Agenda item

Councillor Poulter addressed the Committee on behalf of Sutton Valance Parish Council.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager introduced the report and outlined the amendments made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) to the Council’s submission. The LGBCE proposed amending the Council size from 48, as put forward in the Council’s original proposal, to 49, to achieve a better electoral balance across the Borough. The Council had the opportunity to submit a response to the LGBCE’s boundary proposals, and the Committee was asked to consider which elements to include. Elements agreed for inclusion in the Council’s response should be supported by clear reasoning to enable the LGBCE to consider them effectively. 

Member feedback had been received to redraw the boundary between the proposed Central Maidstone and Tovil wards, which would prevent the Coombe Farm Estate from being split. This was recommended for inclusion in the Council’s response.

It was suggested that Sutton Valance and Chart Sutton should be kept in the same ward due to the strong community links.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager explained that it would be challenging to amend the boundary in this area, as it would create a knock-on effect to neighbouring wards. Electoral equality was the LGBCE’s primary objective in conducting boundary reviews, and the suggested amendments would create two variances significantly outside of the 10% tolerance set by the LGBCE.

The Committee expressed regret that the Suttons would not be in the same ward, but acknowledged that there was not a solution that would be acceptable to the LGBCE. 

The second suggestion was that Bearsted and North Madginford Ward be combined with Downswood Ward, to create one larger three-Member ward.

The Committee felt that splitting the Madginford community would be harmful, particularly to the older population who made up a significant portion of the area, and to Bearsted Parish which would be affected by the proposed split. Joining the two proposed wards into one larger, three-Member Ward was an opportunity to maintain the community, and would fulfil the objective of community identity while not compromising on electoral equality. The proposed name for the ward was Bearsted and Madginford Ward.

The third suggested amendment was to split the proposed Harrietsham, Lenham and North Downs Ward into a single-Member Ward for the North Downs, and a two-Member ward for Harrietsham and Lenham.

The Committee felt that this would be appropriate due to the lack of connection between the rural North Downs area, and the service-centre areas of Lenham and Harrietsham. The combination of these areas into one ward posed a risk to the rural North Downs community that their specific interests would be overtaken by the interests of the service-centre areas. Therefore, more effective local governance could be achieved by separating the areas into North Downs Ward and Harrietsham and Lenham Ward.

Following results of a Member survey on the ward naming issues, the Committee agreed their preferred options.

RESOLVED: That

1.  The response elements set out in Appendix A to the report be recommended for inclusion in the Council’s Consultation response, with amendments as set out below:

a.  Central Maidstone ward be renamed High Street;

b.  Langley with Otham, Leeds and Kingswood ward be renamed Leeds and Langley;

c.  Headcorn with Sutton Valence ward be renamed Headcorn and Sutton Valence;

d.  Bearsted and North Madginford ward be combined with Downswood ward to create a three-Member Bearsted and Downswood ward, to avoid the harmful split of the recognised Madginford community and ensure the continuity of Bearsted Parish;

e.  Harrietsham, Lenham and North Downs ward be divided to create a single Member North Downs ward, with the boundaries drawn to include Pilgrim’s Retreat, and a two-Member Harrietsham and Lenham ward, so that the specific and separate interests of both the rural areas and the service centre areas are represented effectively.

2.  Delegated authority be given to the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager to finalise the format of the response for presentation to Council, including any corrections and/or minor alterations that are in line with the response(s) identified by the Committee; and

3.  The consultation response be recommended to Council for submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, as part of the Local Government Boundary Review.