To consider the above report

Members considered proposed warding patterns based on the future council size of 43 Members from May 2019. Councillor McWilliams explained that the review was required because a number of wards were either over or under represented, and Oldfield itself would trigger a review as it was 39% above the average. The Working Group had been reconstituted for the second stage of the process and had met between September – November 2017. It had been made clear from the start that the Working Group wanted officers to consult with all Members; the majority of councillors had been able to discuss their community interests as a result. 

The review had three criteria:

·         To deliver electoral equality

·         To reflect community interests and local identities

·         To promote effective and convenient local government

To ensure community interests were reflected, a 10% tolerance was allowed which provided some flexibility in boundaries. The review had also included electoral forecasts related to building development in the borough.  The proposed warding patterns were:

·         22 Councillors in Maidenhead: 11 wards of 2 Members

·         21 councillors in Windsor: 5 wards of 3 members and 3 wards of 2 Members

Councillor C Rayner highlighted that he had represented Horton and Wraysbury since 2005 and his family had farmed the area since the 17^th century. He knew the community better than a mathematician at the Boundary Commission.  Horton and Wraysbury had many links whereas there were few to Datchet. He said that all children in the ward went to school in Wraysbury, the area shared the River Colne and a number of footpaths. He questioned what would happen to the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan and the Horton and Wraysbury Character Assessment after the split. He advised that the distance from Horton to Datchet was 10 miles; it would end up being the longest ward in the country. He believed the review had been done in good faith but it was not all about the mathematics. A number of people who lived in the area were not on the electoral role and had not been included in the calculations. However, people who did not yet live on the golf course site in Maidenhead had been included.

Councillor Jones stated that the review worked for Maidenhead and some of central Windsor but not for rural Windsor. She highlighted the criteria of the need for effective and convenient local government. The boundaries proposed for Old Windsor would mean less effective government. Trying to merge large areas meant community representatives may be deterred from standing for election. The proposals were being made when the extent and location of new developments were not yet clear; the Borough Local Plan had yet to be submitted. A reduction to 47 councillors instead of 43 would allow identities to be maintained and still achieve a significant reduction.

Councillor Hilton stated that the figure of 43 Councillors had already been accepted. No other person or organisation was better qualified to make recommendations to the Boundary Commission than the councillors in the room.  In the south of the borough it was proposed to have two wards of three Members each, which reflected the situation back in 2001. In the view of local councillors this did not provide the optimal solution and ignored the role of the parish council in local government and also ward councillor interactions. It was the collective view that three wards of two councillors would be better as ward councillors would then be able to work with just one parish council. The proposal would be above the 10% threshold but this had been accepted by the Boundary Commission in other areas. The representation had been made to the Boundary Commission and was supported by both parish councils. He was broadly supportive of the proposals so given the representation had been made, he would support the recommendations in the report.

Councillor Dudley commented that Councillor C Rayner was a community champion and had spoken well. He highlighted that the decision would be a free vote. He congratulated all councillors involved in the process including the Leader of the Opposition. He thanked the officers, in particular the Electoral Services Manager and Policy Officer.

Councillor Werner stated that he welcomed the rewarding in Maidenhead and the reduction in the number of councillors. He thanked the Councillors and officer involved for ensuring Pinkneys Green remained united. He had concerns about the power of the executive in a smaller authority. He also asked for assurance that there would not be a sudden increase in Councillor allowances, which would negate the benefit of cost savings proposed. Councillor Dudley responded that it would be appropriate for whoever lead the council after the 2019 election to have a smaller executive to represent pro rata the smaller number of councillors. Allowances did tend to increase in line with staff salary increases. As long as he was Leader of the Council he would not recommend any allowance increases as a result of the amended number of councillors.

Councillor S Rayner explained that Eton Wick and Eton were linked by the town council. Eton College was a large landowner in both wards.  She believed the two areas should stay together. The proposed change would be impractical for ward councillors who would have to go to two parish council meetings, one town council meeting and one resident’s group meeting every month.

Councillor E. Wilson congratulated officers and Councillor McWilliams. The working group had tried many permutations especially in the rural parts of Windsor and northern Maidenhead. It was very difficult to take 57 representations and get something all would agree. Inevitably some would be disadvantaged. For Horton and Wraysbury, he suspected the communities would continue to exist after the change. The only difference would be there would be two ward councillors. He doubted if residents would notice any difference in their daily lives. The opportunity was for the council to be more focussed in trying to deliver services to residents. 57 Councillors were not needed to achieve this.     

