SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL I Propose to Make the Following
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL DECISION PROPOSED BY CLLR BRIAN EDWARDS M.B.E., LEADER OF THE COUNCIL I propose to make the following decision set out below in accordance with the powers vested in me by Part 3 of the Constitution of the Council approved by the Council pursuant to Section 37 of the Local Government Act, 2000. The decision will be made by me on or after 30 July 2021 unless called in for scrutiny before that date. Councillor Brian Edwards M.B.E., Leader of the Council Date : 22 July 2021 PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW – SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE RESPONSE PART A – SUMMARY REPORT 1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 1.1 A Parliamentary Constituencies review has been launched and it is proposed a response is sent by South Staffordshire Council. 2. PROPOSED DECISION 2.1 That the response set out in paragraph 4.8 below is submitted to the Boundary Commission. 3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives? POLICY/COMMUNITY Yes Having an effective and efficient Council underpins IMPACT the delivery of the Council Plan. Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed? N/A as consultation response only. No SCRUTINY POWERS The Constitution and associated protocol provides APPLICABLE Yes that front line Councillors, the Monitoring Officer (Director Legal & Governance), and the S151 Officer will have five clear working days following dispatch of a notification of a proposed decision in which to call in for scrutiny, decisions proposed by the Cabinet or its members. In accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and associated protocol, any two or more members wishing to request that this proposed decision should be called in for scrutiny should do so by giving notice to the Director Legal & Governance either by e-mail or in writing before the end of the fifth day specifying the reason or reasons therefore. The Director Legal & Governance will then call in the proposed decision and arrange for it to be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee/relevant Scrutiny Panel. A copy of such notice must also be sent to me either by email or in writing by the end of the fifth day. This proposed decision will be confirmed and implemented or, where appropriate, referred to the Council for consideration at its next meeting, on or after the date to be notified upon circulation of the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet, unless called in for scrutiny by that date. KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ 2 August 2021 DELIVERY DATE There are no direct financial implications at this stage although any changes to electoral FINANCIAL IMPACT No arrangements could have a financial impact in future years. There are no direct legal implications. LEGAL ISSUES No OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & None OPPORTUNITIES IMPACT ON SPECIFIC Those wards in the north of the district will be Yes WARDS subject to revised parliamentary representation. PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 4. BACKGROUND 4.1 The Boundary Commission for England is responsible for keeping under review the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies. The Commission is looking to equalise the number of electors in each constituency and has launched a review (the 2023 review). In the 2023 review it is proposed to increase the overall number of constituencies from 533 to 543 constituencies and to equalise number of electors within the range of 69,724 to 77,062 (average of 73,393). 4.2 The Commission have set the timetable below: Initial proposals launched 8 June 2021 Consultation runs to 2 August 2021 Secondary consultation – early Spring 2022 Revised Proposals – Autumn 2022 Final recommendations – by 1 July 2023 4.3 Full information on the review can be found on the website www.bcereviews.org.uk. The Commission states that “Recent changes to the law make it very likely that our recommendations from this review will be implemented, so we encourage you to participate in the process by giving us your views through this website.” The review is split into nine regional reports, nine summaries, electronic mapping files, new release, and partner pack. There will be public hearings held in 2022. 4.4 The information in respect of South Staffordshire area can be seen in mapping form at: https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6490?postcode=WV81PX 4.5 In summary under the plans Dudley South – held since 2015 by Conservative MP Mike Wood – will go completely, its areas split between Stourbridge, South Staffordshire and Dudley North. 4.6 South Staffordshire, the seat held by Education Secretary Gavin Williamson, will become Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, incorporating areas including Wall Heath and Wordsley. Those areas would still be within Dudley MBC area and so arrangements with regard to the transfer of votes to South Staffordshire for counting would need to be put in place (as we have now with regard to the north part of the district which is within the Stafford Constituency). 4.7 A new constituency of Stone and Great Wyrley incorporating those parts of South Staffordshire currently in Stafford constituency plus Brewood, Coven, Featherstone, Essington, Cheslyn Hay, Great Wyrley, Hatherton and Huntongton is proposed. This new constituency would also stretch north to include (outside of South Staffordshire) Milford, Tixall, Hixon and north to Stone. 4.8 The proposed response from South Staffordshire Council: The proposal to include Kingswinford/Wall Heath/Wordsley areas within the existing South Staffordshire constituency will increase electoral complexity as the proposed constituency would incorporate two local authority areas. There is no clear affinity between the communities currently within the Dudley South constituency and South Staffordshire communities. Kingswinford/Wall Heath and Wordsley are largely built- up urban areas which are bordered to the west by the largely rural South Staffordshire communities. It is suggested that it would be better to include these Dudley MBC areas within adjoining constituencies within the Dudley MBC area. A new constituency of Stone and Great Wyrley incorporating those parts of South Staffordshire currently in Stafford constituency plus Brewood, Coven, Featherstone, Essington, Cheslyn Hay, Great Wyrley, Hatherton and Huntington is proposed. This new constituency would also stretch north to include (outside of South Staffordshire) Milford, Tixall, Hixon and north to Stone. It is not clear who would be Returning Officer for this new area as it covers, almost equally, areas within South Staffordshire Council and Stafford Borough Council. The introduction of this new constituency would undoubtedly increase complexity of electoral arrangements at a local level. The areas of South Staffordshire in the proposed new constituency have no affinity with Stone, Milford, Tixall, Hilderstone, Millwich, Fradswell, Sandon, Salt, Gayton, Stowe by Chartley, Weston, Hixon, Ingestree, Great Haywood, Little Haywood, Bishton & Brocton. There are no clear boundaries or physical boundaries, that are on local maps or roads, railways or other features which could provide strong boundaries between neighbourhoods. The proposed new villages do not have any shared facilities, such as Parks, Leisure Centres, Schools and Shopping Areas with South Staffordshire. As a Council we are not aware of the situation regarding new housing or commercial developments within the Stafford Borough Council Local Plan in respect of the proposed new area. The communities of Great Wyrley in the south of the proposed constituency and Stone in the north are not only geographically miles apart they are also miles apart with regard to identities. There is no affinity or commonality between the two areas and joining them into one constituency would, it is submitted, reduce access to parliamentary representation. Your consultation refers to ‘community ties’ and there are none across this proposed constituency. It appears that the only reason for this proposal is one of electoral equality, which should not override the need to recognise and reflect community identity. There is a greater affinity with the more rural communities in the current Stafford constituency. It is suggested that adopting a more north/south split across the current Stafford constituency, rather than the proposed west/east based split, may be a better option. 5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION None 6. PREVIOUS MINUTES None 7. BACKGROUND PAPERS Boundary Commission website Report prepared by: Lorraine Fowkes – Director Legal and Governance .