Quick viewing(Text Mode)

ID Do You Agree with the Commissions's Proposals That

ID Do You Agree with the Commissions's Proposals That

ID Please provide reasons for your answer - Text box Do you support the overall pattern of Please provide reasons for your answer - text box Organisation type? - About you Do you agree with the Commissions's wards that the Commission has proposals that Islands proposed? - Support Council should have 23 councillors, 1 more councillor than at present? - Agreement why is it fare to refuce the westsides representation yet No historicaly it conforms to the 3 parishes you cutting a chunk out of it Member of the public give another to an area with a similar number of voters. its clear the are over represented

SIC1 No Why do you ask this question first? The number will Yes Very poor map. Member of the public depend on how the wards are divided up. Surely we need to look at your other proposals before we can comment The electoral areas seem to link wards in an area that fits the natural lie of on the appropriate number. the land.

The number of councillors required is the number needed for the council to function effectively and represent the inhabitants.

SIC2 Yes Yes Member of the public SIC3 Yes There was a lack of interest in the last election. We would No I don’t feel that splitting the north area up would be good. Member of the public struggle to fill the seats with quality members. SIC4 No I have not seen my councillors at all and they have not Not Answered I am unsure Member of the public represented me in any capacity. I do observe a lot of civic receptions tho, when often they come out in force. Is it the free dinner, the associations, the kudos generally? Who funds these civic receptions? Screenplay - barely seen a councillor at a film yet there were quite a few at the Screenplay reception! The Norwegian Yacht Race - civic reception.....the people who should be invited to that are rowers, sailors and others connected who bake, cook and serve up , not someone with a 'name'. There are SIC5 No plenty more..... No I dont think mainland councillors will understand isles issues the same way, Member of the public the isles should would be stronger together. SIC6 Yes The more the merrier! Many hands make light work. Fresh No I think when the current ‘North Isles’ ward councillors are all on the same Member of the public face. New ideas and views. More points put forward, page regarding fixed links and are all passionate about getting fairer funding wider discussions. No 50/50 votes. and looking to the future it would be a shame to take out of that ward. SIC7 Yes Yes I have changed my mind after thinking about it more deeply, I think Member of the public Whalsay would benefit being part of this new ward, to cover issues from the North Isles on 3 ferry journeys was too difficult.

SIC8 Yes Having a fresh view of current issues can never be a bad No The isles have to be kept as one due to the nature of island issues such as Member of the public fixed links. I think it's easier for someone who lives on the the outlying islands to appreciate the constraints that we have to factor in daily to make decisions.

SIC9 Yes No Member of the public SIC10 No The proposal to create a new East Ward is Yes For the reasons previously mentioned, I believe the new Ward will allow Member of the public a very good one. As a Nesting constituent, I feel that our councillors to be better focussed on the east , which was community has been grossly under represented by being always a poor fit with Shetland North Manland Ward. Whalsay also has part of the Shetland North Ward, leading to poor council issues distinct from the north isles which will be better served by this new decisions and a lack of meaningful representation for the Ward. last decade. The needs of central/eastern communities are distinct from the , and I am glad that this appears to have been considered with the new Ward creation.

SIC11 Yes I beleive the islands should stay together as our No Member of the public economies are of similar needs especially regarding ferries. I beleive we are stronger together on this issue.

SIC12 No Additional cost. No should be in own ward. Member of the public Population per ward/councillor should be as near same as possible.

SIC13 No More is better than less. No Whalsay should not be lumped in with mainland communities as an island Member of the public has totally different needs and a different set of problems requiring different solutions. A councillor who has never experienced island life may not understand the complexities and there would be a danger that no islander/s would be voted in as a councillor.

SIC14 Yes Whalsay an skerries need there own counciller No The wards are too big ,too many issues for 1 ward Member of the public SIC15 Yes Yes Member of the public SIC16 No As a resident of an island of Shetland. I feel we are No Member of the public discriminated against already. Having another counsellor in Lerwick, would give us on the islands and rural areas a poorer outcome. SIC17 No There are far to many councillors for the size of the islands No Don't need additional wards Member of the public and population SIC18 No Yes Member of the public

SIC19 Yes already numerous councillors got in without a vote either Yes Member of the public without an election or one of the candidates was a conservative paper candidate and so the vote was effectively void one more will just mean even more getting in without a vote. Less would surely make more sense the current situation has numerous unelected councillors in very powerfull positions on the council.

SIC20 No Yes Member of the public SIC21 Yes Not required No If it ain't broke, don't fix it. SIC22 No More even spread of responsibility Yes It will provide easier access for elected councillors by having a smaller Member of the public geographical area to cover, which should in theory mean they will be closer to local electorate and will or should mean better understanding of the issues locally. Covering the entire area is to great a challenge with existing transport links.