Councillor Grey commented that at a local level he did not like the proposals for Datchet, however he understood that the Boundary Commission could come in and carve up the borough and the situation would be worse.  Datchet Parish Council had made a submission, supported by himself and his fellow ward councillor. Councillor C Rayner had made some good points but the Boundary Commission did not look at communities, it looked at numbers.  Councillors needed to consider the wider picture when voting.

Councillor Jones commented that the term ‘carve up’ was a misleading statement as there were three equal criteria considered by the Boundary Commission.

Councillor Da Costa highlighted the three criteria used. He believed there was an error on the figures as they did not include some development s such as the squash club.  The Borough Local Plan had not yet been submitted. The proposals did not work for Windsor.  West Windsor had two distinct communities: the ancient Clewer village and Dedworth. The proposals split both and forced together two distinctly different communities together.

Councillor Alexander commented that it was good news that there would be no single member wards in future. The numbers for the original proposal keeping Eton and Eton Wick together unfortunately did not add up, therefore the ward boundary was extended to Eton End. The final version also included Datchet and Horton. He was at a loss to understand how such diverse communities related although the numbers did add up. Eton and Eton Wick had submitted a proposal directly to the boundary commission.

Councillor Bateson explained that when she started as a councillor, the ward had been South Ascot and Sunningdale, and it seemed this arrangement would return in the new proposals. When it had changed before, there had been no difference because all were residents of the borough.

Councillor Cox commented that he and Councillor Hunt represented a very diverse ward yet the communities were able to work together. It had been a difficult and thankless task and he thanked Councillor McWilliams and officers for their efforts. He commented that when groups were considering their candidates for the next local elections, it would need to be made clear that all councillors would need to work hard regardless of the ward they represented.

Councillor Richards commented that the issue was challenging. He would take into account all the comments made and issues raised.

Councillor Beer commented that he would like to have proposed an amendment to 47 councillors but understood this could not be done as the decision had been taken less than 6 months previously. However he felt that 47 would fit in with most people’s concerns. The proposed reduction in the number of panels and meetings would not necessarily reduce the workload as these panels would just be busier. He had a number of concerns about representation if Old Windsor was amalgamated with Horton and Wraysbury. The ward was unique in that it bordered Heathrow and contained three motorways. The proposed boundaries would stretch all the way to Virginia Water, which was enormously different in character. It would be very difficult for three councillors to serve and represent such a diverse community. Old Windsor was very different and deserved a higher ratio of representation. In six years’ time councillors would have 49% more residents to represent which would increase the workload enormously.

Councillor Quick understood there were individual concerns but borough councillors represented all residents. When knocking on doors during a campaign, many residents did not know their ward or who represented them. Sociologist and anthropologists believed a mix in a community was a good thing.

Councillor Bicknell commented that it was impossible to please everyone otherwise the numbers would not work. The reality was that the inspector would decide. Members should vote for what was right for the whole borough.

Councillor McWilliams explained that a number of options were considered in the rural Windsor areas; the proposal was the best option to maintain the Etons being together. He had asked for unanimous agreement from the Working Group for the ward patterns, based on a figure of 43. The south of the borough had submitted an excellent representation however one of the wards would be 15% below the variance therefore could not be agreed. He would work with Councillor Carroll to look at ways to make it easier for councillors to participate in meetings in future. In relation to development, the boundary Commission would only consider sites expected to be developed by 2023. 

It was proposed by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Bicknell, and:

RESOLVED: That Council:

i)     Agrees that the Royal Borough’s representation on the new warding patterns, Stage Two electoral review report, be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

(29 Councillors voted for the motion Councillors Bateson, Bicknell, Carroll, Coppinger, Cox, Diment, Dudley, L Evans, Gilmore, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Hunt, Ilyas, Kellaway, Lenton, Lion, Luxton, McWilliams, Mills, Quick, Richards, Sharma, Sharpe, Shelim, Smith, Story, Werner, D. Wilson, E. Wilson. 5 Councillors voted against the motion: Councillor Beer, Da Costa, Jones, C. Rayner and S. Rayner. Six Councillors abstained: Alexander,Bowden, Grey, Muir, Rankin and Yong)