|
Post by lancyiain on Nov 30, 2017 21:25:34 GMT
Secretary of State is minded to approve plans to merge two groups of two councils: * Taunton Deane and West Somerset * Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury (already operating as an unofficial 'West Suffolk council' So that's four out of the seven Suffolk district councils having agreed mergers. I wonder whether the Babergh-Mid Suffolk merger will go through this time too. In 2011 it got put to the voters and Mid Suffolk were in favour but Babergh were not. They already share the same chief executive though.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 1, 2017 10:08:28 GMT
Secretary of State is minded to approve plans to merge two groups of two councils: * Taunton Deane and West Somerset * Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury (already operating as an unofficial 'West Suffolk council' So that's four out of the seven Suffolk district councils having agreed mergers. I wonder whether the Babergh-Mid Suffolk merger will go through this time too. In 2011 it got put to the voters and Mid Suffolk were in favour but Babergh were not. They already share the same chief executive though. Which are the other four out of seven Suffolk district councils?
|
|
|
Post by lancyiain on Dec 1, 2017 20:12:34 GMT
So that's four out of the seven Suffolk district councils having agreed mergers. I wonder whether the Babergh-Mid Suffolk merger will go through this time too. In 2011 it got put to the voters and Mid Suffolk were in favour but Babergh were not. They already share the same chief executive though. Which are the other four out of seven Suffolk district councils? The seven Suffolk district councils are Suffolk Coastal and Waveney (which are merging), St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath (also merging), Babergh and Mid Suffolk (where a merger is wanted by councillors (Conservative, at least) and officers but was rejected by Babergh voters and which may be put back to the voters in the future as a plan to merge without another vote seems to have been rejected) with Ipswich as the sole council not likely to be involved in a merger (though Unitary status has been sought in the past).
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 7, 2017 22:36:48 GMT
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 10, 2017 2:56:15 GMT
I didn’t know they often just changed council boundaries like that, can they add Saddleworth to Kirklees? Or just abolish Kirklees? 😁 Would you prefer to be in Fife or Perth and Kinross?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 10, 2017 23:59:43 GMT
I didn’t know they often just changed council boundaries like that, can they add Saddleworth to Kirklees? Or just abolish Kirklees? 😁 This was purely a tidying-up exercise. In the case of Keltybridge, the council boundary originally followed the Kelty Burn but didn't do any longer - probably because the Burn has changed its course over the years. This wouldn't have been a problem except that a house had been built on the Perth and Kinross side of the burn straddling the council boundary, and Fife council want to zone some land on its side of the Burn for future development. The order realigns the boundary to the present course of the Kelty Burn. In the case of the Fife Environmental Energy Park, the realignment brings all of the Park's area within Fife council - previously a corner of it was in Perth and Kinross.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 15, 2017 18:42:27 GMT
Six new electoral changes orders have been published: The Bolsover (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1265). Introduces new ward boundaries for Bolsover council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Clowne, Old Bolsover, Scarcliffe and Shirebrook. There are seventeen new wards, of which one is single-member (Clowne West), twelve elect two councillors and four elect three councillors. The Kingston upon Hull (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1266). Introduces new ward boundaries for Kingston upon Hull council to come into effect at the 2018 election, and restores the system of election by thirds in following years. There are twenty-one new wards, of which six elect two councillors and fifteen elect three councillors. The Ribble Valley (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1267). Introduces new ward boundaries for Ribble Valley council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Billington and Langho, Clitheroe and Whalley. There are twenty-six new wards, of which twelve are single-member and fourteen elect two councillors. The Surrey Heath (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1268). Introduces new ward boundaries for Surrey Heath council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parish of Windlesham. There are fourteen new wards, of which seven elect two councillors and seven elect three councillors. The North East Derbyshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1269). Introduces new ward boundaries for North East Derbyshire council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Dronfield, Eckington, North Wingfield and Wingerworth. There are twenty-four new wards, of which five are single-member, nine elect two councillors and ten elect three councillors. The Blackburn with Darwen (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1270). Introduces new ward boundaries for Blackburn with Darwen council to come into effect at the 2018 election, restores the system of election by thirds in following years, and makes consequential changes to electoral arrangements for the parish of Darwen Town. There are seventeen new wards, all of which elect three councillors.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Eastwood on Dec 18, 2017 17:03:42 GMT
I didn’t know they often just changed council boundaries like that, can they add Saddleworth to Kirklees? Or just abolish Kirklees? 😁 This was purely a tidying-up exercise. In the case of Keltybridge, the council boundary originally followed the Kelty Burn but didn't do any longer - probably because the Burn has changed its course over the years. This wouldn't have been a problem except that a house had been built on the Perth and Kinross side of the burn straddling the council boundary, and Fife council want to zone some land on its side of the Burn for future development. The order realigns the boundary to the present course of the Kelty Burn. In the case of the Fife Environmental Energy Park, the realignment brings all of the Park's area within Fife council - previously a corner of it was in Perth and Kinross. The Cardowan, Stepps review currently underway will be a politically more interesting one where Glasgow are trying to resist the demand from locals for their pseudo exclave to be transferred to North Lanarkshire. In general the boundary between Glasgow and neighbouring authorities is rarely the most coherent.
