Conservative and Unionist Group and supported by their local Party
Ward Boundary Review Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Kingston upon Hull City Council
October 2016 Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
1
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Introduction
This contribution to the electoral review of Kingston upon Hull City Council represents the view of the Conservative Group, supported by the local Conservative Party but who may nevertheless choose to submit directly certain comments.
This submission has hopefully benefitted from inputs by both the serving councillors, but we have also taken soundings from former councillors, community campaigners and Party activists, who collectively aided us in providing detailed local knowledge of the whole city.
Our proposals for the City accept that Hull is a series of communities and recognise the fact that the tight boundaries with an estuarial river to the South and a tidal river up the centre of the City make for unusual constraints. We have therefore chosen to place a very strong emphasis on “community” and less weight on “one size fits all” wards. Because we believe in all-out elections, our proposals make sense and reflect our firm belief that Citizens should be able to change an administration “at a stroke” which we believe will once again see an increase in turnout and a reversal of the steady decline.
At the time of writing it is not clear whether or not there will be an agreed Council response. We remain willing to try and secure one but the doctrinaire approaches taken in certain areas by some suggest this may not be achievable. Interestingly enough our own proposals show a lack of doctrinaire rigidity because compiling the number based on communities the final number of councillors here (58), still falling within the spectrum suggested by the LGBCE, is actually one less than our initial proposals based on the council structure (59). As a result we feel the community test outweighs the structures test we applied in our response to the first stage of the LGBCE process and 58 becomes our settled proposal. We hope this lack of doctrinaire rigidity will be helpful to the LGBCE and demonstrates our “bottom up” approach not picking a number just because it is divisible by three!
2
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Approach
In drawing up our submission, we have adopted the following approach:
Electoral equality for voters
As far as possible, when faced with a City geographically defined as a semi-circle, one of the least flexible shapes to work with, we have sought to maintain a consistent ratio between voters and elected members. There are a few small variances, either as a result of community or geographical area, but community has been first and foremost our watchword.
Local communities
This boundary review provides an opportunity to create a pattern of wards in the city that is based on the local communities people live, work and socialise in, some of which have remained little changed since the last review, but some of which have changed. Widespread demolitions, the building of a new outer estate, and shifts in employment, have served to alter senses of communities in some places. The current ward boundaries do not reflect local communities well in some parts of the city.
In drawing up our submission, we have again emphasised the sense of community under-pinned by our belief in the democratic advantage of the move to all-out elections. Our proposal consists of a combination of 1, 2 and 3-member wards, which reflects the size and nature of the communities contained within, whilst still accepting the need for equality of representation for the people living in those communities.
We also recognise the immense importance of the docks as a community. Bereft of voters in the main, apart from one riverside community on an infilled dock, we have sought to make matters clearer for business investment and confidence by putting all the docks into just two wards. This will sharpen the focus of elected stakeholders, promote transparency, and increase accountability for the fundamental economic driver of the City.
Electoral equality for voters
We propose an arrangement comprising 24 wards: 3 of 1 councillor; 8 of 2 councillors and 13 of 3 councillors. The total number of councillors is 58, 1 more than the Commission is minded to agree. The figures used are those projected for the City’s electorate for 2022, which have already been submitted to the Commission. Details are provided below for proposed individual wards, with revised number of electors, and in the attached maps for visual reference. The Report will then go on to explain, where changes have been proposed, why such proposals were made. 3
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
West of the River Hull (95,682; 51%)
Map 1 – current; Map 2 – Proposed
Beverley (6,243; 3%)
1. Currently totals 6,243pe (projected estimate). 2. This Ward to be left as is. 3. Two Member Ward.
Orchard Park (6,793; 4%)
1. Currently totals 9,001pe. 2. Retain OPGC, D, E, and F in their entirety (5,373pe). 3. Plus 1/2 of OPGG (approx 340pe) and 4/5th of OPGB (approx 1,081pe). 4. Revised totals 6,793pe. 5. Two Member Ward slightly renamed
University (8,909; 5%)
1. Currently totals 6,701pe. 2. University in its entirety (6,701pe). 3. Plus OPGA (1,598pe), 1/5th of OPGB (approx 270pe) and 1/2 of OPGG (approx 340pe). 4. Revised totals 8,909pe. 5. Three Member Ward.
Bricknell (6,355; 3%)
1. Currently totals 6,255pe. 2. Bricknell in its entirety (6,255pe). 3. Plus a small extension into NWDE to cover Scholars Drive (approx 100pe). 4. Revised totals 6,355pe. 5. Two Member Ward.
