, seconded by Councillor David Nettleton, and duly carried, it was

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the reporting of comments on them made at this meeting [24 April 2018], or submitted to officers by 27 April 2018, all of the Options set out in Appendix A of Report No: COU/SE/18/010, be adopted unchanged for submission to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Consideration was then given to Recommendation (2) as printed in the report.

On the motion of Councillor David Nettleton, seconded by Councillor David Roach, and duly carried, it was

RESOLVED:

That the Chief Executive be authorised to prepare and submit the Council’s representation based on the information contained in Report No: COU/SE/18/010 and its appendices and the decisions made by Council at this meeting [24 April 2018].

(At this point at 9.12pm, the Mayor adjourned the meeting for a short comfort break.  During the break, Councillors Beccy Hopfensperger and Thorndyke left the meeting and did not return.  The meeting resumed at 9.24 pm.)