PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW CABINET REPORTING MEMBERS: COUNCILLOR LAWRENCE THURSDAY, 2 JANUARY AT 5.30 PM – CABINET OFFICE 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT The Working Group is requested to formulate recommendations to the Cabinet on the draft recommendations issued by the Local Government Commission for England in relation to future electoral arrangements in Windsor and Maidenhead. The Cabinet will then respond formally to the Commission by the due date of 28 January 2002. 2. OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATIONS: a) That Cabinet be advised that this Working Group supports:- i) The draft recommendation that elections should be on a four yearly cycle. ii) The recommended Council membership of 57. b) That the Cabinet be advised that for reasons of worsening electoral equality the Commission should be invited to look again at its recommendation in relation to Hurley Ward with a view to improving the Member/elector ratios for 2001 and 2006, ideally taking the variances below 10%. c) That the Cabinet be advised that this Working Group consider that in order to better reflect community identity the proposed Sunninghill North and Sunninghill South Wards should be named Ascot & Cheapside and Sunninghill & South Ascot respectively. d) That Cabinet be advised that this Working Group considers that the boundary between the recommended Eton West and Eton East & Home Park Wards should be the Windsor and Eton Relief Road A332 and not the railway line. e) That with the exception of (b), (c) and (d) above the Working group consider endorsing the draft recommendations. 3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 3.1 Wards Affected All. 3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based 3.2.1 On 27 November 2001 the Local Government Commission published its draft recommendations for BJM/agminsreps/PER WG 101201 rep.doc 1 future electoral arrangements in Windsor and Maidenhead. A full copy of the recommendations was duly sent by the officers to every Member of the Council and to each Parish and Town Council within the Royal Borough. In accordance with the Commission's timetable, the Royal Borough has the opportunity to respond to the draft recommendations, as have all other consultees and interested parties, and must do so by no later than 28 January 2002. 3.2.2 In a press release dated 27 November 2001 the Commission has made the following statement:- "The Commission proposes basing its draft recommendations on a combination of submissions from the Borough Council and Windsor and Maidenhead Labour Party. The Commission proposes adopting its own warding pattern in the Clewer area. These changes would provide an improved reflection of electoral equality and better community identity throughout the borough. The Commission's proposals are for 57 councillors for Windsor and Maidenhead (reduced from 58) representing 23 wards (increased from 22)". 3.2.3 The Working Group will know that the Commission may change some or all of its proposals depending on the responses it receives during the consultation period and it is therefore very important that those responding as part of the consultation exercise let the Commission have their views whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. 3.2.4 It is probably timely to remind the Working Group that in its guidance issued in December 2000 the Commission stated that:- Electoral reviews are necessary because of changes in the electorate within the local authority areas. In broad terms, the objective of a PER is to ensure that, within each principal local authority area, the number of electors represented by each councillor is as nearly as possible the same. We also take into account local circumstances, including the need to secure convenient and effective local government, to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and achieve easily identifiable electoral boundaries. Where applicable, parish and town council boundaries form the building blocks for principal local authority electoral arrangements. As part of the process, we can recommend changes to the number of councillors, the boundaries of wards and divisions, the councillors representing each ward, and the creation of new wards and divisions. In terms of statutory criteria, under Section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 the Commission is required to make recommendations to the Secretary of State (now the Electoral Commission) for any changes to the electoral arrangements within the areas of English principal Council areas as appeared desirable to the Commission, having regard to the need to:- a) Reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and b) Secure effective and convenient local government. In considering the draft recommendations the Working Group may wish to comment upon whether they feel that the Commission has achieved its broad objectives and whether it has met the statutory criteria. 