Newland (3,655; 2%)
1. Currently totals 6,628pe. 2. NWDC and A in their entirety (2,406pe). 3. Plus NWDE minus Scholars Drive, as above (approx 1,249pe). 4. Revised totals 3,655pe. 5. One Member Ward. 4
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Sculcoates (New Ward) (2,873; 2%)
1. Currently does not exist. 2. NWDB and D in their entirety (2,873pe). 3. One Member Ward.
Avenue (9,546; 5%)
1. Currently totals 9,546pe. 2. This Ward to be left as is. 3. Three Member Ward.
Derringham (9,534; 5%)
1. Currently totals 9,102pe. 2. Derringham in its entirety (9,102pe). 3. Plus 1/4 of BFYC (approx 432pe). 4. Revised totals 9,534pe. 5. Three Member Ward.
Boothferry (9,510; 5%)
1. Currently totals 9,579pe. 2. BFYD and B in their entirety (4,878pe). 3. Plus PKGF in its entirety (1,105pe), plus 3/4 of BFYC (approx 1,296pe), and 3/4 of BFYA (approx 2,231pe). 4. Revised totals 9,510pe. 5. Three Member Ward.
Newington (10,383; 6%)
1. Currently totals 8,201pe. 2. Newington in its entirety (8,201pe). 3. Plus 1/4 of BFYA (approx 744pe) and the northern 2/3rd of PKGA (approx 1,438pe). 4. Revised totals 10,383pe. 5. Three Member Ward.
5
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Pickering (6,235; 3%)
1. Currently totals 8,778pe. 2. PKGB, C, D and E (with the boundary line drawn at Clive Sullivan Way – 0 electors presumed in the Southern portion) in their entirety (5,516pe). 3. Plus 1/3rd PKGA (approx 719pe). 4. Revised totals 6,235pe. 5. Two Member Ward.
St Andrews (9,137; 5%)
1. Currently totals 5,648pe. 2. St Andrews in its entirety (5,648pe). 3. Plus MYTA (2,636pe) and 2/3rd of MYTB (approx 853pe). 4. All of the area South of Clive Sullivan Way to be included in STAA for completeness. 5. Revised totals 9,137pe. 6. Three Member Ward (large and complex area warranting slight over representation).
Myton (6,509; 3%)
1. Currently totals 9,998pe. 2. MYTF, E, D, and C in their entirety (6,082pe). 3. Plus 1/3rd of MYTB (approx 427pa). 4. Revised totals 6,509pe. 5. Two Member Ward.
West of the River Hull: 30 Members
6
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
East of the River Hull (90,939; 49%)
Map 1 – current; Map 3 – Proposed
Kingswood (New Ward) (9,884; 5%)
1. Currently does not exist. 2. KPKC and D in their entirety (5,584pe). 3. KPKB and A in their entirety (2,915pe). 4. Plus 1/2 of BHWB and BHWA, formed into one polling district (approx 1,386pe). 5. Revised totals 9,884pe. 6. Three Member Ward.
Bransholme East (7,424; 4%)
1. Currently totals 7,424pe. 2. This Ward to be left as is. 3. Two Member Ward.
Bransholme West (3,684; 2%)
1. Currently totals 6,141pe. 2. BHWC in its entirety (2,298pe). 3. Plus 1/2 of BHWB and BHWA, formed into one polling district approx 1,386pe). 4. Revised totals 3,684pe. 5. One Member Ward.
Sutton Park (New Ward) (5,801; 3%)
1. Currently does not exist. 2. KPKE, SUTE and BHWD in their entirety (5,801pe). 3. Two Member Ward.
Sutton (10,368; 6%)
1. Currently totals 9,111pe. 2. SUTA, B, C and D, INGE and F in their entirety (9,437pe). 3. Plus 1/3rd of HOLC (approx 931pe) 4. Revised totals 10,368pe. 5. Three Member Ward. 7
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Wilberforce (New Ward) (10,281; 6%)
1. Currently totals 9,211pe. 2. INGA, C, D LONC and D in their entirety (10,281pe). 3. Three Member Ward.
Bilton (New Ward) (6,644; 4%)
1. Currently totals 8,697pe. 2. LONA, B, E, INGB and MARF in their entirety (6,644pe). (There would be scope for a small tidy up of the lines in the current Marfleet F and E to take into account the roundabout as a boundary rather than vertically dividing horizontally aligned streets) 3. Two Member Ward.
