Staffordshire County Council Consultation Proposals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENCLOSURE 4.1 CANNOCK CHASE COUNCIL COUNCIL 16 FEBRUARY, 2011 REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE BOUNDARY REVIEW – STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL CONSULTATION PROPOSALS 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 To consider matters previously considered at Cabinet on 20 January and 3 February, 2011, for a formal response from Council to be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in respect of the County Council’s draft proposals for revised Staffordshire County Electoral Division boundaries within the Cannock Chase District area. 2. Recommendations 2.1 That a formal response be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England outlining the Council’s objections to the County Council’s draft proposals (Option 2) in respect of revised Staffordshire County Electoral Division boundaries within the Cannock Chase District area. 3. Summary (including overview of relevant background) 3.1 Staffordshire County Council is going through a review of its Electoral Divisions. The review is being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England which is responsible for making recommendations to Parliament about representative arrangements for local authorities in England. 3.2 The purpose of the review is to try to ensure that each County Councillor represents around the same number of people and that, therefore, every elector's vote is worth the same. The review is being carried out because 25 of the 59 Electoral Divisions in the county have an electorate that is either 10% bigger or 10% smaller than the average for the county as a whole. During the first stage, the Boundary Commission sought views on the number of County Councillors needed to effectively represent Staffordshire. At the end of this stage the Boundary Commission decided that they agreed with the County Council that the current number of 62 County Councillors is the right number for Staffordshire. 3.3 However, there is an inconsistency between the number of Electoral Divisions (59) and the number of County Councillors (62), and the County Council proposes to recommend to the Boundary Commission that the number of Electoral Divisions within Cannock Chase ENCLOSURE 4.2 District Council area is increased from six to seven, to reflect the number of County councillors therein, with a redrafting of the Electoral Division boundaries. 3.4 Maps detailing the current and proposed Electoral Division boundaries and other background information from the County Council are attached as Annexes to this report. 3.5 This matter was considered at the meeting of Cabinet held on 20 January, 2011, where Members determined that an objection should be lodged with the County Council in respect of the proposed revisions to Electoral Division boundaries within the Cannock Chase District area. 3.6 Members believed that the County Council’s proposals were ill-considered; particularly those relating to the proposed Cannock Chase 2 and 3 Electoral Divisions. In respect of Cannock Chase 2, the proposals would result in a number of distinct communities being brought together into one Electoral Division, combining parts of Rugeley with part of Hednesford, which would be split along the line of Bradbury Lane, leading to unnecessary sub-divisions and a possible re-warding of Hednesford Town Council. The proposals were considered to be contrary to the Boundary Commission’s criteria in respect of community identities and Ward boundaries. A letter detailing Cabinet’s concerns was sent to the County on 24 January, 2011, and a similar response submitted to the consultation e-mail address. 3.7 The County has since reconsidered its options and Officers advised that a revised proposal (Option 2) would be recommended to the County Council meeting on 10 February, 2011, to be submitted to the LGBCE. Unfortunately, whilst addressing the majority of the Cabinet’s previous concerns in respect of, in particular, community identities, this proposal also contained minor anomalies whereby Parish / Town Ward boundaries would not be coterminous with the County Electoral Divisions. As a consequence of this, the LGBCE would either have to direct that the Parish / Town Ward boundaries be re-warded or, alternatively, that the proposal be rejected as being unviable on the basis that it would lead to the creation of Parish Wards of less 10 electors each. A copy of the County Council’s submission to the LGBCE as considered at the County Council meeting on 10 February, 2011, is attached as Annex 2 to this report. 4. Key Issues and Implications 4.1 Whilst the closing date for responses to the County Council in respect of its consultation was 27 January, 2011, consultees also have the option of responding directly to the Boundary Commission, and the closing date for these responses is 21 February, 2011. 