SIC23 Yes 23 is already too many. They have nothing to do now No Cannot read the maps on my iPad Member of the public

SIC24 No No particularly strong opinion on this. Yes Broadly, yes. Member of the public

In general terms, using STV for two member wards (as proposed for four of the ward here) would generally not be particularly satisfactory, even though allowed by the Islands Act, as the impact on proportionality of representation between parties would be impacted.

As Shetland is and has historically been a primarily Independent-dominated council, that is much less of a concern here. The proposed two member wards therefore seem to be sensibly drawn given local geography and transport links.

The only other issue I would raise is that the sea between the Mainland and Yell (which has historically, is presently, and proposed to be within the boundaries of electoral wards) be removed from the area of those wards.

It's not entirely clear why the sea is included, given that every other islands ward in the country excludes the sea, and it is often confusing and irritating to the eyes of Shetlanders that their geography is misrepresented so on election maps. As someone who runs a (free, social media) service which provides such maps, it'd be very helpful for me not to need to keep explaining the island of MainYell is not my fault!

SIC25 Yes No Replying on behalf of Sandwick Community Council - the Councillors are Community group/organisation happy with the increase in number for South Shetland. However feel that feels part of the community - as evidenced by SMUHA, Football, Community Council boundaries and previous participatory budgeting exercises.

SIC26 Yes There was no disagreement on this issue from the No Lerwick Community Council feels that the Gulberwick part of the Lerwick Community group/organisation Community Council. South Ward should be amalgamated into the Ward and this would even up the numbers of the electorate a little more evenly, particularly as there are housing construction projects about to start that could significantly increase the population of Lerwick.

SIC27 Yes It was felt that this won't make too much difference No Community Council are unhappy with regards to the proposal of Community group/organisation having one extra councillor. splitting up a community and not having Voe as part of the Delting parish. Voe would be represented by a body which is not necessarily aligned to what is happening in the rest of the parish. These electoral arrangements take no consideration of the Voe community and its associations within Delting.

SIC28 Yes I think a bigger group of people can discuss a lot more Yes Member of the public topics and be assigned to deal with smaller issues , it’s more pressure if it’s less councillors

SIC29 Yes We are a small population, 22 is enough. No Voe has strong ties socially and culturally to and the North Ward. With Member of the public the communities working together on projects and such forth should remain in the same Ward. SIC30 No The number of councillors must be reduced not increased No It is unnecessary

SIC31 No For Shetland North, this means a reduction of elected No With the boundary changes, this would make Shetland North the least Community group/organisation members from 3 to 2. represented area in Shetland, with each councillor expected to look after 880 people (an increase of 10.2%) SIC32 No

The Decision You will see that members, having given full and detailed consideration to the original initial proposals, the handling of the Council’s response to that in May 2019 and now the Commission’s detailed proposals have concluded that the new opportunity to consider single and two-member wards offers little by way of a remedy to the need to find parity of votes in each area, given the interesting geographies found throughout Shetland and its inhabited islands. That said, during the discussion on Wednesday, Councillors repeatedly referred back to issues which embraced principles of good government and adequate representation of the electorate within Shetland. The table at Appendix 4 of the aforementioned report helped members very much in those considerations and it was appreciated that the efforts of the Commission to engage with Community Councils had significantly contributed to their full participation and sharing of views in relation to the electorate which both levels of local government represent.

North Isles and Shetland North wards The decision to ask the Commission to revert back to the proposals to retain the status quo, as originally envisaged in 2015 for the North Isles and Shetland North wards, found greatest favour in the Chamber. This settled view of the Council emerged, latterly, largely through strong representations from the Community Councils speaking about impacts and views expressed by the electorate they represented. For example, Whalsay, having conducted an informal stakeholder engagement in their area, felt they could properly express a voice for a majority view that they wish to remain part of a three-member North Isles ward. The resultant position which would then not have required the area comprising Voe, , Nesting and Lunnasting being carved from the existing North ward and instead remaining as a three- member North ward, also satisfied comments received from both and Delting Community Councils, respectively. More importantly, Councillors for the existing North ward had been called to a meeting of community representatives, largely expressing the views of residents of the township of Voe. A Councillor reporting back from that meeting commented that it was a well-attended meeting with a broad cross section of the demographic, including parents of young children, who talked about the services that their family would access, most of which were located within the current three-member ward. Any form of dislocation from those services arising from the way in which their community would be represented in the future should be resisted and that was very much the view expressed by this meeting, the attendees of which asked Councillors to make those views known in the course of the Council’s debate on this subject. They, in particular, wanted it to be recognised that Voe was not just heralded as the “gateway to the North” but in fact was the only means of access to the whole of that area!