Marfleet (8,383; 4%)
1. Currently totals 9,077pe. 2. MARB, C, D, E, G, H, SCEA and B, in their entirety, plus the residential area of MARA and all points North of Hedon Road. (8,383pe) 3. All of the area South of Hedon Road to be included in DRYF for completeness. 4. Three Member Ward (large and complex area warranting slight over representation).
Sculcoates (New Ward) (10,104; 5%)
1. Currently does not exist. 2. SCWA, B, C, SCEC, D, E and MARI in their entirety (10,104pe). 3. All of the area South of Hedon Road to be included in DRYF for completeness. 4. Three Member Ward.
Drypool (9,423; 5%)
1. Currently totals 9,423pe. 2. This Ward to be left as is except the boundary line to be drawn to include the entire South of Hedon Road – 0 electors presumed in the Southern portion. 3. Three Member Ward.
8
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Holderness (8,942; 5%)
1. Currently totals 9,873pe. 2. HOLA, B, D, E in their entirety (7,080pe). 3. Plus 2/3 of HOLC (approx 1,862pe). 4. Revised totals 8,942pe. 5. Three Member Ward (large and complex area warranting slight over representation).
East of the River Hull: 28 Members
58 Members in Total One less than initial submission of our Group – please see summary.
9
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Local Communities
Details are provided below as narrative to describe the changes and reasons for them wherever ward boundary changes are proposed. Those not mentioned below are those where the boundaries remain the same:
West of the River Hull
Map 1 – current; Map 2 – Proposed
Orchard Park / University
We have reflected the fact that Greenwood Avenue is seen as a natural dividing line and reflected this on the ground with a more readily understandable and fixed line – if residence is North of Greenwood Avenue then the ward is Orchard Park, those residing South of it will be in University ward. Greenwood Avenue is a major dividing line in a community with significantly lower car usage.
Bricknell
Socially cohesive, as borne out by the atypical census returns it is hard to alter a ward bounded by a railway line to the south and west, and a dual carriageway (40 mph in parts) to the North; and where the more permeable boundary to the east would result in including student rented houses at the expense of the Newland community based on Newland Avenue. Confident, based on initial proposals last time, others would seek to gerry-mander away Conservative representation on the Council, we were hesitant to be seen to change our own seat with a majority of 7 and no changes impacting on what was accepted as a community last time by the LGBCE. However local residents in Scholar’s Drive expressed an opinion their new- build housing stock and social demographics (car-owning, employed or well pensioned, owner- occupiers) meant a better “fit” with Bricknell than the largely private rented and young-people demographic increasingly reflecting Newland Ward. Consequently we have reflected that community wish, but would not resist the “status quo” either which also seems an honourable proposal allowing the electorate the choice of retaining a Conservative presence rather than subverting democracy and the LGBCE’s role with blatant political fixes.
Newland
We share the view in the new Council Planning Plan that Newland Avenue is a clear and distinct community. With a good range of shops, being a secondary road, and with crossings clearly based on readily identified “desire lines” as a result of an extensive mapping exercise as part of the “safer by Design” road transport scheme, Newland Avenue and the streets off are a homogenous whole. Largely based on the historic parish of Newland, as incorporated by the
10
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Victorians, we have recognised the compelling argument that this really is a closely defined community. Increasingly becoming a student rented area, not to diminish the vestiges of the historic community, architecturally, socially, largely homogenous and bounded by major roads to the North and the East this ward is a strong community sense and as a result is proposed as a single-member Ward – the numbers also allowing this.
Sculcoates
Talking to local residents to the East of Beverley Road in the current Newland Ward revealed they didn’t work, shop, socialise, or spend leisure time on Newland Avenue but saw matters very much that they were a community bounded by the river and the Beverley Road (A1079). Bounded by the river to the East, a major road to the North and West, this community differs from Newland in that it contains a substantial amount of the historic Hull industrial area, and whilst there are many corner shops the major bus route means many look towards the City Centre for their leisure and retail opportunities. Although students are a presence in this area they are not yet a majority even in the rented sector and we felt this, along with the other factors, meant there was a community divergence with Newland. For the foregoing reasons we have reflected those two historic parishes as two separate wards, in essence splitting the current two member Newland Ward into two single member wards reflecting community not an amalgam of two disparate communities.
Derringham
Recognising the socially unifying aspects of the local library, we also failed to understand why part of Wold Road was in Boothferry ward, nor why County Road South was felt to be a natural barrier. Consequently, we propose moving the norther boundary of BFYC from County Road to align North of Segrave Grove, thereby also inclusing all of Wold Road in the new Derringham ward. The southern-most boundary extends, in our proposal, West of Segrave Road, joining the existing line to allow the continuation of Willerby Road entirely in Derringham Road from the junction with Wold Road.