4.2 Members must be satisfied that County Council’s proposals meet the following criteria produced by the Boundary Commission: • The number of electors in each division is not more than 10% higher or lower than the county average. ENCLOSURE 4.3 • The District’s distinct communities and their identities are properly reflected and represented through the proposals. • Boundaries between Electoral Divisions match closely with District Council wards. • Divisions do not cross boundaries between District or Borough Councils. 4.3 The County Council’s revised proposal contains minor anomalies whereby Parish / Town Ward boundaries would not be coterminous with the County Electoral Divisions. As a consequence of this, the LGBCE would have to direct either that the Parish / Town Council Ward boundaries be re-warded or, alternatively, that the proposal be rejected as being unviable on the basis that it would lead to the creation of Parish Wards of less than 10 electors each. 5. Conclusions and Reason(s) for Recommendation(s) 5.1 Failure to take advantage of the option to respond directly to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in respect of the County Council’s proposals could lead to the creation of County Electoral Divisions within the Cannock Chase District Council boundaries that do not reflect local communities, are not consistent with local Ward boundaries and may rewire the re-warding of Parish / Town Council boundaries. 6. Other Options Considered 6.1 Not applicable. 7. Report Author Steve Partridge (Democratic Services Manager), ext. 4588 ENCLOSURE 4.4 REPORT INDEX Contribution to Council Priorities (i.e. CHASE, Corporate Plan) Section 1 Contribution to Promoting Community Engagement Section 2 Financial Implications Section 3 Legal Implications Section 4 Human Resource Implications Section 5 Section 17 (Crime Prevention) Implications Section 6 Human Rights Act Implications Section 7 Data Protection Act Implications Section 8 Risk Management Implications Section 9 Equality and Diversity Implications Section 10 List of Background Papers Section 11 Report History Section 12 Annexes to the Report i.e. copies of correspondence, plans etc. ENCLOSURE 4.5 Section 1 Contribution to Council Priorities (i.e. CHASE, Corporate Priorities) The Council, through its democratic process, contributes to the each of the Council’s strategic objectives, represented by the acronym CHASE. Section 2 Contribution to Promoting Community Engagement There are no identified contributions to promoting community engagement arising from this report, although the Boundary Commission and the County Council are actively inviting comments and feedback from members of the public. Section 3 Financial Implications There are no identifiable Financial Implications arising from this report at the present time. Section 4 Legal Implications There are no identifiable Legal Implications arising from this report at the present time. Section 5 Human Resource Implications There are no identifiable Human Resource implications arising from this report. Section 6 Section 17 (Crime Prevention) Implications There are no identifiable implications in respect of Section 17 (Crime Prevention) arising from this report. Section 7 Human Rights Act Implications There are no identifiable implications in respect of Human Rights Act arising from this report. ENCLOSURE 4.6 Section 8 Data Protection Act Implications There are no identifiable implications in respect of Data Protection Act arising from this report. Section 9 Risk Management Implications There are no identifiable implications in respect of Risk Management arising from this report at the present time. Section 10 Equality and Diversity Implications There are no identifiable equality and diversity implications arising from this report. Section 11 List of Background Papers None Section 12 Report History ReportS to Cabinet – 20 January, 2011 and 3 February, 2011 Annexes to the Report Annex 1 Electoral Review in Staffordshire (Consultation overview - download from Staffordshire County Council website) Annex 2 Extract from SCC Submission to LGBCE re CCDC Area Annex 3 Current SCC Electoral Divisions within CCDC Area Annex 4 Proposed (Option 2) SCC Electoral Divisions within CCDC Area Annex 5 Overlaid Current and Proposed (Option 2) SCC Electoral Divisions within CCDC Area Annex 6 Electorate Numbers in CCDC Area Electoral review in Staffordshire Electoral Review in Staffordshire ANNEX 1 What is Electoral Review? Staffordshire County Council is going through a review of the electoral divisions that your county councillors represent. This review is being conducted by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England who are responsible for making recommendations to Parliament about representative arrangements