Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J Pearson. Councillor S Edgar was present as substitute.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, other registerable interests, and non-registerable interests in any item on the agenda.

Councillor Chris O’Leary declared that part of the discussion would focus on the area of Tytherington where Macclesfield Conservative Club was located. Councillor Chris O’Leary indicated that he was not a Member or Trustee of this club, but the club was the landlord of the Macclesfield Conservative Association, of which Councillor Chris O’Leary was an officer.

In accordance with paragraph 2.24 of the Committee Procedure Rules and the Appendix on Public Speaking, as set out in the Constitution, a total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to put questions to the Sub-Committee on any matter relating to this agenda. Each member of the public will be allowed up to two minutes to speak; the Chair will have discretion to vary this where he/she considers it appropriate.

Members of the public wishing to speak are required to provide notice of this at least three clear working days in advance of the meeting.

The public speaking procedure was noted. There were no members of the public registered to speak.

To consider the remaining draft recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England in respect of the Council’s electoral arrangements.

The sub-committee considered a report relating to the draft recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England in respect of the Council’s electoral arrangements.

It was confirmed to the sub-committee that officers had, in consultation with their legal representatives, been seeking clarification from the Boundary Commission for England on what restrictions (in terms of scope and timing) might apply to any future Community Governance Review (CGR) of town and parish council governance that Cheshire East Council might wish to undertake in order to address concerns arising from the Boundary Commission’s recommended changes to parish warding. The sub-committee were assured that the Borough Council is able to undertake such a CGR after the current Review’s Order is made, but that the Council  would need to seek consent from the Boundary Commission, and provide supporting evidence, in order to undertake such a review.

Councillor S Gardiner, who was not present at the meeting, provided a statement to be read:

“Following my attendance at the last meeting of the sub-committee, I note the work undertaken by Mr Billington with regards to the potential for securing an alternative proposal to that set out in the Boundary Commission’s latest proposal, namely the provision of three equal-sized single-member wards.

Having considered the information set out in the slides provided to members I note the proposal and the levels of divergence from the optimum ward size, in terms of constituent numbers. I appreciate that given the short time between the two meetings it was not possible to come up with any further options for consideration. Therefore, in light of the significant negative divergence that Mr Billington’s draft proposals present, I accept his conclusion that this would be unlikely to satisfy the Commission as an alternative proposition.

It is therefore my position and that of Cllrs Dean and Coan that we should revert to the status quo of a single three-member ward to serve Knutsford as this presents a fairer and more equitable solution to the benefit of all Knutsford residents.

As stated previously the three ward councillors have since the inception of Cheshire East always worked in concert for the benefit of all the Town’s residents, irrespective of whether those councillors were from the same political grouping of from a mix of political groups. We consider that arbitrarily creating one single member ward and one two-member ward will lead to an unacceptable disparity between the residents in the two wards to the detriment of those living in the single-member ward.

Additionally, this week I have been attending the Planning Appeal relating to land at Longridge which would be part of the single member ward, and I note with interest that excellent work from several members of the local community in opposing the proposal. These people came from across Knutsford and worked together to support a common goal. These people have also been supported by ward councillors throughout the process.

However, as a member of the Strategic Planning Board SPB, I either had to give up my place on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.