Boothferry
We found no compelling reason to cross North Road, one of the main North/South roads accessing Hessle Road and thus (eventually) the M62 via the A63, solely within the existing BFYA. We also saw no reason to regard the A1108 as the sort of road someone readily crossed on the random idea someone else may be in for a “cuppa and a natter”. Whilst recognising the original sense of community around the Elgar Road to Rokeby Park part of PKGF may have once made it a more separate community, we found that the changes on the ground strongly undermined that argument and the semi-circle around Costello playing fields formed more of a community of outlook than crossing the major road to the South of the playing fields.
Newington 11
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Similarly we saw no reason to cross North Road at this point (for the reasons outlined in the proposed changes to Boothferry above). The northern 2/3 of the current PKGA shifting to Newington reflects the fact that Hessle Road at that point is a clear community barrier with the southern 1/3 therefore sitting more comfortably with the current PKGD in the new Pickering ward.
Pickering
We have contained the new Pickering Ward between Hessle Road and the A63, two major transit routes at those points, and recognising the strong unifying presence of the school locally.
St Andrews
Beneficiary of our wish to recognise the dock “community”. With the current exception of Victoria Dock “village” and the projected residential development of the former Fruit Market, both immediately adjacent to the City Centre, South of the Government owned A63 is overwhelmingly dock and commerce. Our desire is to reflect that and recognise the A63 as a barrier that requires expensive solutions to cross. We therefore put the area West of the River Hull and South of the A63 all into this Ward to provide a sharper economic focus on the key driver for the City.
Although superficially there is a difference in the housing stock West and East of Rawling Way, the current divide between Myton and St Andrews, we found no compelling sense of the current MYTA being part of the wider Myton. Rawling Way is not a major road to cross, and the residents there are isolated from other residential areas of Myton by the retail/commercial City Centre itself and the railway lines before substantial tranches of residential areas are again encountered. We therefore placed the residential community together, rather reflecting social provision in the area.
Myton
We have been conscious that, as with other Cities, there is an immense burden of work inherent in representing a City Centre, and the fact almost every other Councillor has a feeling they have opinions on it on behalf of their residents. We recognise the uniquely different added work this places on members. Our proposals remove responsibility for riverside action, the residential “Danzig Corridor” of MYTA, and create a ward based on the City Centre, as defined in every council plan, and the immediately adjacent residential communities who incontrovertibly look towards the City Centre for their needs. This creates a smaller and more compact Ward allowing greater focus on strategic issues relating to the City Centre.
12
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
East of the River Hull
Map 1 – current; Map 3 – Proposed
Kingswood
It is clear that Kingswood is being built as a community and this is recognised in the City Plan and the Kingswood AAP. We would have preferred to have just made it a ward on its own using KPKA, KPKB, KPKC, and the northern element of KPKD but the numbers do not stack up and the consequential “knock on” throughout our initial draft proposals didn’t meet sufficient LGBCE guidelines. We therefore base our proposals around the sense of what is built on the ground and balance the numbers more readily by using part of BHWB and BHWA.
We would have preferred to have recognised that what seem like large open spaces North of Kingswood and South of the City boundary will be built on soon and have submitted proposals that recognised Kingswood will be one entire community and ward sooner rather than later, however we do not interpret the guidance as allowing us to. As a result imperfect proposals have to be made and we are in danger of repeating the same process errors that helped trigger the LGBCE intervention now. NB, at the last boundary change we were reduced to 59 councillors from 60 because our population was deemed to have reduced, and arguments that Kingswood would soon restore population levels were not deemed appropriate under the process. The Kingswood population increased as predicted and, albeit coupled with some other demographic shifts, the disparity in voter ratio between Kingswood and St Andrews triggered an “intervention”. It seems likely we may well be in a similar position sooner than later this side of 2022?
Bransholme West
The remainder of BHWA and BHWB plus the entirety of BHWC are proposed as a single member ward since they reflect a cohesive pattern and help address the other senses of community that need meeting
Sutton Park
Sutton Park was always built as a community and only became dismembered to try and make up the electoral balance for the then much smaller Kingswood development. Now Kingswood can be more self-identifying as a Ward we wished to redress the sense of grievance felt by Sutton Park residents at the erosion of their identity. We therefore recreate a ward based around the original Town Planner’s vision. We recognise a small amount of Bransholme is included but submit that whilst the entirety of Stroud Crescent West and area may well architecturally, and in terms of build dates, not be entirely harmonious with Sutton Park the road layout isolates it form the “spiritual” home of Bransholme itself.
