Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Swindon Borough Council
Electoral review
March 2011
Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:
Tel: 0207 664 8534 Email: [email protected]
The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Licence Number: GD 100049926 2011
Contents
Summary 1
1 Introduction 3
2 Analysis and draft recommendations 5
Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 9 Rural Swindon 9 Central and south area of Swindon town 10 West area of Swindon town 11 North area of Swindon town 13 Conclusions 14 Parish electoral arrangements 15
3 What happens next? 17
4 Mapping 19
Appendices
A Glossary and abbreviations 21
B Code of practice on written consultation 25
C Table C1: Draft recommendations for Swindon Borough 27 Council
Summary
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of Swindon Borough Council to ensure that the authority has appropriate electoral arrangements that reflect its functions and political management structure. The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same.
This review is being conducted in four stages:
Stage Stage starts Description Council size 20 July 2010 Submission of proposals for council size to the LGBCE One 28 September 2010 Submission of proposals to the Commission on council size and warding arrangements for the authority and its analysis and deliberation Two 21 December 2010 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of draft recommendations. Three 29 March 2011 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them Four 20 June 2011 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations
Submissions received
During Stage One, the Commission received 27 submissions. The Conservative Group on Swindon Borough Council put forward proposals for a 58-member council, with 19 three-member wards and one rural single-member ward. It also put forward a ‘reserve’ submission based on a 57-member council providing a uniform pattern of 19 three-member wards. The Swindon Labour Party also put forward proposals, endorsed by the Swindon Liberal Democrat Group, for a 57-member council providing a uniform pattern of 19 three-member wards. The Commission also received representations from a number of parishes, residents associations and local residents. All submissions can be viewed on our website, at www.lgbce.org.uk.
Analysis and draft recommendations
Electorate figures
Swindon Borough Council has forecast an increase in electorate of just under 5% across the whole district, for the six-year period 2010-2016. The Commission is content that the forecasts are the most accurate available at this time.
1
Council size
We received 13 representations during our initial consultation on council size. The Council proposed the retention of the existing 59-member council. The Labour Group on Swindon Borough Council advocated between 60 and 62 members, while the Liberal Democrat Group put forward two proposals, for 42 and 69 members. The Commission considered the evidence received and noted that the Council had put forward some evidence to support the retention of the existing 59 members. However, given that the council elects by thirds, it had not proposed a council size that would enable a uniform pattern of three-member wards across the borough. Having considered the evidence, the Commission considered that the council size should be reduced to 57 members.
General analysis
Having considered the submissions received during Stage One, we are proposing a pattern of 19 three-member wards for Swindon. Our proposals are based on a mixture of the Conservative Group’s 57-member council proposal and the Labour Party’s proposals. We have also put forward a number of amendments to these proposals to better reflect local communities. Under our draft recommendations, no ward would have a variance of over 10% by 2016.
What happens next?
There will now be a consultation period, during which we encourage comment upon our draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for Swindon Borough Council contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 20 June 2011. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.
We would particularly welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence. We will consider all the representations submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. Express your views by writing to us:
Review Officer Swindon Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]
The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk.
2
1 Introduction
1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review Swindon Borough Council’s electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.
2 We wrote to Swindon Borough Council as well as other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals first on the council size and then on warding arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review have informed our draft recommendations.
3 We are now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish our final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for Swindon Borough Council in autumn 2011
What is an electoral review?
4 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.
5 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.
Why are we conducting a review in Swindon?
6 This electoral review is being conducted following the our decision to review Swindon Borough Council’s electoral arrangements as, based on the December 2009 electorate figures, 36% of wards varied by more than 10% from the average. In addition, Abbey Meads ward has 68% more electors than the borough average. The borough is currently represented by 59 councillors.
7 The population of any local authority area is constantly changing, with inward or outward migration, as well as people moving between different areas within the same authority. This is particularly the case where areas are subject to major growth or regeneration initiatives. As a result of these changes in population, the levels of electoral fairness change, with some councillors representing considerably more – or
1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. . 3 fewer – electors than their colleagues. This review will also seek to reduce these imbalances across the local authority.
How will our recommendations affect you?
8 Our recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the council. They will also decide which electoral ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward and, in some instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your electoral ward name may change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. If you live in a parish, the name or boundaries of that parish will not change.
