THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 9 ON THE AGENDA
STIRLING COUNCIL CORPORATE OPERATIONS
28 MAY 2015 NOT EXEMPT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND
FIFTH REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
1 SUMMARY
1.1 This report updates Council on the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) for Scotland’s fifth review of electoral arrangements and presents three further options for the purpose of agreeing a consultation response.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S)
The Council agrees:-
2.1 to consider the Local Government Boundary Commission’s proposal and the 3 options presented in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.17 of this report and to agree a response from the Council to the LGBC.
3 CONSIDERATIONS
BACKGROUND
3.1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland is required to conduct electoral reviews for each local authority area in Scotland at intervals of between 8 and 12 years. Their fourth reviews were conducted in 2004- 2006 and these resulted in the current multi-member wards used for local government elections in 2007 and 2012.
3.2 The fifth review began in 2014 with consultation, firstly with Councils and then with the public, on the numbers of councillors for each council. This stage resulted in the proposal that Stirling Council should have 23 elected members based on population and levels of deprivation.
3.3 The current stage of the review is to determine ward boundaries. The Commission’s proposals for revised ward boundaries for the Stirling Council area are now open for consultation responses from local authorities. After considering responses from councils the LGBC will conduct a 12-week public consultation between July and October 2015.
3.4 Following the public consultation period, the Commission has the option of developing revised proposals for wards and may undertake further consultation and local inquiry. The final decision on revision to ward boundaries rests with the LGBC. The Commission expects to submit its final recommendations to Scottish Ministers by May 2016.
CURRENT PROPOSALS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
3.5 When reviewing electoral arrangements the Commission must take into account the following factors:
- The interests of effective and convenient local government
- Councillors should represent the same number of electors as “nearly as may be” (parity)
- Local ties that would be broken by creating a boundary
- Fixing boundaries that are easily identifiable; and
- Special geographical considerations
3.6 The Commission's letter, proposals summary booklet and overview map detailing the current proposals for wards in the Stirling Council area were sent to all elected members on 25 March 2015. Individual ward maps were sent separately to ward councillors on the same day and A2 size prints of the ward boundary maps were put on display in the Members’ Lounge.
3.7 The Commission’s proposed electoral arrangements divide the Stirling Council area into seven wards, five 3-member wards and two 4-member wards. Changes to the ward boundaries in Bridge of Allan, Stirling and Dunblane are proposed.
3.8 An A4 copy of the LGBC proposal is appended.
3.9 The LGBC have suggested that this proposal “…offers a strong boundary between wards in Stirling and avoids wards having to straddle the River Forth in the town. It complements the Commission’s proposed methodology for the determination of Councillor numbers…”.
3.10 The LGBC recognises however that the disadvantages of this proposal are that “6 of the 7 15% most-deprived datazones are found within [Stirling West Ward]…and the division of Bridge of Allan between wards.”
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION (Maps appended)
3.11 To address the identified disadvantages of the LGBC proposal 3 further options have been devised by Stirling Council officers for consideration.
3.12 Regardless of where boundaries are drawn the 23 Members can either be split into five 3-member wards and two 4-member wards, OR five 4-member wards and one 3-member ward.
3.13 A Members’ briefing was held on Tuesday 12 th May to outline the 3 further options for consideration. Maps were displayed in the Members’ lounge from Thursday 14 th May.
3.14 The 3 options devised ensure that the most-deprived datazones are located across three wards and also removes the division of Bridge of Allan between wards.
3.15 In addition, all three options have more coterminosity with the Scottish Parliament boundaries than the proposal from the LGBC.
3.16 The 3 options consist of:
3.16.1 Option 1 is comprised of five 3-member wards and two 4-member wards. This option retains the current Dunblane and Bridge of Allan ward minus the university area. It creates a second 4-member ward (Stirling North) comprising the current Castle ward, the university area and Riverside. There are no significant changes to the other wards.
