1.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

2.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2. 

2.1     This report is the next in a series of reports to deliver the necessary response to the LGBCE on Maidstone Borough’s Local Government Boundary Review. At its last meeting the Democracy and General Purposes Committee agreed a set of principles to be used to draw up a consultation response on a new ward scheme to the LGBCE.

2.2     Since the last meeting two workshops and an all-day Member event have been held. The officer project team have worked to refine and amend, in accordance with feedback from Members, the initial boundary proposals shown to Democracy and General Purposes Committee on 16 February 2022.

2.3     In addition to the workshops and all-day event, Members have fed back individually about specific areas which has been considered and factored in and discussed at the workshops where necessary.

2.4     The result of this work is the proposed boundary scheme set out at Appendix 1.

2.5     Appendix 2 sets out the justifications for specific boundaries where there is a need to make the case to the LGBCE on why we have made certain choices.

2.6     Following the workshops, it was requested that an option be put before the Committee to split Vinters Park and Grove Green into a single and a two Member ward instead of the proposed combined three Member ward. However, after analysis and refining the data used this is not possible without creating an imbalance in electoral equality. This imbalance has been rectified by combining the areas, in addition to moving Mote Park from Central Maidstone to Vinters Park and Grove Green.

2.7     Naming remains an issue that needs to be resolved. Feedback has been received from Members directly on names and some of the wards have been changed to reflect this. However, it is important to note that even once submitted to the LGBCE the names are not set in stone. The LGBCE will decide their preferred boundaries and names in April and May and then conduct a second round of consultation in the summer on their proposals. It is recommended that the committee provide some feedback on the names now if they wish, but ultimately the naming issues will be resolved in the summer when comments can be made on the LGBCE’s proposals.

2.8     The response outlined in Appendix 1 and 2 forms the proposed response from Council to the LGBCE, with final approval required by Full Council on 13 April 2022. By publishing them early, a month before they are approved, it is hoped that will provide opportunity for community groups, parishes, Members and others to consider the Council’s response. Whilst the commission will give the Council’s response no inherent additional weight over any other, it is understood that the Council’s proposals will be seen as giving a steer to others. With that in mind the Committee, and Members more generally, are asked to respond directly to the LGBCE consultation and to encourage others to do so too.

2.9     Communications from the Council on the LGBCE consultation and the need for groups and individuals to respond directly to the LGBCE have been ongoing, including social media, newspapers and radio. Please note that whilst the Council has an extension to 13 April 2022, the actual consultation for the public closes on 4 April 2022.

2.10   The Committee are also requested to provide a delegation to the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager to enable minor tweaks of boundaries and text. This delegation is needed in case minor flaws with the boundaries are identified post-Committee by Members or Officers, such as a boundary passing through someone’s garden, or if it would be better to include a particular non-residential building in a different Ward. These changes would be consulted with a relevant (current) Ward Member where required.

3.   AVAILABLE OPTIONS

3.1     Option 1 – recommend to Council that Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 be submitted to the LGBCE as the Council’s consultation response.

3.2     Option 2 – to consider alternatives the Committee may have to these proposals as recommendations to Council.

3.3     Option 3 – not make a recommendation to Council such that the Council does not submit a consultation response to the LGBCE.

4.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1     Option 1 is preferred as these proposals are the result of significant work and consultation with Members representing the best balance of achieving the LGBCE’s three objectives and what the Council wants to achieve. 

4.2     Option 3 is definitely not recommended as this would realise the main project risk set out in the cross-cutting table.

5.       RISK

See Risk Section in cross cutting table above.  All risks are within the Council’s risk appetite.

6.       CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

6.1     Significant consultation has been undertaken with both the Democracy and General Purposes Committee and Members more widely.  Some of this has been covered in the introduction and background section above.

6.2     This consultation on boundaries is being run by the LGBCE, not Maidstone Borough Council, and as set out in 2.8 and 2.9 all other bodies and individuals are encouraged to respond to the LGBCE directly.

6.3     The LGBCE will be running a further consultation in the summer on their proposed boundaries and the Council will respond to that too, including with regard to the naming of Wards.

7.       NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

7.1     The Committee’s recommendation would be made to Council on 13 April 2022 for subsequent submission to the commission.

8.        REPORT APPENDICES

·         Appendix 1: Proposed Ward Scheme - Maps

·         Appendix 2: Proposed Ward Scheme – Boundary Explanation

9.        BACKGROUND PAPERS

Report to the Democracy and General Purposes Committee – 16 February 2022