Agenda item

The Civic Affairs Committee RECOMMENDED to Council that the warding proposal as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, developed by the Member Champion in consultation with all Members, be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as a Council response to the first phase of the review, subject to the inclusion of an amendment to ward 20 in respect of Cambourne to reflect that the proposed ward was a single large settlement which would clearly benefit from being a ward on its own and that there were plans for growth.

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Civic Affairs Committee with an opportunity to recommend to Council a response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s first phase of consultation on new warding patterns for South Cambridgeshire.

Councillor Alex Riley, Boundary Review Member Champion, presented the report and the draft response as attached to the report at Appendix 1 which he said all Members of the Council had seen and which had not changed for the last two months.  Councillor Riley informed the Committee that he had not received any comments in that time to suggest additional changes to the proposals.

Councillor Cathcart, reflecting on the shape and nature of the district, referred to the decision made at the previous meeting stating that he had not supported the decision and still had concerns in respect of single Member wards and inconsistencies across the district.  Councillor Cathcart gave examples where some wards, as they currently sat, would lose villages as part of the new proposal and felt that there was no particular harmony to what was being proposed.  He was also concerned that the proposal had been developed ahead of consultation with Parish Councils, with his view being that comments from Parish Councils should have been incorporated into the initial proposal.

Councillor Riley responded by reminding the Committee that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England had already made its decision regarding a Council size of 45 for South Cambridgeshire District Council, so there was no choice in developing a proposal based on that Council size, equating to 2,900 electors per Member, which he accepted worked better in some areas of the district than in others.  In terms of the draft proposal being developed prior to consultation with Parish Councils, Councillor Riley made the point that there had to be a proposal in place for Parish Councils to comment on.  He said that the principles of electoral wards being single-Member wards and small parishes not forming part of an electoral ward with large parishes, in both cases where possible and practical, had been agreed at the last meeting and were put into practice as part of developing the draft proposal.

Councillors Bridget Smith and Sebastian Kindersley had sympathy with Councillor Cathcart’s concerns, citing examples in the electoral ward they represented where single-Member wards were not the most suitable solution.  Councillor Riley acknowledged that there were difficult compromises that had to be made across the district.  Councillor Smith also made the point that there were a number of newly proposed electoral wards that were towards the end of the 10% tolerance level and questioned what the Boundary Commission’s views would be in respect of that.  Andrew Francis, Electoral Services Manager, advised that whilst this was true, it would be up to the Council to put forward its case.

It was noted that the wording of ward 20 in the draft proposal would be amended to reflect that the proposed ward was a single large settlement, which would clearly benefit from being a ward on its own, and that there were plans for growth.

Councillor Simon Edwards reported that Parish Councils had been contacted directly by the Boundary Commission and stated that Oakington and Westwick Parish Council had expressed its concerns with regard to proposed ward 24, which would see Oakington and Westwick grouped with Longstanton, to include the town of Northstowe.  Councillor Edwards asked whether the growth of Northstowe, in reaching a certain number of electors, would trigger a further boundary review.  It was clarified that any ward exceeding a 30% variance in the average Member to elector ratio would usually trigger a boundary review.

Voting on the recommendations contained within the report with 6 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions, the Civic Affairs Committee RECOMMENDED to Council that the warding proposal as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, developed by the Member Champion in consultation with all Members, be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as a Council response to the first phase of the review, subject to the inclusion of an amendment to ward 20 in respect of Cambourne to reflect that the proposed ward was a single large settlement which would clearly benefit from being a ward on its own and that there were plans for growth.

The Committee put on record its thanks to Councillor Riley for the work he had undertaken in developing the draft proposals.