Shetland South ward The detailed proposal embracing the idea of adding a Councillor to Shetland South ward, thereby addressing the inexorable increase in population in that area, and the hitherto inescapable large positive deviation from parity was a result the Council had already endorsed. The debate centred on proposals from Community Councils that Gulberwick be included within this new ward in order to address what was emerging as a negative deviation from parity, was also recommended by the Council, subject to a caveat that the Community Council for Gulberwick, and have not specifically addressed this possibility.

Lerwick South and (and ) wards In relation to and Lerwick North wards, other than in relation to the possible move of Gulberwick electorate to Shetland South, retention of the contiguous boundaries of Lerwick North and Lerwick South and all their other boundaries was accepted as the preferred option. The Convener, in relation to the name change for Lerwick North, commented that it was already an accepted practice of informally referring to the Lerwick North ward as Lerwick North and Bressay and so that change proposed by the Commission was readily appreciated and had been positively referred to, in particular by Bressay Community Council.

Page 2 of 4

Shetland West and wards The most substantial debate for our Council was in relation to the creation of wards for the remaining areas within the existing and Shetland Central wards. As members began to consider the incongruity in seeking to identify accumulations of electorate which would enable these areas to be equally represented as wards of three-members each, there was much discussion about what would be acceptable in terms of fairness, when this translated into representation at Committees and a voice in relation to strategic matters affecting the whole of Shetland. The views expressed by two West ward Community Councils, Tingwall, Whiteness and , , Burra and , all had a bearing on the matters in hand. Councillors for the existing West ward highlighted, in particular, the strong views expressed by & Aithsting and Walls & Sandness Community Councils, respectively, but also recognised the difficulties experienced by Tingwall, Whiteness and Weisdale Community Council in terms of being able to offer up any solution, other than the proposal put forward by the Commission. Any other situation would mean that the boundaries of their area would not be coterminous with any of the options being looked at for the Local Authority ward areas.

There was a focus around the burgeoning growth in population in the Gott area, brought about by the recent housing developments. This included the approximately forty house development at Stoura being indicative of the significant increases in population, both recently experienced and anticipated within the next two years. Officers put before members an opportunity to consider the possibility of placing the electorate of Girlsta, Wadbister and Laxfirth accessed along the Stromfirth road with communities on the West as a means of addressing a shortfall in electorate numbers, should the West ward to be considered as largely maintaining the existing status quo. However, Councillors described this as little more than “tinkering” also remarked that this would not wholly address the imbalance of electorate between a West three-member ward and a Central three-member ward having regard to the expected increase in electorate in the Gott area. Members were advised that the as yet incomplete canvas of voters (delayed as a result of successive elections, in recent months) was beginning to show the movement in occupation as a significant increase in electoral numbers and the new development at Stoura was expected to add a further net increase of 60-80 voters to the area. So whilst members, in passing, were able to appreciate the differences created by looking at the possibility of 100+ voters from the Girlsta area being located within one as opposed to other ward, in this particular instance it was not seen as a solution to the pursuit of electoral parity in the course of seeking to retain two three-member wards for the areas of West and Central.

Therefore, with a measure of reluctance, members did accept the proposal contained in the Commission’s consultation paper, identifying the West ward as a two-member ward and a four-member ward for Shetland Central. Members also observed that perhaps the best solution for the whole of this area would have come from a scenario where the six-member area could have been a ward in its own right but that was not permitted within the current legislation. Nevertheless, other Councillors observed that on an informal basis an alignment of interests between the Community Councils in the whole of this geographic area and the Councillors, irrespective of the boundaries ultimately designed, could create a basis for collective representation of the electorates of both areas in matters of significant strategic or locality interest. Another Councillor commented that in that respect his personal view was that communities were genuinely less concerned with whether they form part of a two, three, or four member ward, so long as the representation they received from their elected members was effective.

The decision note and the above explanation therefore forms the Council’s response to your consultation. The Council would strongly commend its conclusions as a well-developed outcome. It is significantly different from the suggestions put forward by the Council in May 2019 but it is, in the main, responsive to the community views which have been expressed to

Page 3 of 4

The Council delegated authority to the Executive Manager – Governance & Law to prepare a response, in consultation with the Convener and Leader which embraces the main points of the debate on this report capturing the above decision and any incidental requirements for the Council’s position to be effectively communicated.

END

Page 2 of 2

Top View