Issue - meetings

The committee received a report from the Democratic Services Manager regarding the Cambridgeshire Boundary Review.

 

The Liberal Democrat Group had circulated three amendments to the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations.

 

Councillor Hipkin addressed the committee and made the following points:

i.             It would be good to have the City Council support for 63 rather than 61 County Councillors; this would assist County Councillors that may find themselves disadvantaged.

ii.            Happy that the City Council did not support a two member division in the City.

iii.           The Boundary Commission should give higher priority to community cohesion.

 

Councillor Bick addressed the committee on the Liberal Democrat amendments and made the following points:

i.             Supported the comments made by Councillor Hipkin.

ii.            All 3 proposals were based on the Local Government Boundary plans.

iii.           Invited the Committee to consider Mill Road as an obvious boundary.   

iv.          The numbers used in the proposal were credible and deserved consideration.

 

Councillor Herbert addressed the committee and made the following points:

i.             Growth included additional growth, there were no proposals in the Local Plan which significantly altered the numbers to the south of the city.

ii.            There was some merit to support the County Council in exact numbers.

iii.           There may be some merit in amendment 3 however the County Council were better placed to discuss this.  The robustness of electoral equality between Castle and Newnham, to advocate two separate divisions should be further explored.

 

After discussion on the Liberal Democrat amendments, members requested that each proposal be voted on separately.

 

(1) St Paul’s and St Matthews proposed Divisions

 

On a show of hands proposal (1) was lost by 2 votes to 4 votes.

 

(2)     Romsey Ward (with adjustments to Barnwell, QE, St Matthew’s / “Easterly”)

 

On a show of hands proposal (2) was lost by 2 votes to 4 votes.

 

(3)     Arbury and Castle & Newnham / Castle division

 

On a show of hands proposal (3) was lost by 2 votes to 4 votes.

 

On dealing with electoral equality of Castle / Newnham Councillor Pitt proposed the following amendment to the Officer recommendation 2.i) (additional text underlined)

 

To oppose the two member division recommended by the Commission for Castle/Newnham and to propose instead two single member divisions for Castle and Newnham with Madingley Road being the basis of the boundary line as submitted by the City Council to the Commission in January 2015.

 

This would enable inclusion of some addresses from Castle to Newnham eg: Churchill College.

 

On a show of hands the Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the amended recommendation 2.i).

 

On a show of hands the Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the officer recommendation 2.ii).

 

Councillor Robertson proposed the following additional recommendation 2.iii) The division named Barnwell be named Abbey

 

On a show of hands the additional recommendation 2.iii) was agreed by 4 votes to 0.