Agenda and minutes

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

All Councillors  present declared an interest in Agenda Item 3, but reported that, as their interest was a personal but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

To appraise Council of the work that has been undertaken in relation to the Boundary Review (Council Size) and to recommend a single figure as the proposed future number of Members with effect from the next 2019/20 District Council elections.

(All Councillors declared a personal interest in Agenda item 3 by virtue of the fact that as Councillors they could be affected by the reduction in the number of Councillors being proposed. As their interest was personal they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 3) which appraised them of the work that had been undertaken in relation to the Boundary Review (Council Size) and recommended a single figure as the proposed future number of Members with effect from the 2019/20 District Council elections.

Prior to the Motion being introduced the Chairman explained that Councillor Graham Jones would be proposing the recommendation as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report and as part of his introduction he would also be proposing an amendment to the recommendation set out in paragraph 2.2 of the report which had been circulated to all Members in advance of the meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter:

That the Council:

“2.1     approves and adopts the Governance Report.”

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Alan Macro:

That:

“2.2     for the purposes of Phase 1 of the Boundary Review process, the Council be requested to agree that the number of Members required from 2019/20 be reduced from the current number of 52 to 42 (+ or -1).”

Councillor Graham Jones noted the current boundaries were established in 2002. Since then the profile of the wards had changed over time as developments were erected. As a result of the development the disparity between the number of electors in various wards had grown. This imbalance meant that it had become necessary to revisit the ward boundaries and this was seen as an opportune time to examine the number of Members the authority needed to effectively govern the district.

In terms of governance the authority operated a Strong Leader Model supported by an Executive. The Council had scrutiny arrangements in place to hold the Executive to account and to review decisions which had an impact across the district. Quasi judicial committees such as Licensing and Planning were also in place as part of a comprehensive governance structure. The governance needs had however to be balanced against a membership that was affordable. These proposals could generate around £70k of savings.

At the September 2015 Council meeting it was agreed that the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) would be approached about undertaking a Council Size Boundary Review so that the discrepancies between wards could be corrected.

Councillor Graham Jones noted that typically each Ward Member in West Berkshire represented around 2208 residents which was significantly lower than many other authorities in the South East e.g. Wiltshire (3538) and Portsmouth (3502). He noted that some other nearby unitary authorities operated with fewer than 52 Councillors e.g. Bracknell (42 Councillors). From this data it was apparent that if Members were minded to approve the recommendations, as amended, West Berkshire Council would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.