Contact
Point: Clive Joynes, Electoral
Services Officer. Tel 823341
APPENDIX A
1.1 The Isle Of Wight Council received a petition on 31st January 2006 calling for the creation of a “Carisbrooke” Parish Council. The Council is obliged to pass the petition onto the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission as received within a period of thirteen weeks of receipt, along with the Council’s views on the petition and any information the Council has relating to local opinion on the proposal. The Council may also make recommendations on the proposed boundary and the electoral arrangements of the Parish Council.
2.
Consultation:
2.1 An Official Notice was placed in the Isle Of Wight County Press, and used within the Carisbrooke area. The notice gave the locations of where the map of the proposed boundary could be viewed, including the Isle of Wight Council website, iwight.com, and requested that any comments on the boundary itself or the subsequent electoral arrangements be submitted to the Council by Friday 24th March 2006.
2.2
In addition to the
Official Notice, letters of notification were sent to neighbouring Parish
Councils and Community Partnerships, neighbouring Isle of Wight Council
members, the Isle of Wight Youth Council, the Isle of Wight Society of Local
Council Clerks, the Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Town Councils, and the
MP for the Isle of Wight, Andrew Turner.
2.3
A public meeting was
held in the Carisbrooke Church Hall on the evening of Friday 10th
March 2006; this meeting had been publicised in both the Official Notice, the
local Parish Press newsletter, and the Newport Beacon.
2.4 This
report details the consultation work undertaken with stakeholders regarding the
petition for the creation of a “Carisbrooke” Parish Council, the feedback
received, and makes recommendations to Council in the light of that
consultation.
3.
The Public Meeting:
3.1 The Public Meeting was held at 7:00pm in the Carisbrooke Church Hall on Friday 10th March 2006. A large-scale map of the area contained within the map submitted with the petition was on display.
3.2
It was noted that the proposed area included the whole of
one Isle of Wight Council Electoral Division, that of Carisbrooke West, along
with a further 137 properties in the Carisbrooke East Electoral Division, to
include properties in Spring Lane, Cedar Hill and both sides of Carisbrooke
Road as far as the monument at the junction with Castle Road. The proposed area does not include any land
that is already emparished.
4. Feedback from the Public Meeting:
4.1 Around 38 people attended the public meeting, with the majority, but not all living within the area in question. The meeting provided a good deal of positive feedback for the creation of the Parish Council. Of those present, only one person raised any degree of objection to the proposals, mainly focused around the extra precept that would have to be levied, and the need to actually have a Parish Council. There was also a degree of uncertainty in the minds of one or two other persons in attendance.
4.2 After an initial discussion on the establishment of a Parish Council, a show of hands was taken on the question of whether those present were in favour of the creation of such a body. Of those present, 21 were in favour, with 8 against and 3 abstentions.
4.3 A further show of hands was taken on the proposed boundary. 24 people were in favour of the boundary as proposed in the petition, with 1 person against, and 7 abstentions.
4.4 The matter of Warding arrangements was discussed next, and this proved quite divisive, with 14 people favouring an un-warded parish council, and 15 people favouring a division into 3 wards.
4.5 If the area was to be warded it was suggested that the areas be known as Carisbrooke, Gunville, and Rural. However, as the figures above suggest, no consensus on the matter could be reached, and the meeting remained divided.
4.6 Both members of the Isle of Wight Council whose areas are included either wholly or partially within the proposed parish area are supportive of having an un-warded parish council, and in the furtherance of ensuring that the area works together as a cohesive unit it is recommended that the Isle of Wight Council supports the creation of the parish council without being divided into wards.
4.7 Finally the possible electoral arrangements for the Parish Council were discussed. There were some variations in opinion as to the number of members who should serve on the Council, partially depending upon whether or not the area would be divided into wards.
4.8 Once again, whilst not totally conclusive, a show of hands produced the following results:
· 5 Councillors - None
· 7 Councillors - 15 people
· 8 Councillors - 8 people
· 9 Councillors - 2 people
· No views - 9 people
4.9 Whilst there was no overall consensus on the number of councillors who should serve on the Parish Council, the largest number of those who had a view preferred to have a total of 7 members. This is slightly lower than the original suggestion put to the public meeting of 8 members, and which was based on other Island Parish Councils of a similar electorate. It is therefore recommended that the Isle of Wight Council proposes to the Electoral Commission that the Parish Council should be served by 7 members.
5. Results of the Consultation Process:
5.1 Other than the feedback received during the course of the Public Meeting, six other comments were received regarding the content of the petition for the creation of the Parish Council.
5.2
Three messages of general
support were received, one from a member of the Isle of Wight Council whose Electoral
Division borders the proposed Parish Council area, and one each from Gurnard
Parish Council and Calbourne Parish Council, which are both adjacent to the
proposed area.
5.3
An e-mail was received
from a resident living just outside the proposed area on the estate area of
Carisbrooke pointing out that the proposed boundary cut the Carisbrooke
community in half as it did not include the residential area which gravitates
towards the local services provided in the village part of Carisbrooke such as
the shop and post office, the church, church hall and public houses. The
correspondent added that in their view it would have been more sensible to
create the Parish Council boundaries based upon the former Carisbrooke Ward of
the former Newport and Medina Borough Councils, rather than the current
“artificial electoral area”. The correspondent did not raise any objection to
the creation of the Parish Council.
5.4
A further e-mail was
received from an elector within the area expressing in quite strong terms the
view that the proposed Parish Council should not be divided into wards, as it
would lessen democratic choice as not all wards may have contested elections,
and that in their view the creation of wards could also lead to conflict and
division within the Parish Council if members of one ward tried to assert their
influence over the other(s).
5.5
A letter was received
on behalf of the members of Newport Area Forum which made the following
representations:
·
The application divides
the historic town of Carisbrooke in two
·
The application will
practically and financially disadvantage the residents of the proposed
emparished area of Carisbrooke
·
The application does
not recognise the views of those residents who would like to be included in a
wider Newport Area Town Council.
6.0
Recommendations:
6.1
All recommendations
associated with the proposed Parish Council are contained within the main body
of this report.