3.16.2 Option 2 is comprised of five 3-member wards and two 4-member wards. Retaining the current Dunblane and Bridge of Allan 4-member ward minus the university area. Creating a second 4-member ward from the current Bannockburn ward, Whins of Milton area, and part of St Ninians. The current Stirling East ward (minus Whins of Milton and part of St Ninians) plus Cambuskenneth, Top of the Town and part of the city centre. Also, the Stirling North ward created from the current Castle ward plus the university area, minus Cambuskenneth, Top of the Town and part of the city centre.
3.16.3 Option 3 is comprised of five 4-member wards and one 3-member ward. Retaining the current 3-member Trossachs and Teith Ward. Creating five 4-member wards including Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, and Stirling North outlined in Option 1. Bannockburn Ward outlined in Option 2. Including the 4-member ward Forth and Endrick outlined in the LGBC proposal (existing Forth and Endrick ward plus Cambusbarron). Creating a final 4-member ward (Stirling South) comprising the current Stirling West ward (minus Cambusbarron and west of the M9 motorway) and the current Stirling East ward (minus Riverside, Whins of Milton, and part of St Ninians).
3.17 The local authority consultation period was to end on 19 May 2015, however the Commission has granted an extension to allow consultation responses to be received from Stirling Council not later than 29 May 2015.
4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
Policy Implications
Equality Impact Assessment No Strategic Environmental Assessment No Serving Stirling No Single Outcome Agreement Yes Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) No Effect on Council’s greenhouse gas emissions No Effect
Strategic/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations No
Equality Impact Assessment
4.1 The contents of this report were assessed using the EqIA Relevance Assessment Form. It was determined that an Equality Impact Assessment was not required as all the proposals contained in the report divide the most deprived datazones over a greater number of wards, there is no negative impact on protected characteristic groups or on communities, household groups or individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
4.2 This report does not relate to a Plan, Policy, Programme or Strategy therefore Strategic Environmental Assessment does not apply Serving Stirling
4.3 Not applicable.
Single Outcome Agreement
4.4 The proposals set out in this report support all the outcomes in the Single Outcome Agreement by ensuring that appropriate democratic representation is available to the citizens in the Stirling Council area.
Other Policy Implications
4.4 None.
Resource Implications
4.6 None.
Consultations
4.7 None.
Tick ( ) to Council and Decision Making Committees only confirm and add relevant initials The appropriate Convener(s), Vice Convener(s), Portfolio Holder and N/A Depute Portfolio Holder have been consulted on this report The Director of Corporate Operations has been consulted on this GO’S report as appropriate
5 BACKGROUND PAPERS
5.1 LGBC Fifth reviews of Elector Arrangements, proposals for Wards March 2015.
6 APPENDICES
6.1 Appendix 1 - EqIA Relevance Assessment Form (Council and Decision Making Committees only)
6.2 Appendix 2 - Maps of LGBC proposals and 3 further options.
Author(s) Name Designation Telephone Number/E-mail
Paul McNamara Performance and 01786 (2)33020 Improvement Adviser, [email protected] Corporate Services
Approved by Name Designation Signature
Gerard O’Sullivan Director of Corporate Operations
Date 22 May 2015 Service Reference
Appendix 1
Stirling Council: EqIA Relevance Check (June 2014)
Completing this form will help you determine whether or not an equality impact assessment is required and provide a record of your decision. This is a screening process to help you decide if the proposal under consideration requires an EqIA - it is not an EqIA and the impact of the proposal will be determined by the EqIA itself.
The Guidance: Equality Impact Assessment Toolkit June 2014 may help when completing this form this can be accessed via the following link - http://web.stirling.gov.uk/eqia_toolkit.doc
The term proposal used below is intended to include “policy, strategy, service, function, procedure or project.”
When is an EqIA required?
While each proposal must be considered individually, it is anticipated that an EqIA will always be required when: • introducing a new policy/strategy/service/function • reviewing a current policy/strategy/service/function • reducing / discontinuing an existing service • considering budget proposals resulting in any of the above Reports on technical or procedural matters or which confirm progress on previously considered proposals, may be less likely to require an EqIA but this can only be determined by using this form.
