(a) From Mr MT Mullaney
"This council believes that there should be a parliamentary constituency that covers the bulk of the borough of Hinckley and Bosworth
The council accepts that a new Bosworth cannot be coterminous with the Borough as it would exceed the number of electors per constituency required by law.
This Council therefore notes with dismay the proposals by the Boundary Commission for England to create a Bosworth constituency nearly half of which comprises of wards from North West Leicestershire.
The Council believes that the proposals to move huge parts of Bosworth into a new Mid-Leicestershire and into Blaby constituency will effectively obliterate a Bosworth constituency in anything but name.
We believe the proposal to split Hinckley and Burbage is clearly nonsense as, for example, the majority of Burbage residents look towards Hinckley for its local services. We believe the same is true of proposals to split Barwell and Earl Shilton both of which have very close ties.
The Council therefore resolves to object to these proposals and calls on the chief executive to formally write to Boundary Commission to express this during the consultation process.”
(b) From Mr DC Bill
“This Council, having due regard to the standing of the Post Office and Royal Mail, views with dismay the news that it is the intention of the Royal Mail to close the sorting office in Hinckley in 2013.
This Council notes that the Royal Mail management and the unions have already expressed concern about the future of the staff and we share those concerns. We are just as concerned about the effect this will have on the delivery of vital postal services to this area.
We believe that if this move is carried out it will have an adverse effect on all customers of the Royal Mail both as individuals and as public or commercial concerns.
We object, therefore, in the strongest possible terms to this proposal and seek urgent discussions with the relevant decision-makers within the organisation to secure other viable alternatives.”
(c) From Mrs J Richards
This Council acknowledges that it has some considerable way to go to persuade the residents of Barwell and Earl Shilton of the wisdom of its plans to expand the settlements by well over four thousand dwellings along with associated employment land designations.
Given this acknowledgement and the significance of what Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council is proposing and the undeniable immense impact of this policy upon these two communities, this Council commits to commence a full and meaningful consultation of each and every household in Barwell and Earl Shilton before proceeding any further with its SUE plans.
Minutes:
(a) From Mr MT Mullaney
"This council believes that there should be a parliamentary constituency that covers the bulk of the borough of Hinckley and Bosworth
The council accepts that a new Bosworth cannot be coterminous with the Borough as it would exceed the number of electors per constituency required by law.
This Council therefore notes with dismay the proposals by the Boundary Commission for England to create a Bosworth constituency nearly half of which comprises of wards from North West Leicestershire.
The Council believes that the proposals to move huge parts of Bosworth into a new Mid-Leicestershire and into Blaby constituency will effectively obliterate a Bosworth constituency in anything but name.
We believe the proposal to split Hinckley and Burbage is clearly nonsense as, for example, the majority of Burbage residents look towards Hinckley for its local services. We believe the same is true of proposals to split Barwell and Earl Shilton both of which have very close ties.
The Council therefore resolves to object to these proposals and calls on the chief executive to formally write to Boundary Commission to express this during the consultation process.”
The motion was seconded by Mr Bill.
During discussion on the motion, some Members, whilst in general agreement that the boundary change proposals were nonsensical, felt that sending a letter would not be effective and it was suggested that Members should make representations individually or through their political groups.
Mr Bill, supported by a further eight Members, requested that voting be recorded on the motion. The vote was taken as follows:
Mr Bannister, Mr Bill, Mr Bray, Mr Cartwright, Mr Cope, Mr Crooks, Mr Gould, Mrs Hall, Mr Hall, Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Hulbert, Mr Inman, Mr Lay, Mr Lynch, Mr Mullaney, Mr Nichols, Miss Taylor and Ms Witherford voted FOR the motion (18);
Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mr Bessant, Mrs Camamile, Mrs Chastney, Mr Ladkin, Mr Moore, Mr Morrell, Mrs Richards, Mrs Smith, Mrs Sprason, Mr Sutton and Mr Ward abstained from voting.
The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and the motion supported.
Mrs Hodgkins and Ms Witherford left the meeting at 9.04pm.
(b) From Mr DC Bill
“This Council, having due regard to the standing of the Post Office and Royal Mail, views with dismay the news that it is the intention of the Royal Mail to close the sorting office in Hinckley in 2013.
This Council notes that the Royal Mail management and the unions have already expressed concern about the future of the staff and we share those concerns. We are just as concerned about the effect this will have on the delivery of vital postal services to this area.
We believe that if this move is carried out it will have an adverse effect on all customers of the Royal Mail both as individuals and as public or commercial concerns.
We object, therefore, in the strongest possible terms to this proposal and seek urgent discussions with the relevant decision-makers within the organisation to secure other viable alternatives.”
Mrs Hodgkins and Ms Witherford returned at 9.07pm.
Mr Lynch seconded the motion. Upon being put to the vote, it was declared CARRIED.
(c) From Mrs J Richards
“This Council acknowledges that it has some considerable way to go to persuade the residents of Barwell and Earl Shilton of the wisdom of its plans to expand the settlements by well over four thousand dwellings along with associated employment land designations.
Given this acknowledgement and the significance of what Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council is proposing and the undeniable immense impact of this policy upon these two communities, this Council commits to commence a full and meaningful consultation of each and every household in Barwell and Earl Shilton before proceeding any further with its SUE plans.”
The motion was seconded by Mrs Smith.
Mr Gould, seconded by Mr Hulbert, proposed an amendment to the motion, however the amendment was disallowed under paragraph 15.6(a) of the Council’s Constitution, as serving to negate the original motion.
Having reached 9.26pm, discussion ensued on whether to extend the meeting after 9.30pm. It was agreed that this would not be necessary.
Mr Bessant, supported by a further eight Members, requested that voting on the motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:
Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mr Bessant, Mrs Camamile, Mrs Chastney, Mr Ladkin, Mr Lay, Mr Moore, Mr Morrell, Mrs Richards, Mrs Smith, Mrs Sprason, Mr Sutton and Mr Ward voted FOR the motion (14);
Mr Bannister, Mr Bill, Mr Bray, Mr Cartwright, Mr Cope, Mr Crooks, Mr Gould, Mrs Hall, Mr Hall, Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Hulbert, Mr Inman, Mr Lynch, Mr Mullaney, Mr Nichols, Miss Taylor and Ms Witherford voted AGAINST the motion (17).
The motion was therefore not supported.