At an Extraordinary Meeting of Marlborough Town Council last night (22 October) Councillors discussed how to react to the proposal to lose one ward (West Selkley), one County Councillor, and possibly, as a result, an effective Area Board.
The Local Government Boundary Commission has recently undertaken an Electoral Review for Wiltshire Council with a view to rebalancing the shape and structure of the wards / divisions. The Council wanted to increase by one division from 98 to 99 to enable higher population wards to be lessened, this isn’t possible so as part of the restructuring a realignment has to take place which means that one area loses a ward.
And Marlborough is their target area for the loss of a ward. Why? It’s all down to numbers.
The (ideal) target is for each ward across Wiltshire to number 4,263 voters, with a maximum variation of 10% either way. But at present each of the four wards (or divisions) comprising this area (Marlborough East, Marlborough West, Aldbourne and West Selkley) fall short of this target number with both of the Marlborough Town wards coming in significantly below the variation limit (East is 13% below and West 21%).
The proposal is – as shown in the poor quality map above – that West Selkley be engulfed primarily by Marlborough West (which would extend to embrace Berwick Bassett and Winterbourne Bassett). Marlborough East would take in Mildenhall – from Aldbourne, which in turn would absorb Ogbourne St George whilst losing Froxfield (to Burbage & The Bedwyns).
Councillors expressed their concerns at the proposals. The Area Board needs three Councillors (out of the current four) to be quorate, and decisions (particularly regarding funding for local organisations) can only be made by a quorate Board.
Two options were identified: a ‘substitute’ Councillor could be ‘borrowed’ from an adjacent area, or any decisions made would have to be ratified by the Wiltshire Council Leader. Both were deemed as unacceptable, with Deputy Mayor Councillor Mervyn Hall pointing put that any substitute Councillor would have no political mandate for this area.
Councillor Hall also went on make an observation that this appeared to be a ‘political’ move, as the current rural wards (West Selkley and Aldbourne) were strongly Conservative (as is Wiltshire Council), whilst the two urban Marlborough wards were independent and border-line Conservative. Such a realignment would ensure that all three new wards would likely be strongly Conservative. He didn’t use the term ‘Gerrymander’, but that would have been understood had he done so.
Councillor Fogg, did use that term, but stressing that in his view that wasn’t appropriate as the committee tasked with creating the proposed new ward / division structure for Wiltshire were tasked with a ‘very difficult job’, which in his view ‘didn’t mean that they had got everything right’ but he believed they had ‘done their best’.
He went on to point out that the Electoral Commission itself laid down two principles: that the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities, and that he couldn’t quite see how Marlborough Town shared a great deal in common with Berwick Bassett and ‘its forty six voters’. And similarly, the Electoral Commission advises against an ‘urban / rural split’, meaning that divisions / wards should be essentially rural or urban, but not bridging both “by taking bits of a rural division and sticking them alongside an urban area, as this proposal does”.
Councillor Loosmore noted that in his view the Electoral Commission had “already put its stamp on this” and that it was “another chip at democracy”…. “we have these issues of village against town”, and whilst Wiltshire has to go from 99 Divisions to 98, “why do we have to be the one area of Wiltshire that has a reduction in representation because of an issue at Wiltshire (County) level?”… ”It’s like water off a duck’s back, and we have no say. And that alarms me”.
Councillor Cairns highlighted the danger of a democratic deficit, “That Marlborough area’s voice within Wiltshire Council was going to be further diminished”.
Councillor Forbes stated his concerns about “The huge change from the current boundaries” and that “we should express our concerns, even if we understand that it may be unavoidable”.
The Council decided to respond to the Electoral Commission by making clear that any solution maintains two town wards, and that the concerns expressed as regards achieving quorate decisions (substitute out-of-area Councillors / Leader of the Council) was not satisfactory, that any redrawing of the boundaries leaving a pattern of divisions that does not reflect the interests and identities of local communities was similarly not satisfactory, as was the democratic deficit created by the loss of one Councillor for the Marlborough area.
The full text of the Town Council’s response to the Electoral Commission is set out below:
In considering proposals for new divisions to meet electoral equality as required by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) as part of its Electoral Review of Wiltshire Council, Marlborough Town Council insists on retaining the distinctiveness of the town of Marlborough and both of its Marlborough East and West divisions. Also that boundaries should be redrawn for a rural division to better represent the interests and identities of local communities in outlying rural parishes.
The Town Council would object to proposals (including that put forward by Wiltshire Council) that involve:
- any changes that would impact on the distinctiveness of the town of Marlborough or its unified status
- any division which combines rural and urban parishes – a breach of the LGBCE’s legal criteria of reflecting the interests and identities of local communities
- any changes that would result in a deficit of democratic representation for the town of Marlborough
- any proposals resulting in a quorum on a Wiltshire Council Committee (Area Board) as low as 3 with a substitution process involving division Members from outside of the Community Area. This is unacceptable.
Time will tell whether Cllr Loosmore’s scepticism is well founded, or that the Commission will listen to the Town Council’s strong response and look elsewhere to reduce the overall number of divisions within Witshire by one.
Marlborough’s next NHS dentist will not be in the George Lane surgery
