Issue - meetings

Recommendation

That Executive approves the submission of the Member Working Group report, at Appendix 1, to inform the LGBCE’s final proposals.

Considered – A report of the Assistant Chief Executive Local Engagement providing a draft response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s consultation on proposals for the boundaries of North Yorkshire Council’s divisions.  The Executive were asked to review the response, which had been prepared by the Boundary Review Member Working Group, and approve its submission to the LGBCE as part of the consultation.

The Chair of the Boundary Review Member Working Group, Councillor John Weighell, introduced the draft submission, and made the following key points:

·         The Boundary Commission’s proposals incorporated many of the proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrat party rather than the proposals of the cross-party member working group.  As the group disagreed with many of the Boundary Commission’s proposals it had met to develop a response, which needed to be submitted before the deadline of 9 June 2025.

·         The following proposed divisions were deemed logistically difficult due to river crossings which would require significant detours:

­   Tollerton and Ouseburn – the River Ure divided the proposed division and the only crossing was via the privately owned wooden toll bridge at Aldwark

­   Dishforth and Dalton – the River Swale divided the proposed division and it would be necessary to travel outside of the division to move between the two communities

­   South Swale Villages – the two halves of the division were based on north-south road corridors and it was likely people would need to move out of the division to access the other side

­   Aiskew and Leeming Bar – the proposals did not reflect the identities of the two communities

­   Pateley Bridge and Nidderdale and Wharfedale – the proposed Wharfedale division was unfeasibly long and the working group considered linking Upper Wharfedale with Upper Nidderdale would provide greater shared identity

Will Boardman, Head of Strategy and Performance, confirmed that there had been a balance of views within the working group.  The Leader then invited comments and the following further points were made:

·         The working group worked to the parameters set by the Boundary Commission, which reduced flexibility in proposals

·         Division councillors would be disadvantaged by geographically large divisions, not local groups

·         The two two-member divisions proposed by the Boundary Commission were outside the parameters agreed at the outset

Executive thanked the member working group for their work over many months and also the officers who supported the work of the group.

Resolved (unanimously)

That Executive approve the submission of the Member Working Group report, at Appendix 1, to inform the LGBCE’s final proposals.