Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Janet Sanderson and Greg White.  It was noted that Councillor Simon Myers was attending the meeting remotely.

The Leader advised that Councillor Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff had hoped to attend the meeting but had sent apologies and the Leader then welcomed other Councillors who were present in the room and attending remotely.

Resolved

That the public Minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2025, having been printed and circulated, be taken as read and confirmed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors Mark Crane and Heather Phillips declared that they were members of the Boundary Review Member Working Group.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Elizabeth Jackson, Principal Democratic Services Officer, and supplied the text by midday on Wednesday 4 June, three working days before the day of the meeting.  Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.  Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:

·            at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);

·            when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Leader who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

There were no public questions or statements.

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.

Considered – the Forward Plan for the period insert date to insert date was presented.

Resolved

That the Forward Plan be noted.