Note: The deadline for amendments is midnight, Monday 2 March 2020.

To consider a report of the Governance Committee on Boundary Commission Review, Part 2 (Warding Patterns) – attached.

 Procedural motion on behalf of Upminster and Cranham Residents Associations’ Group that a revision to the Group’s amendment be accepted for debate CARRIED by 50 votes to 0.

Procedural motion on behalf of Independent Residents’ Group that the Group’s amendment be dealt with as two separate amendments NOT CARRIED by 33 votes to 17.

Amendment on behalf of Independent Residents’ Group NOT CARRIED by 28 votes to 11.

Amendment on behalf of Upminster and Cranham Residents Associations’ Group NOT CARRIED by 28 votes to 17.

Amendment on behalf of Labour Group NOT CARRIED by 31 votes to 13.

Deemed motion on behalf of Administration CARRIED by 36 votes to 14.

A report of the Governance Committee asked Council to agree its preferred option to be submitted to the review of Havering’s local government electoral arrangements that was currently being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The Committee had considered a number of options and had recommended to Council Option 4A as shown attached to these minutes.

Councillor Ramsey raised a point of clarification on the minutes of the meeting of the Governance Committee held on 20 February 2020 which were included within the papers for the Council meeting. It was noted that he did not say that Heaton and Pettits wards were far apart politically; he had in fact said that the wards concerned were far apart geographically.

Deemed motion on behalf of the Administration

That the report be adopted and its recommendations carried into effect.

Amendment on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group

This Council agrees with Option 4A but rejects the proposal to divide the existing Rainham and Wennington ward into two, to create a one member ward north of New Road (A1306) and a two member ward south of New Road (replaced with a 3 Member ward known as ‘Rainham & Wennington) because it appears the proposal is made for partisan political advantage contrary to Boundary Commission criteria, and because:-

•          There is no special reason for a one member ward in this area, as its clearly part of Rainham and the ward has existed since the LB Havering was formed in 1964 and all residents consider themselves as living in Rainham, with the River Ingrebourne acting as a natural border.

•          The social and cultural connections between both sides of New Road are strong. For example, all residents consider Rainham Village Conservation Area and buildings a part of their heritage and attend Christmas and May Fayre’s organised by council supported Rainham Association for Village Events.

•          The dissecting New Road is easily crossed, meaning it’s a porous soft border rather than a hard border.

•          The main connecting road is Upminster Road North and South which is a busy bus and pedestrian route through a traffic light crossing.

•          Residents north of New Road use Tesco Extra in Rainham Village and the High Street in the south side for most of their local convenience shopping as there is only a few small shops on the north side.

•          There are three primary schools and a secondary school attended by children throughout the ward.

•          The north side contains about 45% of the population, so well above the 33% for an equal division of the ward. Therefore to equalise numbers Option 4A proposes dividing the north side between residents East and West of Upminster Road North, but this undermines the logic behind creating a separate ward north of New Road. How can the northern side be deemed a distinct area and then divided in an arbitrary way, with part of it remaining part of the south side?

•          One member wards should be the exception to ensure representation in case a member falls ill etc.

This Council agrees with Option 4A but calls on the Boundary Commission to implement the proposed changes for the 2026 rather than 2022 local elections, because:-

•          The projected big increase in population is based on planning consents for developments that may not be built and occupied by 2026, let alone 2022.

•          The creation of new wards in Romford and Beam Park based on projected increase in population will result in ghost wards with unequal representation if implemented for the 2022 local elections.

•          The big changes proposed to ward boundaries will result in many residents leaving and joining, old and new wards. This severe disruption is too close to the 2022 local elections. To ensure effective continuing representation a more evolutionary transition is needed by implementing the changes for the 2026 local elections.

•          Boundary Commission reviews work on projected figures to ensure longevity to the changes made. This aim is not compromised by implementing the Option 4A changes in 2026 as the last review was 20 years ago, so there is unlikely to be another review anytime soon.

•          Boundary Commission can exercise a sliding scale of discretion as everywhere is different. Big increases in projected population growth due to high density localised high rise building is untypical and requires a distinct response.

Amendment on behalf of the Upminster and Cranham Resident Associations’ Group

That the recommendation of the report be amended to read as follows:

Council approves the preferred option 1A (attached) to be submitted as the Council’s submission to the Commission. This is for the following reasons:

·         Retain the existing structure of 18 three member wards

·         Continuity of the existing wards and boundaries where possible, with changes kept to a minimum

·         Meet the prescribed LGBC conditions of 1) Electoral equality for votes 2) Community identities and interests and 3) Effective and convenient local government

Amendment on behalf of the Labour Group

The Labour Group hereby amends the Part 2 submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission recommended by the Governance Committee in respect of the Ward by Ward proposals as follows:-

1) Gooshays Ward (from Havering Park Ward) to include the following roads:- Kynance Close, The  Mount, Castle Close, Greenbank Close and Noak Hill Road

2) Heaton Ward (from Havering Park Ward) to include Sunset Drive.