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Dec 19, 2017 14:52:10 GMT
This was purely a tidying-up exercise. In the case of Keltybridge, the council boundary originally followed the Kelty Burn but didn't do any longer - probably because the Burn has changed its course over the years. This wouldn't have been a problem except that a house had been built on the Perth and Kinross side of the burn straddling the council boundary, and Fife council want to zone some land on its side of the Burn for future development. The order realigns the boundary to the present course of the Kelty Burn. In the case of the Fife Environmental Energy Park, the realignment brings all of the Park's area within Fife council - previously a corner of it was in Perth and Kinross. The Cardowan, Stepps review currently underway will be a politically more interesting one where Glasgow are trying to resist the demand from locals for their pseudo exclave to be transferred to North Lanarkshire. In general the boundary between Glasgow and neighbouring authorities is rarely the most coherent. The Commission always seem to side with incomers who buy houses on the relative cheap on the Glasgow side of a new development then want it switched to the neighbouring council.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Dec 19, 2017 17:22:55 GMT
So, what do we all think of the proposed boundary changes to Royston Vasey and the prospect of incorporation into Spent UA?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,710
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 20, 2017 0:31:35 GMT
So, what do we all think of the proposed boundary changes to Royston Vasey and the prospect of incorporation into Spent UA? I'm surprised such a small place has an Executive Mayor model, though the local vicar being the (deputy) leader has a precedence precedent. And they could reconstitute as a parish council. Whenever I've looked at the maps of the real-life location I would have moved the boundary the other way, while the UA boundary follows a stream it's a very non-obvious and untidy line to place it.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 20, 2017 16:08:56 GMT
So, what do we all think of the proposed boundary changes to Royston Vasey and the prospect of incorporation into Spent UA? This could literally be pitchfork bait.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Dec 20, 2017 22:49:54 GMT
I didn’t know they often just changed council boundaries like that, can they add Saddleworth to Kirklees? Or just abolish Kirklees? 😁 The LGBC for Scotland has a fairly broad remit to keep all boundaries in local government under review. However, Scottish Ministers can limit this power by way of a direction. A few years ago I know there was one that prevented any administrative area reviews unless it involved less than 200 electors I think. That allowed for some of those reviews that were realigning boundaries due to new development where a particular street straddled the boundary. The only direction I can see at the moment is a prohibition on reviews under section 14(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (regular reviews of electoral arrangements). As someone who used to work in Kirklees Electoral Services, I would like to argue your last point... but it feels futile somehow! My boss at the time started her career with Saddleworth still very much a part of the Colne Valley constituency.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 22, 2017 18:14:35 GMT
Kingston upon Hull already has election by thirds. Saying that it "restores" the system seems a very odd way of describing a one-off all-out election on the new boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 22, 2017 18:45:51 GMT
Kingston upon Hull already has election by thirds. Saying that it "restores" the system seems a very odd way of describing a one-off all-out election on the new boundaries. The Local Government Act says that councillors have four-year terms unless otherwise provided for, so if you don't explicitly restore the thirds system after the one-off all-out election it won't be a one-off. You'll get whole council elections every four years instead. The Hull Order restores election by thirds by providing for some of the councillors elected in 2018 to retire in 2019, some in 2020 and the rest in 2022. Once the councillors elected in 2018 have retired as provided for by the Order the normal four-year rule takes over.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 22, 2017 22:29:47 GMT
A new electoral changes order has been published: The East Devon (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1315). Introduces new ward boundaries for East Devon council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Exmouth, Honiton, Seaton and Sidmouth. There are thirty new wards, of which twelve are single-member, six elect two councillors and twelve elect three councillors.
|
|
|
Post by listener on Dec 28, 2017 12:15:32 GMT
I am with Andrew here and his wording re restoring the system of elections by thirds.
This is not automatic. Sometimes councils change to whole elections after a boundary review, e.g. Gloucester and Stroud in 2016 and Huntingdonshire, South Cambridgeshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme in 2018
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 1, 2018 23:15:38 GMT
I am with Andrew here and his wording re restoring the system of elections by thirds. This is not automatic. Sometimes councils change to whole elections after a boundary review, e.g. Gloucester and Stroud in 2016 and Huntingdonshire, South Cambridgeshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme in 2 My presumption was that a council would keep its current electoral cycle unless it was explicitly changed. Obviously Andrew is right about the way the law is worded, it's just that it comes across as odd without that extra knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by jonlawson on Jan 8, 2018 13:08:34 GMT
Anyone know if this is the complete list for boundary changes impacting this May? Have I missed any? Or might more appear?
SOUTH LAKELAND HULL BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN SOUTHWARK SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE REDBRIDGE NEWCASTLE UNDER LYME NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE MANCHESTER LEEDS HUNTINGDONSHIRE HARROGATE EASTLEIGH CROYDON BIRMINGHAM BEXLEY
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 8, 2018 17:26:58 GMT
Anyone know if this is the complete list for boundary changes impacting this May? Have I missed any? Or might more appear? SOUTH LAKELAND HULL BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN SOUTHWARK SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE REDBRIDGE NEWCASTLE UNDER LYME NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE MANCHESTER LEEDS HUNTINGDONSHIRE HARROGATE EASTLEIGH CROYDON BIRMINGHAM BEXLEY Hastings. I don't think any more are likely to appear. South Cambridgeshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Huntingdonshire, Harrogate and Birmingham are moving to all up elections every 4 years. Whilst South Lakeland unusually for such a rural district sticks with thirds.
|
|