9 It is therefore important that you let us have your comments and views on our draft recommendations. We encourage comments from everyone in the community, regardless of whether you agree with our draft recommendations or not. Our recommendations are evidence based and we would therefore like to stress the importance of providing evidence in any comments on our recommendations, rather than relying on assertion. We will be accepting comments and views until 20 June 2011. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in autumn 2011. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 17 of this report, as well as on our website (along with additional information and guidance), www.lgbce.org.uk.
What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?
10 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
Members of the Commission (and, from 1 April 2010, the LGBCE) are:
Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Jane Earl Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB
Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall
4
2 Analysis and draft recommendations
11 Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Swindon Borough Council we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed ward boundaries, ward names, and parish or town council electoral arrangements. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.
12 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Swindon is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:
secure effective and convenient local government provide for equality of representation reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular o the desirability of arriving at boundaries that easily identifiable o the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties
13 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over the next five years. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward at the end of the review.
14 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five-year period.
15 Under the 2009 Act, where a council elects by thirds or halves (as opposed to the whole council being elected every four years), there is a presumption that the authority should have a uniform pattern of three-member and two-member wards respectively. We will only move away from this presumption where we receive compelling evidence to do so and where it can be demonstrated that an alternative warding pattern will better reflect our statutory criteria. Our starting point for this review therefore, is that Swindon should have a uniform pattern of three-member wards given its current electoral cycle of elections by thirds.
16 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Swindon Borough Council, the external boundaries of parish councils, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that our recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and we are
2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.
Submissions received
17 Prior to and during the initial stages of the review, we visited Swindon and met with members and officers from the Council. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 13 representations during our initial consultation on council size for Swindon and a further 27 during Stage One, all of which may be inspected at both our offices and those of Swindon Borough Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.
Electorate figures
18 Swindon currently has 157,145 electors (December 2010). Swindon Borough Council predicted that the electorate would grow by 5% to 164,862 by 2016. Although this figure is somewhat high, we note that since the last review was completed in 1999 the electorate in Swindon has grown by 16% and we acknowledge that growth in the area is set to remain high.
19 We acknowledge that electorate projections are not an exact science but we consider those provided by the Council to be the best forecasts presently available and have based out draft recommendations on them.
Council size
20 Swindon Borough Council currently has 59 members. At the beginning of the electoral review, we consulted locally on the most appropriate number of councillors (council size) for the authority and received 13 submissions.
21 The Borough Council put forward a proposal for 59 members which detailed the different roles and responsibilities of different elements of the Council’s political management structure. This was, in part, supported by the Labour Group on the Council, which advocated between 60 and 62 members. The Liberal Democrat Group put forward two proposals, for 42 and 69 members. The remaining submissions either did not make comments on specific council sizes, or did not address how their preferred number of elected members related to the Council’s political management structure.
22 The Council provided evidence of its governance and management structure, the workload and roles of non-executive councillors, its ‘Connecting People, Connecting Places’ initiative, parish and town councils and the representational role of councillors. It also considered proposals put forward by the Labour Group for between 60 and 62 members and Liberal Democrat Group proposals. However, it concluded that council size should remain at 59 members.
23 The Liberal Democrat Group objected to the Council’s proposals and concluded that they would lead to an increase in councillor workload and lead to the councillor being unrepresentative in terms of the population. It therefore put forward proposals for either 69 or 42 members. It argued that a 69-member council would make workload ‘manageable’. However, it also argued that under a 42-member council,
6 increased workload could be offset by Special Responsibility Allowances and that council officers could also take on some of the workload.
24 The Labour Group argued that a survey of members suggested that Swindon borough councillors are overworked in comparison to those in other areas of the country. It also argued that in some wards with high workload, senior council members may be unable to fulfil their role as ward members, forcing the other councillors in those wards to pick up additional work. It detailed the number of hours that members should spend on various roles and concluded that a council of between 60 and 62 would enable members to effectively fulfil all the functions to which the Council is committed.
25 Haydon Wick Parish Council argued that council size should not exceed 60. The four remaining submissions on council size from parish councils put forward general comments on the review process and council representation. The five submissions from local residents also put forward general comments, with two questioning the need for three members per ward.
