Agenda item

Recommendations

Executive is asked to:

i.          Approve the proposed division patterns at Appendices A-F

ii.         Delegate authority to the Assistant Chief Executive – Local Engagement to submit this proposal, and accompanying background information, to the Boundary Commission’s consultation by 9 December

iii.         Delegate authority to the Assistant Chief Executive – Local Engagement to make any required minor amendments to ensure the accuracy of the split of forecast electorate figures, in consultation with the Chairman of the Member Working Group, prior to submission. 

Considered a report of the Assistant Chief Executive for Community Engagement presenting the proposed Council response to the Boundary Commission’s consultation on future division boundaries.

The Executive Member for Corporate Services, Councillor Heather Phillips, introduced the report paying tribute to the work of Councillor John Weighell and the cross-party Member Working Group he chaired which had developed a draft council response to the Boundary Commission’s consultation on the future division boundaries of a council of 89 single-member divisions to come into effect from the May 2027 elections.  It was noted that members of the Executive had all received representations from both Dacre Parish Council and the Chair of Darley and Menwith Parish Council in respect of the proposed changes to the current Pateley Bridge and Nidderdale division.  With the Chair’s permission, Councillor Weighell addressed the meeting noting the magnitude and complexity of the task because of the council’s geographical size and population and the three criteria set by the Boundary Commission of delivering electoral equality, reflecting the interests and identities of local communities, and providing for effective and convenient local government.  For the Member Working Group, these criteria translated into the following principles:

·       That, as far as possible, the forecast electorate numbers for each division should start within 10% variance of the average, and that most should be well within this. This meant that each division should ideally represent around 5819 electors, no less than 5237 and no more than 6401.

·       That division boundaries should not divide communities which identify as a single area where it is possible to avoid this.

·       That it should be possible to access each residence within a division by road without having to leave that division.

·       That, as far as possible, urban areas should be in different divisions to rural areas to reflect the different nature of issues and work for the Councillors.

Whilst the proposals identified a model which aligned with the main principles of the review, Councillor Weighell acknowledged that there were inevitably compromises in many areas.  The Chair and other members echoed Councillor Phillips’ gratitude to Councillor Weighell in devising proposals which had achieved cross party agreement.  With the Chair’s permission, Councillor Andrew Murday addressed the meeting proposing alternative arrangements for the current Pateley Bridge and Nidderdale division which were illustrated on a map circulated at the meeting.  In response, the Chair and other members commented that it was late in the day for alternative proposals when ideas should have been channelled through group representatives on the Member Working Group.  Besides, the complexity of the calculations meant that changes in one area may well have knock on implications for other areas.  Further, the Boundary Commission’s consultation was open to anyone to make proposals.  With the Chair’s permission, Councillor Andrew Williams addressed the meeting to suggest alternative names for the proposed new divisions to the east and west of Ripon.  It was noted that the report’s recommendations included to delegate authority to the Assistant Chief Executive – Local Engagement to make any further required minor amendments to ensure the accuracy of the split of forecast electorate figures in consultation with the Chair of the Member Working Group prior to submission, and the matter of these names would also be considered as part of this delegation.  Finally, Councillor Keane Duncan advised that whilst respecting the council’s submission, he would be working with Malton and Norton Town Councils to develop alternative proposals for those areas to try and avoid dividing both towns as proposed.

Resolved (unanimously) that the Executive:

i)               Approve the proposed division patterns at Appendices A-F

ii)              Delegate authority to the Assistant Chief Executive – Local Engagement to submit this proposal, and accompanying background information, to the Boundary Commission’s consultation by 9December.

iii)             Delegate authority to the Assistant Chief Executive – Local Engagement to make any required minor amendments to ensure the accuracy of the split of forecast electorate figures, in consultation with the Chairman of the Member Working Group, prior to submission.

Reason for recommendations

The approval and submission of the proposed division patterns will provide the Boundary Commission with a clear model on behalf of North Yorkshire Council. The model represents the work of the cross-party Member Working Group and seeks to achieve a workable balance across the principles described above. If this were not to be submitted, the Boundary Commission would determine a model to be consulted upon based on their knowledge of the area and other information received during the consultation.

By delegating authority to make minor amendments to the electorate figures associated with each proposed division, it will be possible to ensure that the figures accurately reflect the boundaries proposed as the submission is prepared.