Agenda item

Purpose: To update Members in relation to the review of the district’s boundaries and to the need to review some of the previously approved warding patterns based on greater clarity of the projections used to inform the predicted total number of electors.

(Councillor Mollie Lock left the meeting at 7.32pm)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 13) which sought to update Members in relation to the review of the district’s boundaries and to alert them to the need to review some of the previously approved warding patterns based on greater clarity of the projections used to inform the predicted total number of electors.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Lee Dillon:

That the Council:

1.     “rescind the decision of Council on  23 March 2017 in relation to proposed new warding patterns and new ward names, in accordance with the Council Rules of Procedure 4.9 and 4.16.

2.     submit the new warding patterns and names (Appendix C refers) to the Local Government Boundary Commission in accordance with Phase 2 of the Boundary Review based on a further review of the electorate forecast figures.

3.     notwithstanding the proposed changes, reaffirm that it would still like the Local Government Boundary Commission to look at whether the Greenham Ward should be two single Member Wards based on a view that there would be two distinct communities of the Racecourse development and the proposed new Sandleford development.”

Councillor Graham Jones thanked the Members of the Working Party and Officers for supporting this process. He noted that Map 26 referred to the Tilehurst/Calcot Ward but that it should make reference to Tilehurst South and Holybrook. Councillor Jones commented that forecasting the future was not an exact science and these predictions were based on a range of assumptions.

Councillor Jones explained that since the submission of the forecast figures in December 2016 there had been a number of factors that had led the Council to have to review them. The original number of elector figures was taken as at September 2016. The ratio applied to future electors per household was 1.75 at this point. Since submitting the forecasts in December 2016 the number of electors on the electoral role had increased from 124,492 to 130,217 and the ratio now used was 1.8. A further significant change related to the Lakeside development in Theale which was approved on appeal in February 2017 which would increase Theale’s electorate by 585 electors.

Councillor Jones commented that the decision to reduce the number of councillors to 42 plus or minus one constituted a dramatic change. He appreciated that Members had built up relationships with their communities. To some extent it was easier to sub-divide urban areas as that was already the case and he recognised that it could be more problematic in rural areas. Rural wards tended to base their sense of communities on a number of factors including school catchment areas, shops, geographical features and arterial roads.

Councillor Jones stated that the proposed submission was, in his opinion, as best a compromise as could be achieved. He accepted that Members, Parish and Town Councils and residents might be able to come up with other compromises and he encouraged them to make their own submissions to the Local Government Boundary Commission. He was sure that if Councillor Alan Law had been able to attend the meeting he would have made a case for the retention of the ‘Goring Gap’ community comprising Basildon and Streatley Wards. He also noted the comments that had been made in relation to the size of the Downlands Ward both in terms of its geography and the number of parishes it covered. He also noted the comments about the potential for joining the Hungerford and Kintbury Wards and making this a single three Member Ward.

Councillor Emma Webster also thanked all those involved in developing the submission but requested that the Tilehurst/Calcot Ward be renamed Calcot and Holybrook.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that at the 23 March 2017 meeting he had commented that a possible solution might be to include Beech Hill with Burghfield. He noted that his fellow Ward Member Councillor Mollie Lock, if she was present, would point out that the residents of Wokefield were upset at being moved out of the Mortimer Ward. He also accepted that the residents of Beech Hill looked to Mortimer for services. He recognised the validity of all these opinions but also pointed out that irrespective of which ward the parish was included in, the constituents would still be well represented. He encouraged the parish councils to submit their views to the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC).

Councillor Tim Metcalfe commented that the residents of Tidmarsh and Sulham were pleased to be moved back into the Pangbourne and PurelyWard in the revised submission. He also commented that he was very supportive of the decision to reduce the number of councillors, and, in fact felt that the number could have been reduced even further.

(Manohar Gopal left the meeting at 7.44pm).

Councillor Alan Macro commented that he was happier with this revised submission. Both he and the parish council had submitted comments to the LGBC commenting on the increase in the size of the Theale ward.

Both Councillors Macro and Bridgman supported naming the Tilehurst/Calcot Ward the Calcot Ward.

Councillor James Cole reported that the proposal to co-join the Hungerford and Kintbury Wards had first been raised by Inkpen Parish Council. He accepted that a three councillor ward could be deemed to be problematic but that on balance it represented a better solution for the electors.

Councillor Lee Dillon commented that once a decision had been made to reduce the number of councillors it was important to smooth out the tolerance levels across the district. He accepted that the results were not perfect but they were a good compromise and met the expectations of the LGBC. He noted the comments about rural wards and where they looked to for services but he reminded Members of the comment made by Councillor Webb at a previous meeting. The services would still be there and the residents would still be able to access them. They would also still be represented by a local councillor albeit that it might not be the same councillor as their neighbouring parish.

Councillor Graham Jones commented that he was ambivalent about the names of wards and he was not well qualified to comment on what all wards should be called. He therefore encouraged local Members, parish councils and residents to make their own submissions to the LGBC on these matters. He reminded Members that the Council was making a submission to the LGBC and they were responsible for making a determination on the ward boundaries. When he was involved in this process previously the LGBC had in fact based their decision on a minority report which they made further amendments to.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.