Shepway District Council

 From: Sent: 25 June 2015 14:58 To: reviews Subject: Kent County Council submission Dear Mr Cooper,
Please see attached Shepway District Council’s submission on the draft recommendations for the
Kent County Council boundary review.
Thanks
Wayne Fitter
Democratic Services Manager
Shepway District Council, Civic Centre
Castle Hill Avenue, Folkestone, Kent CT20 2QY
www.shepway.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
 Please consider the Environment before printing this email The contents and any attachments of this e-mail message are confidential and intended only for the named addressees. If you have received it in
error, please advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your system. Any unauthorised distribution or copying of this
transmission, or misuse or wrongful disclosure of information contained in it, is strictly prohibited. Shepway District Council cannot accept
1
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of the council.
All email to and from the council may be monitored in accordance with the council’s policies.
2
Minutes
Cabinet
Held at:
Council Chamber - Civic Centre Folkestone
Date
Wednesday, 17 June 2015
Present
Councillors Miss Susan Carey, John Collier,
Malcolm Dearden, Alan Ewart-James, David Godfrey,
Mrs Jennifer Hollingsbee, Rory Love, Philip Martin,
David Monk (Chairman) and Stuart Peall
Officers present:
Jeremy Chambers (Corporate Director - Resources),
Wayne Fitter (Electoral Services Manager), Amandeep
Khroud (Head of Democratic Services and Law), Tim
Madden (Chief Financial Officer (S151 Officer)), Susan
Priest (Corporate Director - Operations), Peter Savage
(Committee Services Officer) and Alistair Stewart (Chief
Executive)
NOTE: All decisions are subject to call-in arrangements. The deadline for call-in is 1
July 2015 at 5 pm. Decisions not called in may be implemented on 2 July 2015.
1.
Declarations of interest
Councillor Miss Susan Carey made a voluntary announcement in respect of the
consultation on draft recommendations for the Kent County Council electoral
division as a current Kent County Councillor. She remained in the meeting,
participated in the debate and voted.
2.
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 15 April 2015 were
submitted, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
3.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
The Council was able to undertake certain types of surveillance, acquire some
communications data and use Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS)
under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The Council had
adopted a RIPA policy which was updated from time to time. Report C/15/01
sought endorsement of the latest version. It also proposed to adopt a non-RIPA
policy for investigatory activities which fell outside of the RIPA regime. The
1
Cabinet - 17 June 2015
report also set out proposals for future reporting and updates Cabinet on the
proposed training programme for officers.
Proposed by Councillor Malcolm Dearden
Seconded by Councillor Mrs Jennifer Hollingsbee and
RESOLVED: That recommendation (4) in report C/15/01 be amended to
read, “to receive, in future, a report to the meeting of the Cabinet
immediately following the use by the Council of the powers contained in
RIPA, and that Cabinet meeting would decide what follow up reports
would be required”.
(Voting: For 9; Against 1; Abstentions 0).
Proposed by Councillor Malcolm Dearden
Seconded by Councillor Mrs Jennifer Hollingsbee and
RESOLVED
1. To receive and note report C/15/01.
2. To endorse version 9 of the RIPA policy, which was attached as
appendix 1 to report C/15/01.
3. To approve the use of the non-RIPA policy, which was attached as
appendix 2 to report C/15/01.
4. To receive, in future, a report to the meeting of the Cabinet
immediately following the use by the Council of the powers contained
in RIPA, and that Cabinet meeting would decide what follow up
reports would be required.
(Voting: For 9; Against 1; Abstentions 0).
Reason for decision
Cabinet was asked to agree the recommendations because:
a)
The Council should have an up to date RIPA policy which reflects the
current statutory provisions, codes of practice and council staff in order
that RIPA activities can be correctly authorised.
b)
The Council should have clear guidelines when undertaking surveillance
which falls outside of RIPA to ensure adequate procedures are followed.
c)
To consider whether a quarterly report be submitted only if there has
been a use of RIPA powers.
4.
Consultation on draft recommendations for the Kent County Council
Electoral Division
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) was
consulting on its draft recommendations for the Kent County Council electoral
boundaries. The boundary review aimed to deliver electoral equality for voters
at County Council elections. Report C/15/02 covered these issues.
