Agenda item

Report of Senior Head of Corporate Development and Governance.

The Council considered the report of the Senior Head of Corporate Development and Governance on proposals made in respect of Borough Wards in accordance with the requirements of part 2 of the 2015 boundary review being conducted by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

A review in relation to council size had been determined by Council at its meeting on 27 May 2015.   It unanimously approved that no change be made to the Council size of 27 and this submission had been accepted by the Boundary Commission. A working group of 3 members was established at that meeting to conduct the second stage review of the current wards and boundaries. 

The report of the working group was appended to the report and detailed its findings relating to the key overarching issues of electoral equality, community cohesion and strong natural boundaries. 

The working group had recommended no changes be made to existing ward names.   A consensus on its final recommendations on ward boundaries had not been reached and three options were proposed for consideration.  The basis for all the options was considered valid in terms of the detailed work analysing potential change scenarios using the evidence gathered on electorate equality, forecasts and community factors. 

In support of option A, Councillor Jenkins as a member of the working group made reference to Eastbourne’s electoral figures both current and forecast with only two wards being outside the 10% ideal variance figure and in both cases by only a 1% margin.  The degree of change required as set out in option B was considered disproportionate to the scale of the variance and would have cost implications. 

In supporting option B, Councillors Tester and Ungar as members of the working group referenced the importance of preserving community identities and highlighted the opportunity to address an identified boundary anomaly between Ratton (RNC) and Old Town (OTB) which currently was considered to divide a defined residential community.  The option would also improve the electorate percentage variance in Hampden Park.

The working group had unanimously agreed that although Sovereign Harbour had an 11% variance, no changes be made to the current boundaries given its well defined community identity and the number of second home residencies.

Members conveyed their thanks to the working group, the Head of Corporate Development and Governance and the Electoral Services Team for their detailed work to ensure that the Council’s proposals met the objectives set by the Commission.

The following options were submitted for consideration:

Option A - No change to existing ward boundaries on the basis that the degree of electorate variance forecast for existing wards is acceptable and does not warrant disproportionate change.

Option B - Adjust boundaries in 3 areas to improve the variance figure of Hampden Park and improve a community boundary between Ratton and Old Town.

Option C - No formal submission is made on the basis that the working group was unable to reach a consensus on the above options.  Council was advised that the working group had reached a consensus in recommending that the Council should make a formal submission to the Boundary Commission.

Although the Borough boundary was outside the scope of this review, the working group proposed that the Council formally record the need for a review at the earliest opportunity, in particular to enclose existing residential developments clearly identifiable as part of the Eastbourne residential community. 

As part of a County-wide review, East Sussex County Council would be assessing its representation across all East Sussex Districts, however it was likely that Eastbourne would retain a representation of nine county councillors and therefore maintain its coterminous boundaries with County divisions.

The Boundary Commission would undertake a public consultation exercise following its consideration of all submission proposals, which are invited from any group or individual, with a final decision expected in February 2016. 

It was moved by Councillor Jenkins and seconded by Councillor Freebody that option A be approved.

It was moved by Councillor Tester and seconded by Councillor Ungar that option B be approved.

No proposal was made for option C.

Following debate both motions were put to the vote:

The motion to approve option A was lost by 17 votes to 9.

Resolved: That the following recommendations of the working group be approved for submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

(1) (By 17 votes to 9) That option B (involving boundary adjustments to Hampden Park, Old Town and Ratton wards) be approved as set out in the working group’s submission as appended to the report.

(2) (Unanimously) That there be no change to the existing ward names.

(3) (Unanimously) To endorse the recommendation that a formal request to address the current anomalies in the existing Borough boundary be conveyed to the Boundary Commission.

(4) (Unanimously) That the Senior Head of Corporate Development and Governance be authorised to submit the decision to the Boundary Commission on behalf of the Council.