Agenda item

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) had held a consultation on the second stage of the electoral review of Buckinghamshire Council seeking views on a pattern of wards that should apply from the 2025 local election.

This followed the previous consultation on ‘council size’ by the LGBCE. The Commission was minded to recommend a membership of 98 councillors so proposals were therefore being sought on a pattern of Wards equivalent (so far as possible) to that number of Councillors.  As the ‘council size’ was determined at an earlier stage of the Commission’s process, this question could not be re-opened.

While the second stage of the consultation had run until 4 April the LGBCE had confirmed that it would be willing for full Council to formally to approve a submission at its scheduled meeting on 27 April.  However, the LGBCE had requested a draft proposal by the end of 4 April and as delegated by Council, a draft submission was made to the Commission by the Standards & General Purposes Committee on 30 March 2022.  The draft submission was included as Appendix 1 to this Council report.  The Committee had recommended to Council to endorse the draft submission as the Council’s formal submission.

In arriving at a draft submission, the Committee had been supported by a cross-party Electoral Review Working Group of the Committee.  The Group met twice during February and March to work up the broad set of draft proposals for consideration by the Committee. The draft proposal was agreed by Committee on 17 March.  Prior to this, the LGBCE had been invited to deliver briefings to all Buckinghamshire Councillors, and to Parish and Town Councils.

The next formal phase of the review would be the consultation by the Commission on its proposed way forward.  If Recommendation 2 was approved by Council, the Committee would intend that the Electoral Review Working Group would continue throughout the next phases of the review to advise the Committee.

In arriving at its draft submission, the Committee had regard to the LGBCE’s published guidance and the three statutory criteria for determining a pattern of wards, namely:

(i)                 Delivering electoral equality for local voters - given the total forecast electorate of 443,064 by 2027, the average number of electors per councillor, for this review, is 1 councillor per 4,521 electors. The Committee had therefore sought to keep within +/- 10% of that notional figure.

(ii)               Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities.

(iii)             Promoting effective and convenient local government.

The Committee had proposed a pattern of 50 Wards based, largely, on two-member representation for each Ward, achieving 98 councillors overall.  The draft submission was at Appendix 1.  This gave a list of proposed wards and their names together with maps showing them, plus the underlying electorate data.

The Committee had been mindful that ‘one size’ did not fit all which had resulted in a proposal that includes a mix of one- and two-member representation per ward.  In certain cases, the existing Ward structures had not been sustainable, due to factors such as projected development and electorate forecasts up to 2027.  As such, the proposals include several suggested changes to boundaries, having regard to community identity and effective governance although many existing Ward arrangements had also been kept where they already reflected good community identity.  Changes were marked accordingly in the Annex to this report.

The Committee was aware that there were a small number of areas where further detailed work on certain boundaries was potentially necessary to achieve better community identity.  These would be considered further in more detail in the next phases of the review, alongside the Commission.  The Committee had been mindful that Buckinghamshire was also a member-led authority which saw its democratic relationship with the electorate and local communities as pivotal to Buckinghamshire’s future.

The Committee had considered it important for the Wards to have sufficient Member resilience to sustain this community-based approach and to support the continued operation of the 16 innovative Community Boards.  This had included being mindful that the Council’s experience of multi-member wards, since the inception of the Council, had been broadly positive, with certain geographies and community dynamics particularly benefitting from this collaborative approach, regardless of political affiliation.  As such, having reviewed the basis of the wards and the communities within them, the Committee had felt it right to continue this, where appropriate, based on consolidating community identity and governance.

During the debate, points highlighted included:

• Members paid thanks to officers and Members for all their work in reaching this stage.
• that the review should not have used the current warding arrangements as its starting point and should have started afresh recognising communities and their differences.
• that Wexham was geographically quite different to Denham. Residents had concerns they would not be as well represented as they were presently by being paired with Stoke Poges.
• objections were raised by Members to the proposed arrangements for Booker, Castlefield and Cressex wards which it was felt had been separated without reflecting feedback from local members, the local geography and the wants of the community.
• an issue was raised over the population growth numbers that had been used to aid the formation of ward boundaries.  It was stated that the implied growth of 32,000 electors between 2022 and 2027 did not reflect the figures contained within the Corporate Plan, although the numbers published by the Boundary Commission, which had been provided by the Council followed guidance, which set out strict criteria.
• it was emphasised that the second phase of the review was a two stage consultation, the first being on general warding patterns and the second to look at the details of where boundaries lie.  The Standards & General Purposes Committee was open to submissions from Members and to holding conversations in an effort to reach a position where the majority were content with the proposals.

Councillor T Broom moved the three recommendations as noted in the report. These were seconded by Councillor B Chapple OBE.

Councillor J Wassell proposed a recorded vote be taken, for which the threshold was met.

The vote was recorded as follows:

FOR (93): Councillors Alam, Angell, Anthony, Ayub, Bagge, Barnes, Barrett, Bass, Baum, Birchley, Blamires, Bracken, Branston, Brazier, Broadbent, Broom, Brown, Butcher, Caffrey, Carington, Carroll, B Chapple OBE, S Chapple, Chhokar, Chilver, Clarke OBE, Collins, Cornell, Cranmer, Darby, Dhillon, Egleton, Etholen, Fealey, Flys, Gaster, Gomm, Goss, Hall, Harker OBE, Harriss, Heap, A Hussain, Maz Hussain, Irwin, Johncock, Jones, Jordan, Kelly, King, MacBean, A Macpherson, I Macpherson, Mahon, Marshall, Martin, R Matthews, W Matthews, Mohammed, Mordue, Naylor, Newcombe, Ng, Oliver, Osibogun, Poll, Sarfaraz Raja, Rand, Rouse, L Smith BEM, Southworth, Stannard, Strachan, Summers, Tett, Thomas, Thompson, Town, Towns, A Turner, P Turner, Waite, Wallace, L Walsh, M Walsh, Ward, Waters, Watson, Whyte, Williams, Winn, A Wood and K Wood.

AGAINST (25): Councillors Bates, Cooper, Dixon, Gemmell, Guy, D Hayday, O Hayday, I Hussain, Majid Hussain, N Hussain, T Hussain, James, Kayani, Knight, Lambert, Morgan, Poland-Goodyer, W Raja, G Smith, M Smith, Stuchbury, Wadhwa, Wassell, Wheelhouse and Wilson

ABSTAIN (1): Councillor Hogg

RESOLVED –

(1)               That the final submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the future pattern of wards for Buckinghamshire Council be APPROVED, based on the draft submission at Appendix 1 from the Standards and General Purposes Committee.

(2)               That authority be delegated to the Standards & General Purposes Committee for agreeing with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England the detail of the precise location of boundaries arising from the Council’s proposal, consistent with achieving the overall terms of the final submission.

(3)               That the Standards and General Purposes Committee be asked to report back to Council with any recommendations arising from any response or proposal from the Commission which would otherwise be inconsistent with the Council’s submission.

Note: Councillors Collingwood, Hollis and R Khan were not present at the time of the recorded vote.