Agenda item

The report explained that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) was undertaking an electoral review of Lancashire County Council's electoral arrangements because of electoral imbalances that had arisen since the last review in 2003/04.   

 

The Boundary Commission was consulting on patterns for the County Council Electoral Divisions and the Full Council was now being asked to consider recommendations from the Political Governance Working Group (PGWG) on the County Council's proposal to the Boundary Commission on Electoral Division patterns.

 

The Chairman recommended that the proposals for each district be considered and voted on in turn, and that any amendments be dealt with as the relevant district was being discussed; all members would be able to speak once on each district proposal should they so wish. The meeting consented to this approach.

 

In moving the report County Councillor David Borrow, Chair of the PGWG, explained that, whilst the Boundary Commission's consultation on divisional patterns had ended on 31 August, the Boundary Commission had granted the County Council, and also Political Groups, a small extension of time to 3 September to submit proposals.

 

Appendix A to the report now presented summarised each of the recommendations of the PGWG for which there was a corresponding map setting out:

 

·  existing and proposed divisional boundaries,

·  the projected electorate and relative variance for each proposed division by 2021,

·  the number of councillors recommended for each proposed division, and

·  recommended divisional names.

 

The detailed proposals, including the maps referred to above are available to view here.

 

In some cases the PGWG had recommended more than one proposal.

 

Burnley

 

The PGWG had recommended one proposal. Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for Burnley, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

 

Chorley

 

The PGWG had recommended two proposals as presented by Chorley Borough Council. Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

Resolved: that the two proposed divisional patterns for Chorley, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

 

Fylde

 

The PGWG had recommended two proposals; a preferred proposal 1 to retain the status quo and a proposal 2 as an alternative for the Boundary Commission to consider if it was not minded to agree proposal 1. Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

Resolved: that that the two proposed divisional patterns for Fylde, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission and that, of these, proposal 1 be submitted as the preferred option.

 

 

Hyndburn

 

The PGWG had recommended one proposal. Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for Hyndburn, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

Lancaster

 

The PGWG had recommended one proposal.

 

CC Gina Dowding moved an Amendment which was seconded by CC Liz Oades. The amendment was submitted in the form of a map which had been circulated in advance to all members, a copy of which is attached to these minutes.

 

On being put to the vote the amendment was lost. The original motion was then put to the vote and was carried and it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for Lancaster, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

 

Pendle

 

The PGWG had recommended one proposal. Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for Pendle, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

Preston

 

The PGWG had put forward two proposals; both options recommended a reduction from 10 to 9 divisions, but each achieved this in a different way. The PGWG recommended proposal 1 with a second preference for proposal 2.

 

Resolved: that that the two proposed divisional patterns for Preston, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission and that, of these, proposal 1 be submitted as the preferred option.

 

 

Ribble Valley

 

The PGWG had put forward two proposals; proposal 1 recommended four divisions and proposal 2 recommended two single-member divisions and one two-member division. The PGWG recommended proposal 1 with a second preference for proposal 2.

 

It was moved by CC Albert Atkinson and seconded by CC Alan Schofield that the recommendation be amended and that only proposal 2 be submitted to the Boundary Commission. On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

 

It was then moved by CC David Whipp and seconded by CC Bill Winlow that the recommendation be amended and that only proposal 1 be submitted to the Boundary Commission. On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

 

The original motion was then put to the vote and was carried and it was:

 

Resolved: that that the two proposed divisional patterns for Ribble Valley, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission and that, of these, proposal 1 be submitted as the preferred option.

 

 

Rossendale

 

The PGWG had put forward three proposals each with a different approach to correcting the electoral imbalances in Rossendale.

 

It was moved by CC David Stansfield and seconded by CC Clare Pritchard that the recommendation be amended and that only proposal 1 be submitted to the Boundary Commission. On being put to the vote the amendment was carried and therefore became the substantive motion, which on being put to the vote was carried and it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for Rossendale, as set out in proposal 1 in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

 

South Ribble

 

The PGWG had put forward two proposals; proposal 1 recommended eight single-member divisions, proposal 2 recommended five single-member divisions and one three-member division. The PGWG had recommended proposal 1 with a second preference for proposal 2.

 

It was moved by CC David Watts and seconded by CC David Howarth that the recommendation be amended and that only proposal 1 be submitted to the Boundary Commission. On being put to the vote the amendment was carried and therefore became the substantive motion, which on being put to the vote was carried and it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for South Ribble, as set out in proposal 1 in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

West Lancashire

 

The PGWG had recommended one proposal. Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for West Lancashire, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.

 

Wyre

 

The PGWG had recommended one proposal. Upon being put to the vote it was:

 

Resolved: that the proposed divisional pattern for Wyre, as set out in the report now presented, be approved for submission to the Boundary Commission.