Agenda item

To receive the report of the Head of Legal and Policy Development concerning approval of the draft submission prepared by the Boundary Review Working Group on the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) for the electoral arrangements for Gloucester.

Note:  The Sheriff chaired the meeting for this item to enable the mayor to take part in the debate.

89.1      Council considered a report of the Head of Legal and Policy Development concerning approval of the draft submission prepared by the Boundary Review Working Group (BRWG) on the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) for the electoral arrangements for Gloucester.

89.2      Councillor Haigh (Chair of the BRWG) moved the recommendations set out in the report.

89.3      Councillor Hilton (Member of the BRWG) seconded the motion.

89.4      Councillor Haigh thanked the Members of the BRWG for achieving a significant amount of cross-party consensus for the Council’s response to the LGBCE proposals and also thanked the Project Officer for his support to the Group. She explained that the Council’s submission contained some minor amendments to open spaces, but that these would not affect any electors. She stated that the Council fundamentally opposed the boundary proposals for the Quedgeley/Kingsway area and that the Council’s own proposal was the most appropriate, reflecting natural boundaries and communities and the views of residents. She urged residents to respond to the consultation.

89.5      Councillor Randle moved the following amendment that was seconded by Councillor Taylor and accepted by Councillor Haigh:

“That the odd-numbered houses on West Lodge Drive be moved into the proposed Coney Hill ward as the only access to these properties is from Coney Hill Road.”

89.6      The Mayor stated that the boundary proposals for Quedgeley did not take into account the any of the views put forward by the Council or the LGBCE’s own criteria of reflecting existing communities. She advised that a natural boundary already existed and should be maintained in order for the people, communities and heritage of Quedgeley to be preserved; Quedgeley and Kingway were two very different communities in their own right and that should be reflected in the ward boundaries.

89.7      Councillor Chatterton echoed the comments made by the Mayor and stated that residents and Councillors objected to putting the oldest part of Quedgeley into a ward with the new community of Kingsway.

89.8      Councillor Hilton agreed that the proposals for Quedgeley/Kingsway did not properly take account of the communities in that area. In respect of the differing views in relation to Westgate ward, he explained that the Liberal Democrat Group would like the ward to be split into two wards, with two Members for the City Centre area and a single Member ward for Hempsted, to provide a better focus on the City Centre, distinct from the separate community in Hempsted. He thanked the BWG for agreeing that Deansway Meadow should remain in Kingsholm and Wotton.

89.9      Councillor Norman stated that, as a resident of and ward Councillor in Quedgeley, the proposed boundary was inappropriate and that residents would be making their voices heard.

89.10   Councillor Haigh noted the strong views expressed. She stated that individuals and Groups were welcome to submit their own views, but that the level of cross-party support was to be commended.

89.11   RESOLVED –

(1)      That, subject to the odd-numbered houses on West Lodge Drive being moved into the proposed Coney Hill ward, the draft submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England be approved.

(2)      That authority be delegated to the Head of Legal and Policy Development, in consultation with Group Leaders, to finalise the Council’s submission before it is submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by 16 March 2015.