Cllr Molyneux presented report LD.362, explaining that the council had been invited to comment on the proposals. He emphasised that the current number of nine county councillors representing the district would be reduced to eight under the Boundary Commission proposals. There had already been much debate about boundaries that were not neat and about names for the divisions. He referred to the tabled annex B to the report, which detailed preferred division titles. (Attached to the minutes).

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Lawton seconded the motion at the agenda, but with the following amendment to replace recommendation d) with ’to endorse the proposed list of names for the divisions in Option 1 at annex B’

Cllr Hogan proposed and Cllr Martin seconded the following amendment to the motion.

That a) and d) (amended) remain as at the agenda

b) However the reduction in the number of electoral division from 63 –53 has led to proposals from the Boundary Commission that pay scant regard to natural communities or communities of interest

c) The proposals to create a predetermined number of electoral divisions i.e. 53 has created this problem and therefore this council urges GCC and the LGBC to revisit the proposals with a more open approach as to the optimum number of councillors

Cllr Hogan believed that to get rid of the awkward multi member divisions was right, but to impose a number and then make the divisions fit into a complex county such as Gloucestershire would always lead to anomalies. He wondered how Steam Mills could possibly relate to English Bicknor. He envisaged county councillors having to represent up to nine parishes or worse part-parishes. He believed that the Conservative group at the county council wanted to slim down the county council for political advantage in a fundamentally undemocratic way. Currently the Forest of Dean was a neat parliamentary constituency, but he could see that changing. He urged the council to send a clear message that the district’s community representatives should actually represent communities that made sense. To have a number as a starting point and then to hack up the district to fit was nonsense.

The chairman asked members to bear in mind that the proposals were from the Boundary Commission, which was independent. He added that the commission had probably not even visited the district. He asked if Cllr Molyneux was prepared to accept the amendment.

Cllr Molyneux said that Cllr Hogan seemed to be making a political point and echoed the chairman in confirming that the proposals came from the Boundary Commission, which was independent. He added that all councils were financially stretched. The county council needed to make cuts and one of those was to reduce the number of its councillors, so that it had single division representatives making casework easier. He said that there would always be issues of contention in boundary changes, but it was wrong to think that predetermining numbers of councillors had created the problem.

Cllr Morgan, a county councillor, said that the issue had been much debated at the county council and emphasised that this council’s response would be to the Boundary Commission. To put communities together would never be perfect, but the more natural communities the better.

Cllr Hiett pointed out that West Dean parish would be served by four county councillors, and would be joined with Berry Hill, which did not reflect the second key factor at paragraph 2.3 of the report regarding natural communities. He added that Bream had no affinity with Awre. County councillors would have to spend much more time to do their job effectively, taking a step closer to the role being the preserve of the retired or the affluent.

Cllr Winship expressed some sympathy with views concerning the cut-and-paste nature of the changes, giving Aylburton with Lydney as an example. However when asked for comments, Aylburton Parish Council had not responded. She emphasised that the proposals in the report had been made by an outside body, the Boundary Commission, and she was not sure how much the council’s comments would affect the final outcome. She thoroughly supported the original motion.

Cllr O’Neill reminded members that the county council had decided to reduce from 63 to 53 members. He cited Steam Mills as an example of part of a parish carved off into a different division, asking how a convenient service to the community could be achieved. He believed that the recommendation failed to abide by any of the key factors at paragraph 2.3.

Cllr Burford said that he was proud to represent a community and hoped that county councillors would be equally able to represent communities. He supported the council acting with one voice to say that the district had strong communities and county councillors should represent those strong communities.

Cllr Martin supported the amendment, saying it represented common sense to ask the commission to look again. She referred to the fact that Steam Mills was included in the Cinderford Area Action Plan, but would not be part of Cinderford.

Cllr Robinson believed that the district had done well to lose just one county councillor in the proposal. It might not do as well if the issue was re-considered. He said that he currently represented two separate communities as a county councillor. He said that Steam Mills would remain part of Cinderford, but that part of it would be represented differently. He believed that the council should stick to its concerns over issues around the edges of the proposals, as to break up the whole proposal might cost the district more than it would gain.

Cllr Hogan clarified for Cllr Molyneux that his proposed amendment to recommendation b) did not imply a reduction in numbers, but was more concerned about equal representation, looking at natural communities as a starting point.

Cllr Pugh referred to the disparity between Yorkley and Viney Hill and Awre. He believed the proposals needed to achieve a more harmonious balance. He doubted that eight county councillors could represent such an area of diversity and size.

Cllr Quaile and Cllr Whitburn added concerns about divisions in their wards.

The chairman brought the debate issues together, recognising that many members had concerns over the proposed divisions. He personally believed that there were too many county and district councillors and that the Boundary Commission had never made satisfactory proposals.

He hoped that all members would be able to agree on a common message.

Summing up his amendment Cllr Hogan clarified that he was not saying it was wrong to reduce the number of county councillors, nor that it was wrong to get rid of double member divisions. He believed that all views expressed in the debate had supported his amendment to recommendation b). He emphasised that his amendment to recommendation c) concerned looking for the optimum number, whatever that was. He simply wished the proposal to have the flexibility to decide what that number was. The names of the divisions were not at issue.

Cllr Molyneux agreed that all members were expressing the same point of view, agreeing that the current proposal did not reflect natural communities. Numbers of county councillors seemed to him to be a red herring. He believed that the council wished to ask the Boundary Commission to respect the district’s parishes and natural communities.

When put to the vote the amendment was successful.

Voting was as follows.

For (23) – Norman Stephens, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart.

Against (21) - Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Abstained (3) - Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner

The amended motion became the substantive motion.

RESOLVED –

a)      The Council supports the proposal to create a pattern of single member divisions and improved electoral equality for voters across the County

b)      However the reduction in the number of electoral division from 63 –53 has led to proposals from the Boundary Commission that pay scant regard to natural communities or communities of interest

c)      The proposals to create a predetermined number of electoral divisions i.e. 53 has created this problem and therefore this council urges GCC and the LGBC to revisit the proposals with a more open approach as to the optimum number of councillors

d)      To endorse the proposed list of names for divisions in Option 1 at annex B

Voting was as follows.

For (29) –Marion Winship, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Roy Birch, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Maria Edey, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Paul Hiett, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Beard, Frank Baynham, Bill Osborne, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Jane Horne

Against (18) - Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson

Abstained (1) - James Bevan