26 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We noted that the Council put forward detailed evidence to support the retention of the existing 59 members. We also noted that it conducted an exercise evaluating the current political management system. However, we also noted that the Council had not appeared to have given consideration to seeking a council size that would enable a uniform pattern of three-member wards across the borough.
27 We also noted the Labour Group proposed a council size close to the existing 59 members, proposing a council of between 60 and 62 members. However, we did not consider that it had put forward particularly strong evidence to support its proposal. We noted the two proposals put forward by Liberal Democrat Group, but considered that there was no evidence to support its proposal for a 69-member council and only limited evidence to support its proposal for a 42-member proposal.
28 On balance, we considered that while the Council put forward good evidence for retaining the existing council size, it had failed to reflect the need to provide for a uniform patter of three-member wards. Furthermore, we did not consider there is sufficient evidence to justify an increase in council size. We therefore recommend that council size is reduced to 57 which would enable a uniform pattern of three- member wards.
Electoral fairness
29 As discussed in the introduction to this report, the prime aim of an electoral review is to achieve electoral fairness within a local authority.
30 Electoral fairness is a fundamental democratic principle by which each elector in a local authority has a vote of equal weight. Our aim is to make recommendations to provide for electoral fairness, reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.
31 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The authority average is calculated by dividing the total
7 electorate of the borough (157,145 in December 2010 and 164,862 by 2016) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 57 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 2,757 in 2010 and 2,892 by 2016.
32 Under our draft recommendations, there will be no wards in which the number of electors per councillor will vary by more than 9% from the average across the borough by 2016. Overall, we are satisfied that we have achieved very good levels of electoral fairness under our draft recommendations for Swindon.
General analysis
33 During Stage One, the Conservative Group on the Council submitted proposals for a 58-member council, with 19 three-member wards and one rural single-member ward. It also put forward a ‘reserve’ submission based on a 57-member council providing a uniform pattern of 19 three-member wards. Under both proposals no ward would vary by more than 10% from the average number of electors by 2016.
34 The Swindon Labour Party also put forward proposals for a 57-member council providing a uniform pattern of three-member wards. These proposals were ‘endorsed’ by the Swindon Liberal Democrat Group.
35 The Conservative Group argued that its 58-member proposal would enable a single-member Ridgeway ward and therefore ‘preserve natural communities and respect key geographical divides’. A number of other respondents also argued for single-member wards in certain areas, including the single-member Ridgeway and Blunsdon wards.
36 Although we acknowledge the concerns about the creation of a uniform pattern of three-member wards, proposals for a single-member Ridgeway ward are not in accordance with seeking to reflect the borough’s electoral cycle of elections by thirds. We do not consider that the Conservative Group or other respondents put forward sufficiently robust evidence to persuade us to move away from a pattern of three- member wards in any part of the borough, particularly when reasonable alternative proposals have been submitted that provide for a uniform warding pattern. We have therefore not pursued the Conservative Group’s 58-member proposal, or proposals for single-member wards further.
37 We have based our proposals on a mixture of the Conservative Group’s 57- member proposal and the Swindon Labour Party's 57-member proposal, subject to a number of minor amendments.
38 Our proposals would result in 19 three-member wards. By 2016 no ward would have an electoral variance of over 10%. We consider that our proposals provide for good electoral equality and strong identifiable boundaries. A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table C1 (on page 27-28) and Map 1.
8
Electoral arrangements
39 This section of the report details the submissions we have received, our consideration of them, and our draft recommendations for each area of Swindon. The following areas of the authority are considered in turn:
Rural Swindon (page 9-10) Central and south area of Swindon town (page 10-11) West area of Swindon town (page 11-12) North area of Swindon town (page 13-14)
Rural Swindon
40 The Swindon rural area comprises the rural area to the north, east and south of Swindon town and is entirely parished. The area currently has single-member Blunsdon, three-member Highworth, single-member Ridgeway and three-member Wroughton & Chiseldon wards. These wards currently have 3% more, 16% fewer, 3% fewer and 4% more electors per councillor than the borough average respectively.
Blundsdon and Highworth 41 Our draft recommendations for this area are based on the Conservative Group’s proposals for a three-member Blunsdon & Highworth ward, comprising Castle Easton, Hannington, Highworth, Inglesham and Stanton Fitzwilliam parishes and part of the Blunsdon St Andrew parish.
