Agenda item

Council received a report that explained that it had been expected that, on 28 February 2023, the Local Government Boundary Commission would publish its final proposals for the pattern of wards for Buckinghamshire Council.  Instead, the Commission had launched a limited further consultation on revised proposals for four wards in the south-east of the county.  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 the revisions achieved the best balance of their criteria: community identity, acceptable electoral variance, effective local government and their wish to minimise the number of parishes that 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 further consultation had officially ended on 11 April but the Commission had given the Council an extension to 26 April to enable it to consider the matter.

As in previous stages, the Standards and General Purposes Committee had received recommendations from the cross-party Electoral Review Working Group formed under the Committee. Drop-in sessions for Ward members had been arranged with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Working Group.  The Working Group recommended acceptance of the Commission’s proposals.  On 13 April, the Committee had agreed likewise and this was the recommendation now before Council.

Annex 1 summarised the key changes envisaged by the Commission, that were:

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

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

C.      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 aligns with this Council’s original submission)

D.     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.

E.      To pluralise ‘Farnham’ to demonstrate that both Farnham Royal and Farnham Common are included in the name “Farnhams & Stoke Poges”. 

These changes would result in one fewer councillor overall, 97 instead of the previously proposed 98.  The Commission had indicated, throughout the review, that the “98” number may marginally increase or decrease depending on the final balance of criteria for each Ward.

It was notable, from A-E of the proposed changes, that the revised proposals were interlocked, with a decision for one Ward having some impact on another. This demonstrated the consideration at the heart of an electoral review: achieving a balance of the relevant criteria for each ward and for its neighbours.

The Commission considered their revisions achieve a working balance of the criteria: only one Ward would exceed the variance, others coming well within it or at the acceptable limit of it; only one parish (Chalfont St Peter) would cross a Buckinghamshire Ward boundary; and each reflected an acceptable balance of community identity. 

During the debate, points highlighted included:

-          One Councillor stated that the proposals would negatively impact the strong links between Fulmer and Gerrards Cross and cause harm to community cohesion and effective governance, although it was commented that the Ward boundaries were ‘soft’ boundaries for the purposes of electoral representation and would not stop communities from across the boundary from continuing to work with each other.

-          That it was unfortunate that the latest consultation would mean there were 97 rather than 98 Councillors representing the Council from 2025, although it was highlighted that the Commission had stated that the final Councillor numbers would possibly be 98 but could be plus/minus one Councillor number depending on the outcomes of the Warding arrangements.

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

RESOLVED –

(1)               That the Council’s response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England further consultation on warding arrangements be APPROVED, as summarized at paragraph 2.3 and in Annex 1 of the Council report, and as recommended by the Standards and General Purposes Committee.

(2)               That the Service Director for Legal and Democratic Services be authorized to submit the response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on behalf of the Council.