Agenda item

The Council will receive a presentation from the Boundary Commission for England.

Professor Paul Wiles  CB (Lead Commissioner) and Richard Otterway (Review Officer) from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England gave a presentation to councillors summarising the reasons behind and the methodology for the pending electoral review of the district.

·         The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was independent of government and political parties and directly accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee.

·         The Commission was responsible for reviewing local authority electoral arrangements, administrative boundaries and structure, and would make recommendations which would be implemented by Parliament.

·         The criteria for starting an electoral review were: 30% of Wards had an electoral variance of more than 10% of the average and/or one Ward had a variance of more than 30% of the average.

·         38% of Wards in Sough Kesteven had an electoral variance greater than 10% of the average.

·         The review would decide the total number of councillors (council size), number of Wards, names of Wards and boundaries of Wards.

·         The criteria for the review were electoral equality (taking account of a five-year forecast of the electorate size), community identity and effective and convenient local government.

·         The review could not consider Parliamentary constituency boundaries, current district Wards, local political implications of recommendations, school catchment areas, postcodes or addresses, or polling districts.

·         The only potential impact of the review on parishes was if a parish was divided between district Wards, in which instance parish Wards would be created.

·         The council size would determine the number of Councillors elected; the starting point was the electorate divided by the number of councillors and determining the optimum ratio between the two.

·         As part of the preliminary work on council size, the Council would need to determine whether it had the right council size or whether it should increase or decrease based on demands on elected members’ time, if it could operate more effectively with a different number of councillors, considerations of political management and governance,  councillors’ representative role and their representation of constituents.

·         The Council was required to submit its council size proposals in draft by 14 December 2012. Final proposals needed submitting by 11 January 2013.

·         The submission would be put out to public consultation and the Commission would use this and the responses to determine a ‘minded to’ council size.

·         The Commission would then invite proposals for Warding patterns based on the ‘minded to’ council size. Draft recommendations would be published and subject to further consultation. The Commission would then publish final recommendations which would be implemented by Order in the Houses of Parliament.

·         Submissions on council size and proposed warding arrangements needed detailed rationale, accurate electorate figures and a robust methodology for forecasting growth. It would also need to provide good electoral equality.

·         Representations needed to be backed by evidence; the most effective representations would suggest alternatives, take account of statutory requirements and consider the consequences of alternatives across the widest possible area.

Councillors put questions to Professor Wiles and Mr Otterway.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England would work with local parishes, telling them about the review and how they could get involved. A councillor expressed concern that Grantham would not be included as it did not have a parish or town council. The Commission reassured that involvement from all public bodies and interested groups would be welcomed.

In response to further questions, councillors were advised that there was no national average ratio between councillor and electorate. Ratios reflected each distinct area; for example, it was likely the councillor/electorate ratio would be higher in urban city areas than rural districts. The council size was also determined by the number of councillors required to successfully conduct the business of the Council.

Councillors highlighted Grantham’s Growth Point status and commented that the electorate could increase as a result of major planned development. A robust methodology was required to project electorate figures five years from the end of the review to future-proof any new arrangements.

Commission representatives explained that the Warding proposals usually received higher numbers of consultation responses than proposals for council size. The more consultation responses received (positive and negative), helped determine whether the Commission’s proposals were right for the area.

It was highlighted that the review was based on the number of registered electors, not the population of an area. There was some concern that the number of registered electors may be affected by the introduction of individual voter registration.

The Commission representatives explained that there were no preconceptions either about the future council size or whether Wards should be single or multi-member.

Consultation would be as widespread as possible. The Commission would work with the district council to use its communication outlets, for example newsletters, distribution lists and the website. Discussions would also take place with the local media, both radio and print. Information leaflets would be made available for parish councils and a meeting would be arranged for interested parties (including parish councils).

The Chairman thanked Professor Wiles and Mr Otterway for their presentation and councillors showed their appreciation with a round of applause.