42 There was general agreement between the Conservative Group and the Swindon Labour Party over the creation of a three-member Blunsdon & Highworth ward. However the Conservative Group’s proposal used the A419 as a boundary whereas the Swindon Labour Party included a larger area of Blunsdon St Andrew parish in its proposed ward.
43 On balance, we consider that the use of A419 provides a stronger boundary and have therefore decided to adopt the Conservative Group’s Blulnsdon & Highworth ward as part of our draft recommendations. Under our draft recommendations this ward would have 2% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2016.
Old Town, Ridgeway and Wroughton & Chiseldon 44 This area is currently represented by a three-member Old Town & Lawn ward, single-member Ridgeway ward and three-member Wroughton & Chiseldon ward. These wards currently have 16% more, 3% fewer and 4% more electors than the borough average.
45 Our draft recommendations for this area are based on the Conservative Group’s Old Town and Wroughton & Wichelstowe wards and a modified version of its Lawn & Ridgeway ward, transferring South Marston parish to the St Margaret ward in the east of the Swindon urban area.
46 The Conservative Group proposed a three-member Lawn & Ridgeway ward, comprising South Marston parish with Bishopstone, Chiseldon, Liddington and
9
Wanborough parishes and the Lawn area of Swindon town. The Swindon Labour Party put forward a similar Ridgeway & Lawn ward, but included only part of Chiseldon parish and a larger area of Swindon town, including the Lawn area.
47 As a result of their different proposals for Chiseldon parish and the Swindon town area of their Ridegway wards, the Conservative Group and Swindon Labour Party put forward different proposals for the remainder of this area. The Conservative Group proposed a Wroughton & Wichelstowe ward comprising the whole of Wroughton parish. This area also includes the Wichelstowe development, which will see the area north of the M4 grow from 18 electors to 2,760 by 2016. It argued that its Wroughton & Wichelstowe ward combined Wroughton with the community that will grow in Wichelstowe as it the area is developed, stating that both areas would be served by Ridgeway School. It also proposed an Old Town ward comprising the Old Town and Okus areas of Swindon.
48 The Swindon Labour Party proposed combining the remainder of Chiseldon parish with Wroughton parish to create a Wroughton & Chiseldon ward, and the Wichelstowe development area with the Okus area of Swindon Town to create a Commonweal & Wichelstowe ward.
49 Wroughton Parish Council stated it was more ‘aligned’ with Wichelstowe than other villages to the south of Swindon. Councillor Bennet (Ridgeway ward) and Liddington Parish Council requested the retention of a single-member Ridgeway ward. Wanborough Parish Council rejected the proposal for a three-member ward in this area and argued that the parish should be linked to Covingham parish.
50 We do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to transfer Covingham parish out of a town ward into a rural ward. Indeed, such a proposal would have a significant knock-on effect on our proposals for the town, particularly the Covingham & Nythe area. The proposals from the Conservative Group and Swindon Labour Party for a Ridgeway ward both include the Lawn area of the town and note that this is unavoidable if securing a uniform pattern of three-member wards. We had concerns that the Swindon Labour Party proposal included more of the town area than is necessary and that it’s proposal included the Wichelstowe development with the Okus area.
51 However, we consider that the inclusion of South Marston parish in a Ridgeway ward may not reflect local transport links. Our tour of the area confirmed that South Marston Parish has more direct links into the St Margaret’s area of Swindon town. While there may be some concerns about joining the more rural South Marston parish with a town area we consider this would better reflect local communication links. Under our draft recommendations the Lawn & Ridgeway, Old Town and Wroughton & Wichelstowe wards would both have 7% fewer, 1% fewer and 3% more electors than the borough average by 2016.
Central and south area of Swindon town
52 This area comprises the urban area to the south of the mainline railway.
Covingham & Nythe, Dorcan, Parks, Walcott 53 This area is currently represented by the three-member Covingham & Nythe ward, comprising Nythe parish and part of Stratton St Margaret parish. This ward
10 currently has 11% fewer electors than the borough average. The three-member Dorcan and Parks wards are unparished and have 16% fewer and 11% fewer electors than the borough average, respectively. The two-member Walcot ward has 6% more electors than the borough average.
