Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1
Contact: Cathryn Filbin Email: email@example.com
Note: 01257 515123
AGREED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2018 be approved as a correct record.
Matters arising - minute number 14 Polling Stations (access/suitability)
It was reported that the preliminary review into existing and potentially new polling stations resulted in 3 responses. 2 responses recommended no change to existing polling stations. The third response suggested alternative buildings that might be appropriated to be used in the Euxton Ward.
It was AGREED that a list of existing polling stations and any additional buildings be debated at respective political group meetings, the results of which to be relayed to the Elections Manager.
The time-line for the electoral review of Chorley Council is enclosed for information.
Members of the committee reviewed the timeline for the review process.
Key dates for noting included:
· 14 January 2019 – deadline for LGBCE’s public consultation on its’ draft recommendations;
· 22 January 2019 - Chorley Council to debate the proposed response to the LGBCE’s draft recommendation at its council meeting (the LGBCE has granted the council an extension so that the response can be debated);
· 25 January 2019 – Chorley Council to submit its’ response to the LGBCE;
· 26 March 2019 – LGBCE to announce its’ final recommendations on new warding arrangements.
To consider the enclosed report.
The committee received a report which detailed alternative warding arrangements to that proposed by the LGBCE in its’ draft recommendations (published on 6 November 2018) relating to Heskin, and sought a consensus to the preferred wards names for the new wards.
Alternative warding arrangements
As requested at the last meeting of the Electoral Review of Chorley Council Committee held on 13 November 2018, members of the committee considered a report which detailed 6 alternative warding proposals to that detailed in the LGBCE’s draft recommendations which placed the village of Heskin in the Croston and Mawdesley ward.
It was noted that all of the 6 options detailed in the report exceeded the +/- 10% variance tolerance level as required by the LGBCE.
During debate support was expressed in favour of option 2 in the report as it was deemed to impact on the least number of electors. It was also considered that the tolerance variance was not too excessive and could be justified to the LGBCE. Other members expressed support for the original draft recommendations published by the LGBCE as any change would result in the area of Euxton (and as such the parish council) being split across four or more borough wards.
As a compromise, it was suggested that an alternative option should be considered based on option 2. The new option (option 2a) would –
· move the village of Heskin (730 electors) from the proposed Croston and Mawadesley Ward into the Eccleston, Heath Charnock and South Euxton Ward; and
· move part of Eccleston, Charnock Richard and Euxton South Ward into the Croston and Mawdesley Ward north of the River Yarrow up to the Euxton parish boundary.
This option would prevent the parish of Euxton being split over four wards.
The Chair asked members of the committee to indicate their preference between the LGBCE’s original draft recommendations and option 2/2a subject to the variance tolerance figures for 2a being satisfactory. At the vote it was AGREED by majority decision to recommend option 2/2a be put forward to the next full council meeting as a possible alternative proposal for Heskin to that proposed by the LGBCE.
For clarity the Chair asked members to indicate which option (2 or 2a) they would like to recommend to full council. At the vote it was AGREED by majority decision to recommend option 2a, subject to satisfactory variance figures, as it would prevent Euxton parish council being split over more than three wards.
At members’ request, option 2 in the council report will be labelled option 1, and option 2a in the council report will be labelled option 2.
(At the time of the meeting the number of electorate that would be affected by option 2a was unknown. The figure has since been calculated at 178 electors. This figure would result in both wards being outside the +/- 10% variance tolerance level requirement by the LGBCE. Croston and Mawdesley ward’s deficit would increase to –16.57, while the Eccelston, Charnock Richard and Euxton South ward would ... view the full minutes text for item 17.