To consider the above report

Members considered the Royal Borough’s representation on the electoral review draft recommendations to be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). Councillor McWilliams explained the background to the report including the fact that the review was required as Oldfield would soon be over the 30% threshold and that the borough was in the bottom quartile in terms of elector representation. Stage 1 had been to determine the number of councillors needed in future, which had been proposed at 43. In the first draft proposals the LGBCE had reduced the figure to 42.

A series of Member briefings had been held on the second stage. The consultation was open to 7 May 2018 and Councillor McWilliams encouraged everyone to respond. The council’s overall response would be an important part of the LGBCE machinations. If the recommendations in the report were not supported the LGBCE work would continue without the council’s input. This would be a great shame as the Working Group had placed great focus on community identity. The Working Group had agreed that, particularly in the south of the borough, the electoral representation threshold should be breached to ensure community identity was maintained. Option 1 therefore proposed the Boltons be included in Clewer East. To ensure the LGBCE was aware the council had considered all options, it was proposed to include an option 2 (not preferred) that had an electorally balanced situation but the Boltons was split between Clewer East and Old Windsor.

Councillor S Rayner commented on the need to offer taxpayers value for money in terms of less elected representatives. The patterns proposed maintained community identities as much as possible, The council had a duty to exercise its duties in the most efficient way possible.

Councillor Jones commented that the council approached the LGBCE to resolve an issue in Maidenhead. Whilst 43 councillors addressed this issue, it had proven not to work in Windsor and in the south of the borough because of geographical constraints. Councillor Jones thanked officers who had worked so hard to produce the warding patterns that put communities first. Councillor Jones had requested, and had now received, confirmation that the ward name of Old Windsor would remain and would not be proposed for amendment to Old Windsor and Great Park.

Councillor Hilton stated that he would confine his comments to the south of the Borough where he had local knowledge. At the December consultation the seven councillors in the south of the borough, supported by the two Parish Councils, proposed three 2-councillor wards which, based on local knowledge of major sites that would be coming forward for development, and using the same methodology as officers would have, had a maximum of 11% deviation, just 1% outside the desired 10% target. The proposals would have been coterminous with Parish boundaries with four councillors within Sunninghill and Ascot and two within Sunningdale. Sadly, the proposals were rejected by the LGBCE.

The latest proposals were for two wards in the south: Sunningdale and South Ascot and Ascot and Sunninghill. Aside of the addition of the whole of Windsor Great Park to Ascot and Sunninghill matched ward boundaries prior to the 2002 boundary changes. For about 18 months, prior to the 2002 boundary review, Councillor Hilton had represented Ascot and Sunninghill so it would not be too difficult to do so again. However he did not see the Great Park as part of Ascot. It was next to the ward but it was some miles from the centre of Ascot and the village, which was the only significant collection of homes in the Park, was much closer to Old Windsor than Ascot. He was sure that the affinity of the people who lived in the village was to the north and Old Windsor and Windsor, rather than the south.

Furthermore, in 2014 the Ascot Sunninghill and South Ascot Neighbourhood Plan was adopted by the council and it had been possible to draft policies that reflected all parts of what a cohesive area was. This would not have been the case had the Great Park, which was entirely within the Green Belt, been included. Members should be aware that just 276 electors lived within the Great Park and were proposed to be moved to Ascot on the grounds of balance. The fact that developers were already talking about more than 800 homes, with more to come, in the revised Ascot and Sunninghill ward indicated the Great Park should be left where it was to allow the community to remain together and allow time, as it surely would, to correct the imbalance. Councillor Hilton had written to the LGBCE in support of the two 3-councillor wards in the south but that the Great Park should be part of Old Windsor.

Councillor Bowden commented that if Clewer East was going to be 25% over with only two councillors, he would give in.  Councillor Bicknell highlighted that the ward he represented would disappear by May 2019 under the proposals. In his view residents of the Boltons were not Old Windsorians.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that he understood that there was no way to reverse the process, which had not been made particularly clear to Members. The cure seemed worse than the disease.

Councillor Beer endorsed the comments made by Councillors Jones and Hilton. He felt the figure of 43 had been picked out of the air as it was the same number as West Berkshire. At the time he had pointed out that the Sunnings and old Windsor were a special case due to geographical constraints this had been ignored. Option A would suit the Old Windsor community, but not Windsor.

Councillor Rankin commented that there was a need for electoral equality and a reduction in the cost of politics. However it had been very difficult to balance the figures. He welcomed a move to a submission with more focus on community identity. He personally felt that Eton should be in a separate ward to Windsor town centre.

Councillor E. Wilson  highlighted two uncomfortable truths. The council as an administrative body rather than a self-preservation society. The council had to work smarter, rather than harder. The meeting had discussed a list of issues that it had no control over, such as admission policies. The LGBCE aim of making every vote count had been achieved in their proposals, with two exceptions. The south was simply an over-represented part of the borough. The council’s submission made it clear it did not make sense to add  the urban area of the Boltons to semi-rural Old Windsor village. The exception was worth arguing.

Councillor Bateson commented that the parish council had requested the ward name be amended to Sunningdale and South Ascot, as Sunningdale was the largest village.

Councillor McWilliams commented that adding a third councillor to Clewer East would throw off the elector to councillor ratio across the whole borough and the process would have to start again. The decision was not to include it but he encouraged individual councillors to make submissions.  The figure of 43 had not been picked from the air; officers and the Working Group had spent many hours debating the figure. If Eton was separated as a one-Member ward this would break the good governance rule to have the same number in all wards wherever possible. The Working Group decided it would not make proposals on ward names and encouraged all to put forward their ideas for ward names as individual submissions.

It was proposed by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor S Rayner and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council:

i)     Agrees that the Royal Borough’s representation on the electoral review draft recommendations be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.