54 We have decided to adopt the Swindon Labour Party's proposed Covingham & Liden, Park South & Dorcan and Walcot & Park North wards without amendment as part of our draft recommendations.
55 In this area the Conservative Group and Swindon Labour Party proposed different configurations of three-member wards, but covering an almost identical total area. We had concerns that the Conservative Group’s proposed Greenbridge & Nythe ward divides the Eldene community, joining part of it with Walcot West, to which it has no direct road links. As mentioned above, we note the suggestion that Covingham parish should be transferred to a Ridgeway ward, but we do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to support this and note that the Covingham area has good links within the Swindon Town area.
56 We consider our draft recommendations provide for more compact wards and avoid the division of the Eldene area. Under our draft recommendations, Covingham & Liden, Park South & Dorcan and Walcot & Park North wards would have 3% fewer, 5% fewer and 2% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2016, respectively.
Central and Eastcott 57 This area is currently represented by the three-member Central, Eastcott and Old Town & Lawn wards. The area is unparished and each ward has 2% more, 1% more and 16% more electors per councillor respectively than the borough average. The two-member Walcot ward has 6% more electors than the borough average.
58 We are adopting the Swindon Labour Party's Central and Eastcott wards without amendment as part of our draft recommendations. The Conservative Group and the Swindon Labour Party put forward broadly similar Central and Eastcott wards. However, the Swindon Labour Party included the whole of the town centre shopping area in its Central ward, while the Conservative Group transferred a small part to the west of the central area into its proposed Western ward. The Liberal Democrat Group supported the inclusion of the whole of the town centre shopping area in a single ward.
59 We consider that the town centre area should not be divided between wards. In addition, we do not consider that the Conservative Group put forward sufficient evidence for transferring a small area of the existing Central ward to its Western ward which in our view, would not reflect communities or use strong boundaries. We have concluded it would be better retained in Central ward to the south of the railway line. Under our draft recommendations Central and Eastcott wards would have 3% more and 4% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2016 respectively.
West area of Swindon town
Freshbrook & Grange Park, Shaw & Nine Elms, Toothill & Westlea and Western 60 The current three-member Freshbrook & Grange Park, Shaw & Nine Elms and Western wards are all unparished and have 5% fewer, 10% fewer and 6% more
11 electors than the borough average respectively. The two-member Toothill & Westlea ward is unparished and has 10% more electors than the borough average.
61 We have decided to adopt the Conservative Group's proposal for Lydiard & Freshbrook, Shaw and Western wards as part of our draft recommendations in this area, subject to a minor amendment to the Western ward.
62 The Conservative Group and the Swindon Labour Party put forward different proposals for this area. The Swindon Labour Party’s submission included a proposal to transfer the Sparcells area to its Sparcells & Haydon End ward (discussed in detail in the North are of Swindon town, page 13). Under this proposal, the Sparcells area has no direct road links to Haydon End without travelling outside of Swindon borough. Given this lack of direct road links within the borough, we decided against the Swindon Labour Party’s proposed ward.
63 The Sparcells area contains over 1,900 electors and by rejecting this aspect of the Swindon Labour Party’s proposals there is a significant impact on the remainder of its proposals in this area and also the north area of Swindon, worsening electoral equality in the remainder of the area. We have been unable to fully consider the Swindon Labour Party’s proposals for this area further.
64 Councillor Moffatt (Western ward) and the Western Branch Swindon Labour Party both called for the retention of the existing Western ward, citing links between the Even Swindon, Rodbourne and Ferndale communities. While we note these comments, no respondent put forward proposals that retain this ward while also providing warding arrangements for the surrounding areas to the north and south. We have been unable to determine any warding pattern that would retain the Western ward, while also securing good levels of electoral equality in the neighbouring areas.
65 We note that the Conservative Group’s proposed Western ward divided the existing Western ward but, as mentioned above, we do not consider there are any viable alternatives. We also had some concerns about the boundary between the Conservative Group’s Shaw and Western wards given that it runs through the Westlea area. However, it is not possible to improve this boundary without significantly worsening electoral equality in either the Western or Shaw wards, or using a significantly weaker boundary between the other wards in this area.
