Agenda and minutes

These minutes were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Deputy Chief Executive

The Chair was pleased to welcome the Council’s new Deputy Chief Executive, Taryn Pearson-Rose, to her first meeting of Full Council since joining in February.

Members not standing for election

The Chair thanked those Councillors who were not seeking re-election (on 4^th May)  for their contribution to the work of the Council throughout their terms of office, and wished them well for the future.

Fundraising and events

The Chair was pleased to announce that her fundraising evening with the Jive Aces on 18^th February had been a great success, with over £1750 raised for her charities.

She also thanked the organisers of ‘Bletchfest Comedy Night’ for allowing her to collect charitable donations at their comedy show on 1^st April. This had raised £153.

Finally, the Chair invited all Members to her ‘Farewell Celebration Party’ on Saturday, 20^th May at Bletchingley Golf Club.

i)              questions from residents and others working or studying in the District; and

ii)             questions from Councillors

Questions were submitted by Councillors Bilton, O’Driscoll and Prew. Details of the questions and responses (from Councillors Swann, Wren and Blackwell respectively) are attached at Appendix A.

R E S O L V E D – that the reports of the following meetings be received, and the recommendations therein be adopted:

Planning Committee – 2^nd February 2023

Audit & Scrutiny Committee – 23^rd February 2023

Planning Committee – 2^nd March 2023

Community Services Committee – 9^th March 2023

Housing Committee – 16^th March 2023

Planning Policy Committee – 23^rd March 2023

Strategy & Resources Committee – 30^th March 2023

Audit & Scrutiny Committee – 4^th April 2023

On 21^st July 2022, when the Strategy & Resources Committee asked Full Council to vote on the electoral cycle, scant information was provided resulting in many Councillors not understanding the full implications of the chosen electoral cycle on the size and combination of populations in a district ward. Many Councillors were unaware of the criteria beyond the ward Councillor numbers and were not briefed about these other criteria in the 2009 Act, nor the difficulty of achieving them.  

In addition, the public consultation on electoral arrangements was also woefully insufficient, and only 217 people in the District (a 0.3% response rate of the current 65,461 electors) responded to this poorly communicated consultation, evidencing the vast lack of awareness.  The consultation also did not explain the implications of electoral cycle change, something which would have vastly influenced both the outcome and the participation. 

The view at that vote was that 3-year cycles would be less disruptive for TDC. However, the recent ward boundary review process has highlighted that trying to apportion 3 councillors across newly constructed wards meant that very little consideration was given to one of the three key boundary commission criteria i.e.: ward patterns should – as far as possible – reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable.  

By taking a vote on the electoral cycle at Full Council, Councillors have, inadvertently, agreed to putting in place a ward boundary system that is undemocratic for residents and doesn’t serve their best interests. Changing the ward pattern for the sake of the electoral cycle weakens the democratic process more than it strengthens it.  The political cycle should be reconsidered in light of the importance of ward needs, rather than the reverse. In particular, it is important for convenient and effective local democracy that smaller settlements retain their Councillors.

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) recently faced much the same issue and asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) to suspend the consultation, whilst they consulted.

I therefore move that:

i)              the Council’s previous decision to retain elections by thirds, as opposed to whole council elections every four years, be reconsidered by the Strategy & Resources Committee on 29th June 2023

ii)             should that Committee consider whole council elections to be preferable in order that the Council can maintain single and double member wards, the legal process be followed culminating in the matter being determined at an extraordinary meeting of the Council shortly thereafter

iii)           in the meantime, the Council request the LGBCE to suspend their consultation

Councillor North introduced the following motion:

“On 21^st July 2022, when the Strategy & Resources Committee asked Full Council to vote on the electoral cycle, scant information was provided resulting in many Councillors not understanding the full implications of the chosen electoral cycle on the size and combination of populations in a district ward. Many Councillors were unaware of the criteria beyond the ward Councillor numbers and were not briefed about these other criteria in the 2009 Act, nor the difficulty of achieving them.  

In addition, the public consultation on electoral arrangements was also woefully insufficient, and only 217 people in the District (a 0.3% response rate of the current 65,461 electors) responded to this poorly communicated consultation, evidencing the vast lack of awareness.  The consultation also did not explain the implications of electoral cycle change, something which would have vastly influenced both the outcome and the participation. 

The view at that vote was that 3-year cycles would be less disruptive for TDC. However, the recent ward boundary review process has highlighted that trying to apportion 3 councillors across newly constructed wards meant that very little consideration was given to one of the three key boundary commission criteria i.e.: ward patterns should – as far as possible – reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable.  

By taking a vote on the electoral cycle at Full Council, Councillors have, inadvertently, agreed to putting in place a ward boundary system that is undemocratic for residents and doesn’t serve their best interests. Changing the ward pattern for the sake of the electoral cycle weakens the democratic process more than it strengthens it.  The political cycle should be reconsidered in light of the importance of ward needs, rather than the reverse. In particular, it is important for convenient and effective local democracy that smaller settlements retain their Councillors. 

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) recently faced much the same issue and asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) to suspend the consultation, whilst they consulted.  

I therefore move that:

(i)                  the Council’s previous decision to retain elections by thirds, as opposed to whole council elections every four years, be reconsidered by the Strategy & Resources Committee on 29^th June 2023

(ii)                should that Committee consider whole council elections to be preferable in order that the Council can maintain single and double member wards, the legal process be followed culminating in the matter being determined at an extraordinary meeting of the Council shortly thereafter

(iii)               in the meantime, the Council request the LGBCE to suspend their consultation.”

The motion was seconded by Councillor Allen.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost. (In accordance with Standing Order 13(4) Councillor North had requested that her motion be subjected to a recorded vote. However, this was not supported by the required number of Councillors specified by that Standing Order (i.e. five)).