Proposed by Councillor David Monk
2
Cabinet - 17 June 2015
Seconded by Councillor Miss Susan Carey and
RESOLVED:
5. To receive and note report C/15/02.
6. To support the draft recommendations as proposed by the LGBCE
for the Kent County Council electoral divisions in the district of
Shepway.
(Voting: For 8; Against 1; Abstention 1).
Councillor Malcolm Dearden asked for his vote against to be recorded.
3
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is
conducting a review of Kent County Council’s electoral boundaries due to
the high levels of electoral inequality across the County.
1.2
Electoral equality ensures that each county councillor represents an equal
number of electors.
1.3
The LGBCE has determined, during its consultation on council size, that
the number of county councillors will be reduced from 84 to 81. Each
county councillor will represent 14288 electors.
1.4
The LGBCE allow a variance of +/- 10% when assessing electoral equality.
31% of current County Council divisions have a variance of greater than
10%. The Romney Marsh division has the greatest variance of +38%.
1.5
The LGBCE began its consultation on the division arrangements on 09
December 2014. The draft recommendations were published on 12 May
2015 and the consultation closes on 07 July 2015.
1.6
The three main considerations in conducting an electoral review are:
•
•
•
Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each
councillor represents
Reflect community identity
Provide for effective and convenient government.
1.7
The draft recommendations also provide revised electoral arrangements for
Folkestone Town Council. This report will not comment on the electoral
arrangements for Folkestone Town Council as they do not impact on the
District Council.
2.
CONSULTATION ON DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
The draft recommendations for the county council divisions in Shepway
have resulted in a number of changes to the existing county division
boundaries. However, the draft recommendations provide electoral equality
across the district. A copy of the proposals is attached in Appendix 1 of this
report.
2.2
The Elham Valley division has reduced in size with the transfer of Lympne
Parish to the new Hythe West division and Saltwood to the new Cheriton,
Sandgate and Hythe East division.
2.3
The current Folkestone North East and Folkestone South divisions have
been combined, excluding the Broadmead and Folkestone Central District
wards, to create a new Folkestone East division.
2.4
A new Folkestone West division has been created which incorporates the
current Broadmead and Folkestone Central District wards and the previous
Morehall District ward.
2.5
A new Cheriton, Sandgate and Hythe East ward has been created which
incorporates the current Folkestone Town Council Harvey West ward,
Hythe Town Council East ward, Saltwood Parish Council and Sandgate
and West Folkestone District ward.
2.6
A new Hythe West division has been created which incorporates Hythe
Rural District ward, Romney Marsh District Ward excluding the St Marys
Bay Parish ward and Hythe Town Council North and South wards.
2.7
The Romney Marsh division has been reduced due to the current electoral
equality variance of +38%. The entire Romney Marsh District Ward
excluding the St Marys Bay Parish ward has been transferred into the new
Hythe West division. The new boundary provides a variance of 2% which is
well within the LGBCE tolerance of +/-10%.
2.8
The draft recommendations provide electoral equality ranging from +4% in
the Cheriton, Sandgate and Hythe East division to -6% in the Folkestone
East division which are all within the +/-10% variance.
2.9
The reduction of the Romney Marsh and Elham Valley divisions will
improve the effectiveness and convenience of governance in these
divisions.
2.10 After considering the draft recommendations published by the LGBCE, it is
recommended that they are approved in full as the new Kent County
Council divisions for the district of Shepway.
3.
RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
3.1
Risk is as follows:
Perceived risk
Continued
electoral
inequality for
Kent County
Councillors
Seriousness
Likelihood
Preventative action
Medium
Low
To approve the draft
recommendations of
the LGBCE
4.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS
4.1
Legal Officer’s Comments (AK)
There are no legal issues arising from this report
4.2
Finance Officer’s Comments (MF)
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
4.3
Diversities and Equalities Implications (WF)
Diversity and equality issues have been addressed in the report and the
consultation being conducted by the LGBCE.
5.
CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the
following officer prior to the meeting
Wayne Fitter
The following background documents have been relied upon in the
preparation of this report:
None