66 We consider our draft recommendations will provide for wards that are relatively compact, and given the way many of the areas are configured into discrete housing developments with cul-de-sacs and limited routes. Our recommendations use sensible boundaries, including the railway line which runs through the existing Western ward. We are making one minor amendment to Western ward. As described above we do not consider that the proposal to transfer part of the existing Central ward to Western ward reflects local communities or uses a strong boundary. We consider that this area is best retained in Central ward to the south of the railway line.
67 Under our draft recommendations Lydiard & Freshbrook, Shaw and Western wards would have 2% fewer, 9% fewer and 9% fewer electors than the borough average in 2016, respectively.
12
North area of Swindon town
Abbey Meads, Gorse Hill & Pinehurst, Haydon Wick, Moredon, Penhill, St Margaret and St Philips 68 The three-member Abbey Meads, Gorse Hill & Pinehurst, Haydon Wick, Moredon, St Margaret, currently have 68% more, 13% fewer, 1% fewer, 7% fewer and 2% more electors per councillor respectively than the borough average. We have decided to base our draft recommendations on the Conservative Group's proposals for this area subject to a few minor amendments.
69 As described above (paragraph 61) the Swindon Labour Party's proposals for Sparcells & Haydon End created a ward that would have no direct road links between these areas. Our decision no to adopt this proposal has a considerable knock-on effect to our consideration of the rest of the Swindon Labour Party’s proposals in this area. The Sparcells area contains over 1,900 electors and trying to accommodate this area would force significant amendments to the Swindon Labour Party’s proposals for the remainder of this area and those areas to the south.
70 The Conservative Group proposed three-member Haydon Wick, Pinehurst, Priory Vale, Rodbourne Cheney, St Andrews, St Margaret and Upper Stratton wards, which would have 1% fewer, 9% more, 6% more, 6% more, 3% fewer, 8% fewer and 4% more electors per councillor than the borough average respectively by 2016.
71 Stratton St Margaret Parish Council put forward proposals for two three- member wards that would be wholly coterminous with its parish boundaries. Haydon Wick and Blunsdon St Andrew parish councils put forward proposals for wards covering their areas. Ferndale Residents’ Association, Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association and Rodbourne Green Residents’ Association all put forward representations about their local areas, arguing that their areas should not be divided between wards. Councillor Moffatt and the Western Branch Swindon Labour Party both requested the retention of the existing Western ward, citing links between the Even Swindon, Rodbourne and Ferndale communities. Finally, a number of local residents highlighted Rodbourne Cheney’s links with the existing Moredon ward.
72 We have considered Stratton St Margaret Parish Council’s proposals and note that while they would secure good electoral equality, they only reflect the St Margaret parish area and would require significant amendments to our draft recommendations in the surrounding wards to the south and west. We cannot consider any area in isolation and therefore are not adopting these proposals as part of our draft recommendations. We also note the proposals from Haydon Wick and Blundson St Andrew's parishes. Again, these proposals only work in isolation and would require a significant redrawing of the proposals in the surrounding areas.
73 As already discussed in the Old Town, Ridgeway and Wroughton & Chiseldon section above, following a tour of the area, we have proposed an amendment to the Conservative Group’s Lawn & Ridgeway ward and consider that South Marston parish should be transferred into our proposed St Margaret & South Marston ward. As a result, electoral equality in St Margaret & South Marston ward would move from 8% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average in 2016 to 9% more.
13
74 We also propose a minor amendment to the boundary between the Conservative Group’s St Margaret and Upper Stratton wards to improve the access for the electors in the Retingham Way area. This amendment would improve electoral equality in Upper Stratton to 0% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2016, but worsen it in St Margaret ward to 9% more.
75 We noted the requests for the retention of the existing Moredon and Western wards, and the arguments about the Rodbourne, Rodbourne Cheney and Even Swindon communities. However, while the existing wards have good levels of electoral equality, it is not possible to consider them either in isolation or to retain them and provide suitable electoral arrangements for the surrounding areas. Although we have received some submissions describing the links between these areas, we have found it difficult to determine the extent of the boundaries of and between these communities. We would welcome local views in determining the full extent of communities in this area.
