Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Glenn Watson

The Commission had launched a limited further consultation on revised proposals for four wards in the south-east of the county relating to the Buckinghamshire Electoral Review. These amendments were made by the Commission in response to a significant number of objections to their previous proposals in this area. The Commission believed their revisions achieve the best balance of their criteria: community identity, acceptable electoral variance, effective local government and their wish to minimise the number of parishes which would be split across Buckinghamshire wards.

The Commission had not indicated what position it had taken on the remainder of the county. Instead, it now intended to publish the final recommendations on all wards on 30 May. The consultation officially ended on 11 April but the Commission had given this authority an extension to 26 April to enable Council to consider the matter on that date, in the meantime noting the decision of this Committee. The report attached to the agenda included the views of the Members Working Group which met on 23 March which were considered by this Committee.

The Principal Governance Officer summarised some of the changes proposed by the Commission:-

·       To reverse the proposed extension of Chalfont St Peter southwards into Gerrards Cross Parish: based on “strong community-based evidence”

·       Consequently, to reduce the number of Chalfont St Peter councillors by one: to achieve acceptable electoral variance for that ward (10%)

·       To restore New Denham from Iver to Gerrards Cross & Denham: based on feedback that there were no “strong community or geographic links” between New Denham and Iver Parish. (The revision now aligned with the Council’s original submission)

·       To place Hedgerley and Fulmer within Farnhams & Stoke Poges: restoring Denham wholly to Gerrards Cross & Denham would result in that ward being out of variance; however, placing Fulmer & Hedgerley within the Farnhams & Stoke Poges Ward would achieve balance for both wards but would do so by expanding the latter from two members to three.

·       To pluralise ‘Farnham’ to demonstrate that both Farnham Royal and Farnham

Common are included in the name “Farnhams & Stoke Poges”.

·       One fewer councillor overall, 97 instead of the previously proposed 98. The Commission had indicated, throughout the review, that the “98” number could marginally increase or decrease depending on the final balance of criteria for each ward.

The Working Group had agreed to endorse the Commission’s proposed changes. One alternative proposal was put to the Working Group from Chalfont St Peter ward members, which following a vote, was not supported.

The recommendations in the report were proposed by Cllr Chapple and seconded by Cllr Chokkar. A Member then asked that an amended proposal be put forward for Chalfont St Peter, proposed by Cllr L Smith and seconded by Cllr Oliver, “to create a new single member ward for Gerrards Cross North and Chalfont St Peter South which better reflected their community identity”.

Cllr L Smith commented that CSP Local Members were concerned about the loss of community identity and drop in Members to 97. The amended proposal would introduce a new single Member ward for Gerrards Cross North and Chalfont St Peter South. This would mean that the total number of councillors would be restored to 98 again.  The Member commented that the amended proposal was in keeping with community identity as residents would become confused about which parish they were in. Having the one single Member ward would ensure that residents from Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross would be happy to be associated with both areas and would not feel split from their original community.

Members then discussed the amended proposal . A comment was made that many electoral wards had been impacted by this review and that it was difficult to divide up wards neatly. Other Members had sympathy with the amended proposal and a suggestion was made about putting both proposals to the Boundary Commission so that they could make a choice. A comment was made that it was important for the Council to put their preferred option forward only. The Service Director confirmed that Full Council was expecting this Committee to make a specific recommendation to Full Council on 26 April which, if agreed would be the Council’s formal response to the Boundary Commission.

A vote was taken on the amendment which was not agreed. The meeting then discussed the substantive motion and several members argued that the Commission’s proposals represented the most workable balance of the criteria, having regard to the constraints of geography in the area and the interlocking implications for each ward. Following a vote on the substantive motion it was:-

RESOLVED that the Electoral Review Working Group recommendations that the proposals set out by the Local Government Boundary Commission in their further consultation (and summarised at Annex 1) be accepted; and

RECOMMENDED to Council that the Commission’s proposed wards be endorsed and to inform the Commission accordingly.