3.2.5 Clearly the draft recommendations do not accord in their entirety with the submission made by the Royal Borough and it is suggested therefore that the Working Group should take the opportunity of BJM/agminsreps/PER WG 101201 rep.doc 2 reviewing the draft recommendations, perhaps under the following headings:- Frequency of Elections - every four years Draft recommendations which accord fully with the Council's Submission Draft recommendations where there are "minor" changes to the Royal Borough's Submission Draft recommendations which are at significant variance to the proposals contained within the Royal Borough's Submission Size of Council – 57 Number of Wards – 23. 3.2.6 The draft recommendations accord fully with the Council's Submission in respect of the following Wards:- Datchet Horton and Wraysbury Old Windsor* Hurley** Bisham and Cookham Pinkneys Green Cox Green Belmont Boyn Hill Oldfield Sunningdale Bray *** * Ward representation to be reduced from three councillors to two. ** The Commission accepts that the variance from the average Member/elector ratio for this Ward would be –12% in the current year and –14% in 2006. This is the only Ward where the variance exceeds 10% either currently or in five years time. Whilst the Council's Submission was to retain Hurley on its existing boundaries, following an extensive look at options, the Labour Party, Maidenhead Conservative Association, Waltham St Lawrence Parish Council, White Waltham Parish Council, the Liberal Democrat Group and Maidenhead Liberal Democrats all proposed alternatives. In its conclusions the Commission stated that it noted the relatively high electoral variance of Hurley, but felt that it was justified due to the constraints of the Borough boundary and Maidenhead town, and they were of the opinion that this area was best served by three Councillors representing one Ward. Whilst it would be possible to create Parish Wards in the area, which could be placed in different Borough Wards, the Commission felt that this would not reflect the community identity. The Working Group may well feel that the Commission has in this instance failed to meet its principal objective of electoral equality either currently or in the future when the position worsens. If that were to be the case Members may wish to invite the Commission to have another look at the Ward, taking into account other available options. *** Whilst the Commission has recommended no change to the existing Ward boundary, it has also recommended the creation of a new Parish Ward in Bray, as proposed by the Borough Council and the Liberal Democrat Group, the Parish Ward to be named Bray North East. This would facilitate the inclusion of urban overspill from Windsor into the Commission's proposed Clewer South Ward. BJM/agminsreps/PER WG 101201 rep.doc 3 3.2.7 The draft recommendations involving "minor" changes to the Royal Borough's Submission affect the following Wards:- Furze Platt St Marys Eton West* Sunninghill North Sunninghill South * The Commission has accepted that it made an error in respect of the boundary between the Eton West and the proposed Eton East and Home Park Ward – the Commission had proposed the railway line whilst the Council and the Labour Party had proposed the relief road. The Commission accepts that it made an error in that it should have favoured the relief road boundary and the Council has been invited to "correct" that error in its response. 3.2.8 Members' views are sought on these minor changes to the Council's Submission and particular attention is drawn to the naming of the two "Sunninghill" Wards. Whilst the Commission are going along with the Labour Party suggestion of Sunninghill North and Sunninghill South, the officers maintain that in the interests of community identity these Wards should be named Ascot & Cheapside and Sunninghill & South Ascot. 3.2.9 The draft recommendations which are at significant variance with the proposals contained within the Council's Submission affect the following Wards:- Eton East and Home Park Inner Windsor Trinity Park Clewer South Clewer North The various proposals submitted to the Commission in respect of the Windsor and Eton Wards are detailed in paragraphs 86 to 108 of the Commission's draft recommendations. Members will see that a whole host of options were put forward and that the Commission has favoured those submitted by the Labour Party. Members views are sought on the Council's response to the recommendations in these areas. 3.3 Relevant National/Regional Guidance Reviews are conducted in accordance with Guidance and Procedural advice issued by the Local Government Commission for England. 3.4 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies The securing of effective and convenient local government is in line with a whole raft of the Council's Policies and Strategies. BJM/agminsreps/PER WG 101201 rep.doc 4 3.5 Options Available The options available to the Working Group are to recommend to Cabinet that the Council should respond to the draft recommendations as follows:- (i) Support/endorse fully (ii) Reject and recommend amendment totally (iii) Support a number of the draft recommendations whilst proposing amendment to the remainder.