76 While noting that the Conservative Group’s proposals divide the Gorse Hill area between its Pinehurst and Upper Stratton wards, we have concluded that it is not possible to find alternative ward patterns without significantly worsening electoral equality to well over 10% in either Pinehurst or Upper Stratton wards. The layout and road access of the residential areas in these wards does not allow for areas to be transferred to offset any amendment in the Gorse Hill area. For example, the A4311 provides a strong boundary that we do no believe should be breached. On balance, we consider that it is better to retain the whole of the Cricklade Road in a single ward, rather than running the boundary down the road and dividing it between two wards. Under our draft recommendations, Haydon Wick, Pinehurst, Priory Vale, Rodbourne Cheney, St Andrews,, and St Margaret & South Marston wards would have 2% more, 8% more, 3% more 9% more, 2% fewer and 9% more electors than the borough average by 2016, respectively.
Conclusions
77 Details of our draft recommendations are set out in Table C1 (on pages 27-28), and illustrated on the four large maps we have produced. The outline map which accompanies this report shows our draft recommendations for the whole authority. It also shows a number of boxes for which we have produced more detailed maps. These maps are available to be viewed on our website. If you require a copy of any large-scale detailed maps from our website, please contact us using the details found in Chapter 3 of this report.
78 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, comparing them with the current arrangements based on 2010 and 2016 electorate figures.
14
Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements
Draft recommendations 2010 2016 Number of councillors 57 57 Number of electoral wards 19 19 Average number of electors per councillor 2,757 2,892 Number of electoral wards with a variance 5 0 more than 10% from the average Number of electoral wards with a variance 2 0 more than 20% from the average
Draft recommendation Swindon Borough Council should comprise 57 councillors serving 19 wards, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.
Parish electoral arrangements
79 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single district ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.
80 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Swindon Borough Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.
81 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parish of Haydon Wick, Blunsdon St Andrew and Stratton St Margaret. We would particularly welcome comments on these proposals from the Haydon Wick, Blunsdon St Andrew and Stratton St Margaret parish councils and local residents during this consultation stage.
82 Haydon Wick Parish Council is currently divided into three parish wards: Haydon End, represented by four members, Haydon Wick, represented by 13 members; and Ray, represented by one member. As a result of our proposed electoral ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised parish electoral arrangements for Haydon Wick parish to reflect our proposed borough warding arrangements in this area.
15
Draft recommendation Haydon Wick Parish Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing two parish wards each returning eight councillors: Haydon End and Haydon Wick. The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 2.
83 Blunsdon St Andrew Parish Council is currently divided into four parish wards: Abbey Meads, Blunsdon, Baxter and Kingsdown, represented by nine, six, one and one member respectively. As a result of our proposed electoral ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised parish electoral arrangements for Blunsdon St Andrew parish to reflect our proposed ward arrangements in this area.
Draft recommendation Blunsdon St Andrew Parish Council should comprise 17 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Abbey Meads, returning 12 members; Baxter, returning one member; Blunsdon, returning three members; and Kingsdown, returning one member. The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 2.
84 Stratton St Margaret Parish Council is currently divided into four parish wards: Coleview, represented by four members; Lower Coleview & Nythe, represented by four members; St Margaret, represented by seven members; and St Philip, represented by eight members. As a result of our proposed electoral ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised parish electoral arrangements for Stratton St Margaret parish to reflect our proposed ward arrangements in this area.
Draft recommendation Stratton St Margaret Parish Council should comprise 23 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Coleview, represented by four members; Lower Coleview & Nythe, represented by four members; St Margaret, represented by seven members; and St Philip represented by eight members. The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 2 and 4.
16
3 What happens next?
85 There will now be a consultation period of 12 weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for Swindon Borough Council contained in this report. We will take into account fully all submissions received by 20 June 2011. Any submissions received after this date may not be taken into account.
86 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for Swindon and welcome comments from interested parties relating to the proposed ward boundaries, number of councillors, ward names, and parish council electoral arrangements. We would welcome alternative proposals backed up by demonstrable evidence during Stage Three. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.
87 Express your views by writing directly to:
Review Officer Swindon Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]
Submissions can also be made by using the consultation section of our website, www.lgbce.org.uk or by emailing [email protected].
88 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all Stage Three representations will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of Swindon Borough Council, at our offices in Layden House(London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk. A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.