A procedural motion was proposed on behalf of the Upminster and Cranham Residents Associations’ Group by Councillor Wilkins and seconded by Councillor Ford. The motion, to allow the alteration of the amendment by the Upminster and Cranham Residents’ Associations Group, was CARRIED by 50 votes to 0 (see division 1) and it was RESOLVED:

That the amendment on behalf of the Upminster and Cranham Residents’ Associations Group be changed so that it reads as follows:

The Upminster and Cranham Residents Associations’ Group hereby amends the Governance Committee preferred option for the following reasons:

The amendment:

·         Retains the existing structure of 18 three member wards

·         Provides continuity of the existing wards and boundaries where possible, with changes kept to a minimum

·         Meets the prescribed LGBC conditions of 1) Electoral equality for votes 2) Community identities and interests and 3) Effective and convenient local government

·         Ward names remain as at present, giving continuity to voters

The amendment produces the warding arrangement as per the supplementary agenda.

A procedural motion was proposed on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group by Councillor Durant and seconded by Councillor Tucker. The motion, to allow the amendment by the Independent Residents’ Group to be treated as two separate amendments, was NOT CARRIED by 33 votes to 17 (see division 2) and it was RESOLVED:

That the amendment on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group not be treated as two separate amendments.

The deemed motion was proposed by the Leader of the Council and seconded by the Deputy Leader. The proposer commented that the Labour Group amendment produced a variance of greater than 10% for Bedfords and Gooshays wards but did not state why such large variances were needed.

The amendment on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group was proposed by Councillor Tucker and seconded by Councillor Durant. The proposer pointed out that the preferred option sought to keep Rainham and Wennington ward at almost the same size but to reduce it to two Councillors. The proposer also did not support the overall increase in councillors under the preferred option, feeling that the overall numbers should be reduced in order to allow more Members to speak in debates etc.

The amendment on behalf of the Upminster and Cranham Residents Associations’ Group was proposed by Councillor Hawthorn and seconded by Councillor Tyler. This sought to retain 18 three Member wards and avoid unnecessary changes in ward boundaries. The proposer raised concern over the preferred option which sought to split Romford Town Centre between Gidea Park, Hylands, Mawneys and Pettits wards which was not felt to be efficient. Concern was also raised over the planned Berwick Pond ward which sought to create a new ward from an area more affiliated to Upminster.

The amendment on behalf of the Labour Group was proposed by Councillor Darvill and seconded by Councillor McGeary. This sought to locate a small number of roads in the Gooshays ward which, under the preferred option, would be located in the Bedfords ward. This suggested variance was based on community and geographical reasons as it would link properties in this area more closely with the existing communities in the Gooshays ward.

During general debate, Members raised a number of issues including that the likely rise in population meant it would be necessary to split Romford Town Centre across several wards. It was also felt that a one Member ward could be justified if it was right for that community. A Member also felt that it was positive that the entire community of Marshalls Park would be brought together in the Pettits ward. Population growth would also mean more and different sized wards would be needed.

A Member added that the Heath Park area was currently split across wards but had a distinct community identity. Under the preferred option, the full Heath Park area would be incorporated into Gidea Park ward. The Elm Park area would also be united within one ward. Another Member commented that the Rainham and Wennington ward was divided under the preferred option along the North Road area and that this ward should retain three Members. A Member added that the preferred option respected community boundaries and the proposed new ward names would identify local communities better.

Other issues raised included the changes proposed to St Andrews ward and that the preferred option now placed almost all of Gidea Park within one ward. A Member felt that the preferred option offered more sensible ward boundaries across the borough and also provided more meaningful ward names. It was felt that the rise in population in the Central Romford area meant that the amendment proposed by the Upminster and Cranham Residents Associations’ Group was not sustainable. The preferred option put the community at the heart of the proposals. All core public sites in Gidea Park for example would now be within the same ward.

Concern was raised by a Member over there only being one Councillor for the proposed Berwick Pond ward. There appeared to be no back up if the ward Councillor was absent for any reason and the Damyns Hall aerodrome in the area was associated by the local community with Upminster rather than any other area. Another issue raised was that the Exhibition Estate in Gidea Park would in fact be in Pettits ward under the preferred option.

Following debate, the amendment on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group was NOT CARRIED by 28 votes to 11 (see division 3); the amendment on behalf of the Upminster and Cranham Residents’ Association Group was NOT CARRIED by 28 votes to 17 (see division 4); the amendment on behalf of the Labour Group was NOT CARRIED by 31 votes to 13 (see division 5); the deemed motion on behalf of the Administration was AGREED as the substantive motion by 36 votes to 14 (see division 6).

RESOLVED:

That the report be adopted and its recommendation carried into effect i.e. that the preferred option 4A be approved to be submitted as the Council’s submission to the Commission.