SUMMARY DETAILS
1. Title of Proposal: Service PBB Ref (if applicable)
Local Government Boundary Corporate Operations N/A Commission for Scotland Fifth review of electoral arrangements
2. Service, and Lead Officer (Head of Service/ Service Manager) undertaking assessment
Service Lead Officer Corporate Operations Liz Duncan
3. What is the nature of the proposal? (Tick/complete all that apply)
Review of an existing policy/strategy Review of an existing service/function Reduction in an existing service / function Removal of an existing service Introduction of a new policy/ strategy Introduction of new service/function Other e.g. technical, progress, procedural report PBB category e.g. transformational change
4. For proposals with implications for budgets complete the following:
(£ 000s) Current expenditure on activity In Council area as a whole In/for specific community/ies
Total anticipated savings or In/for Council area as a whole proposed increased spend In/ for specific community/ies Start date for savings/increased spend End Date for savings/increased spend Savings/increased spend Year 1 Delivery Timescale and Phasing Savings/increased spend Year 2 Savings/increased spend Year 3 Savings/increased spend Year 4 Savings/increased spend Year 5
AIMS & OBJECTIVES
Answering questions 5 - 7 will help you decide whether or not your proposal needs to be accompanied by an EqIA.
5. What longer term outcomes is the proposal expected to achieve?
Revision of the local government electoral boundaries is required from time to time to ensure parity of representation for citizens.
6. What are the main aims of this proposal? If this proposal revises an existing policy have its aims changed?
The report allows elected members to consider options and make a recommendation to the LGBC. It is the Commission who has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that equalities issues are addressed in their final scheme.
7. Who is most likely to be affected by this proposal? Consider current and potential future service users including people with particular needs, specific geographical communities and current and prospective employees.
All citizens in the Stirling Council area.
POTENTIAL IMPACT
Answering Questions 8 -12 will help you consider the potential impact of the proposal.
8. What potential impact will this proposal have on people in terms of the needs of the public sector equality duty and the Council’s responsibilities to:- • eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation • advance equality of opportunity • foster good relations - including the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding • See guidance for additional information.
Whatever option is approved will have a positive impact by ensuring parity of representation.
9. Will this proposal have a potential impact on people with “protected characteristics”*? Please consider all protected groups listed below. A detailed explanation of these is provided in the guidance.
Group Impact Group Impact Group Impact Yes/No/Unclear Yes/No/Unclear Yes/No/Unclear Age No Disability No Gender No Reassignment Marriage No Pregnancy No Race No and Civil and Maternity Partnership Religion No Sex No Sexual No and Belief Orientation
10. Will this proposal have an impact on communities, household groups or individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty? Please answer Yes/No/Unclear. Information on communities, households and individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty is provided in the guidance.
No.
N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\SCOUNCIL\REPORTS\2015\SC20150528ITEM09LGBCS.DOC
11. Do you already have any evidence that has influenced or shaped this proposal in relation to people in protected characteristic groups or communities, groups or individuals vulnerable to poverty? If so please summarise what this evidence includes.
The “most deprived datazones” mentioned in the report.
DECISION
12. Based on your responses and any evidence you already have, is an EqIA required for this proposal? In making your decision please note:
• if answering Yes to any part of either questions 9 or 10 an EqIA is required
• if answering Unclear to any part of questions 9 or 10 you are strongly advised to do an EqIA to allow you to comprehensively assess the impact of the proposal
• if answering No to any part of questions 9 or 10 please justify your response and why you consider an EqIA is not required for this proposal in the box below
As all the proposals contained in the report divide the most deprived datazones over a greater number of wards, there is no negative impact on protected characteristic groups or on communities, household groups or individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty.
13. Who was involved in making this decision?
Liz Duncan
Authorisation by Lead Officer (Head of Service / Service Manager)
This decision has been approved Name Gerard O’Sullivan by - Title Director of Corporate Operations
Date 22 May 2015
N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\SCOUNCIL\REPORTS\2015\SC20150528ITEM09LGBCS.DOC