89 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. In autumn 2011 we intend to publish our final recommendations. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft recommendations.
17
18
4 Mapping
Draft recommendations for Swindon
90 The following maps illustrate our proposed electoral ward boundaries for Swindon Borough Council :
Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for Swindon Borough Council.
Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed wards Swindon town – north area.
Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed wards in the west of Swindon town – west area.
Sheet 4, Map 4 illustrates the proposed wards in the east of Swindon town – south area.
19
Appendix A
Glossary and abbreviations
AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it
Boundary Committee The Boundary Committee for England was a committee of the Electoral Commission, responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Boundary Committee’s functions were assumed by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in April 2010
Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either
Council size The number of councillors elected to serve a council
Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority
Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council
Electoral Commission An independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. Its aim is integrity and public confidence in the democratic process. It regulates party and election finance and sets standards for well-run elections
Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s
20
Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority
Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections
Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England was established in April 2010. It is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews of local authorities in England.
Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors
National Park The 132 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk
Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors
Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average
Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents
Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town Council’
21
Parish (or Town) Council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward
Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council
PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Committee for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England
Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader
Town Council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk
Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average
Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average
22
Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council
23
24
Appendix B
Code of practice on written consultation
The Cabinet Office’s Code of Practice on Consultation (2008) (http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf) requires all government departments and agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, are encouraged to follow the Code.
The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 November 2008, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed.
Table B1: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s compliance with Code criteria
Criteria Compliance/departure Timing of consultation should be built into the planning We comply with this process for a policy (including legislation) or service from requirement. the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.
It should be clear who is being consulted, about what We comply with this questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. requirement.
A consultation document should be as simple and concise We comply with this as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at requirement. most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.
Documents should be made widely available, with the We comply with this fullest use of electronic means (though not to the requirement. exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
Sufficient time should be allowed for considered We consult at the start of the responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks review and on our draft should be the standard minimum period for a consultation. recommendations. Our consultation stages are a minimum total of 16 weeks.
25
Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly We comply with this analysed, and the results made widely available, with an requirement. account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.
Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, We comply with this designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the requirement. lessons are disseminated.
26
Appendix C
Table C1: Draft recommendations for Swindon Borough Council
Ward name Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance councillors (2010) electors per from (2016) electors per from
councillor average councillor average % % Blunsdon & 3 8,484 2,828 3 8,882 2,961 2 1 Highworth 2 Central 3 8,500 2,833 3 8,945 2,982 3
Covingham & 3 8,880 2,960 7 8,459 2,820 -3 3 Liden 4 Eastcott 3 7,931 2,644 -4 8,333 2,778 -4
5 Haydon Wick 3 8,924 2,975 8 8,815 2,938 2
Lawn & 3 7,328 2,443 -11 8,040 2,680 -7 6 Ridgeway Lydiard & 3 8,870 2,957 7 8,517 2,839 -2 7 Freshbrook 8 Old Town 3 6,368 2,123 -23 8,590 2,863 -1
Park South & 3 8,691 2,897 5 8,278 2,759 -5 9 Dorcan 10 Pinehurst 3 9,355 3,118 13 9,368 3,123 8
11 Priory Vale 3 8,136 2,712 -2 8,936 2,979 3
27
Table C1 (cont): Draft recommendations for Swindon Borough Council
Ward name Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance councillors (2010) electors per from (2016) electors per from councillor average councillor average % % Rodbourne 3 9,013 3,004 9 9,421 3,140 9 12 Cheney 13 Shaw 3 8,218 2,739 -1 7,917 2,639 -9
14 St Andrews 3 7,268 2,423 -12 8,542 2,847 -2
15 St Margaret & 3 9,106 3,035 10 9,470 3,157 9 South Marston 16 Upper Stratton 3 8,905 2,968 8 8,712 2,904 0 Walcot & Park 3 9,104 3,035 10 8,823 2,941 2 17 North 18 Western 3 7,779 2,593 -6 7,912 2,637 -9
Wroughton & 3 6,285 2,095 -24 8,902 2,967 3 19 Wichelstowe Totals 57 157,145 – – 164,862 – –
Averages – – 2,757 – – 2,892 –
Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Swindon Borough Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number 28