Issue - meetings

The Council considered a report on the proposed response to the Draft Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) in respect of the review of the Council’s electoral arrangements. The purpose of an electoral review was to consider the total number of councillors elected to the council, the names, number and boundaries of the wards, and the number of councillors to be elected to each ward.

The Council had approved its Council Size Submission in December 2020 in which it made a strong case for the retention of 48 councillors.  The LGBCE announced in January 2021 that it was minded to make a recommendation that the Council’s future size remained at 48 councillors.

The Council then approved its Warding Patterns Submission in July 2021, which set out the pattern of wards that the Council felt best met the statutory criteria in respect of delivering electoral equality, recognising the interests and identities of local communities, and providing for effective and convenient local government.

On 30 November 2021, the LGBCE published its Draft Recommendations for Guildford and announced a further period of public consultation on those Draft Recommendations, which ended on 7 February 2022.  In essence, the Draft Recommendations had agreed with the Council’s proposed pattern of wards in the parished areas of the borough and in respect of the Merrow, Stoke, and the proposed new Stoughton North and Stoughton South wards within the town.  The Draft Recommendations in respect of the Burpham, Christchurch & Holy Trinity, Friary, Onslow, St. Nicolas, and Westborough wards differed, to varying degrees, from the Council’s proposals. 

On 14 December 2021, the cross-party Electoral Review Working Group reconvened to consider the Draft Recommendations, and in particular those Draft Recommendations which differed from the Council’s own Warding Patterns Submission.

The report now before the Council had set out the product of the work of the Electoral Review Working Group in respect of the Council’s proposed response to the LGBCE’s Draft Recommendations. The Council’s proposed response to the Draft Recommendations reflected the conclusions of the Working Group after taking account of the representations of other councillors.

Upon the motion of Councillor Tony Rooth, seconded by Councillor Liz Hogger, the Council:

RESOLVED: That the proposed response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s Draft Recommendations in respect of the Periodic Electoral Review of Guildford Borough Council, as drawn up by the Electoral Review Working Group and set out in Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Council, be approved and submitted to the Commission.

Reason:

To respond to the LGBCE’s invitation to respond to its consultation on its Draft Recommendations in respect of the periodic electoral review of Guildford Borough Council.

At its last meeting on 8 December 2020, the Council had considered a draft Council Size Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).  The Council agreed to refer the matter for further consideration by the Corporate Governance Task Group at its meeting held on 14 December 2020 for the purpose of:

(a)     giving further consideration to the requirements of the review generally and in particular to that referred to on pages 4-5, 13, and 21 of the LGBCE’s guidance to councillors;

(b)     reviewing the contents of the Council Size Submission; and

(c)     consideration of the forecast increase in electorate by 2026

and reference back to this extraordinary meeting of the Council for final approval of the Council Size Submission.

At its meeting on 14 December, the Task Group was provided with details of the Council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours and forecast increase in electorate by 2026 and had reviewed the contents of the draft Submission.  The proposed revised draft Submission, as recommended by the Task Group including tracked changes, was set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council. This now stated a preference for maintaining the current Council Size of 48 Councillors, based on the retention of all out elections every four years.

The Chairman of the Corporate Governance Task Group, Councillor Deborah Seabrook proposed, and Councillor Liz Hogger seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

(1)       That the Council Size Submission, attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, and its stated preference for maintaining a Council size of 48 Councillors, be approved and presented to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

(2)    That the Democratic Services and Elections Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Task Group, be authorised to make such minor alterations to improve the clarity of the revised draft Submission document as the Council may determine.

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Seabrook as the mover of the original motion, indicated that, with the consent of her seconder and of the meeting, she wished to alter her motion as follows:

Alter paragraph (1) of the motion so that it reads (changes shown in italics):

“(1) That, subject to the amendments below, the Council Size Submission, attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, and its stated preference for maintaining a Council size of 48 Councillors, be approved and presented to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

(a)    On page 17 of the revised draft Submission (page 30 of the Council agenda), after “There are no plans to introduce area planning committees.”, add the following paragraph:

“All councillors are involved in the planning process dealing with enquiries from residents regarding planning applications.  Planning Committee members will have a significantly greater involvement as they deal with those applications referred to the committee for determination, most of which are locally sensitive or controversial. Meetings of the Planning Committee often take three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62