13
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Sutton
Another area on the ground complicated by poor Town Planning decisions of the past, we are also acutely conscious of the character of Sutton village, which is part of Hull but still retains a separate identity and unique sense of place. We started from a premise that, like Kingswood and Sutton Park, there was a strong sense of identity which meant that retention in whole was vital. We have placed much reliance on schooling patterns in the creation of this ward also. Conscious as we are that this Ward is a finely tuned marginal between the other two Groups on the council, we at least can be sure that our proposals are untainted by electoral considerations!
Wilberforce
Named around the existence of the College in East Hull, and with as much historic connection to Wilberforce as that College has, this community is the inevitable consequence of the decisions taken around Sutton (tempered with the guidance on councillor/voter ratios) and the major community dividing effects of Holderness Road.
Bilton
Another inevitable consequence of recognising both Sculcoates’ and Marfleet’s identity and the road pattern in the area.
Marfleet
Recognising the historic and community sense as well as subsequent Town Planning decisions, this Ward gains a clearer sense of identity however by moving westwards to the Holderness Drain which unifies it more with homes than their current “link” with Sculcoates. Removing the “orphaned” residential area in MARI and transferring all the docks South of Hedon Road, a major Government owned trunk road, again strengthens the economic focus on the docks which will be evidenced in Drypool Ward.
Sculcoates
We place recognition on both the historic nature of the area and the Holderness Drain, whilst trying to accommodate the schooling patterns as well. The area of residential dwellings currently in MARI is too “orphaned” from the rest of Marfleet’s residential area so the Polling District is dismembered North and South of Hedon Road with the new Sculcoates gaining the residential area and the dock area going into the new Drypool ward.
Drypool
14
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Although it is hard to argue that Drypool is an organic and cohesive community, crossing two major arterial roads and incorporating two “villages” at the North and South of the ward connected by disparate housing, the population figures proved impossible to create a single member ward even for the geographically self-defined Victoria Dock Village. We therefore propose that the Ward be left alone as the unifying effects of the last boundary change have set up a new form of community identity. However we do propose that the area be substantially increased by the inclusion of all dock areas South of Hedon Road and East of the River Hull. Whilst the case could be made, measured by our desire to streamline the administration and representation of the Humber docks, for all docks South of Hedon Road and East of the River Hull to be in Marfleet that would have made Victoria Dock even more a “sore thumb”.
Holderness
Again the inevitable consequence of decisions taken elsewhere but sensible boundaries which reflect the River Hull to the West, the existing sensible boundary line between Holderness and Drypool to the South, the existing major road and building break between the existing Holderness and Sutton Ward to the North, and Holderness Road to the East. These factors are also weighted in much of the planning considerations taken within the Council as well.
15
Hull City Council Conservative and Unionist Party Submission October 2016
Summary
We have used current Polling Districts as the “currency” for our proposals. We are conscious that there are arguments to be had on some finer areas (such as the south-eastern portion of the dividing line between MARE and MARF for example) and there will need to be a redrawing of Polling Districts should any of these proposals be accepted. However we feel this is a sensible building block in the incessant balance between community and electoral numbers.
We have drawn up our proposals with reference to the extant and emerging plans of Hull City Council, with particular emphasis on those produced by the Planning Department as they have Statutory weight. We have also relied on the Transport Plan as submitted to HMG, omnibus routes, school catchment areas, church parishes (where known) and calculations of distance from libraries/shops/community centres etc. Inevitably compromises have been made and some indexes of community are contradictory, as is inevitable in a City which has evolved over the centuries rather than starting with a largely “blank canvas” and the “big-bang” Town Planning of a New Town.
However, the one thing we can say is electoral considerations have played no part – if only because we do not have that sophisticated a universal database. Whereas Labour undoubtedly will go for all three member wards since, with more Labour voters than any other Party the bigger the ward the easier it is to swamp pockets of opposition, we have gone for the community test first. It would be to our political benefit (and probably the Liberal Democrats’ as well) to have 57 or so single member wards of 3,300 or so each – the smaller the area the easier to find those pockets of non-Labour votes – but whilst we remain committed to this as an aim we have currently eschewed such proposals as the community test does not evidence a huge number of “mini-wards” on the current voter/councillor ratios.
The Conservative Party locally are engaging in discussions on the criteria for future boundary reviews, the current system seeming to us to be difficult to work for local communities and invidious for Commissioners.
16
ADDENDUM TO THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST BOUNDARY REVIEW PROPOSALS
Kingston-Upon-Hull Local Government Boundary Review NOVEMBER 2016 WEST OF THE RIVER HULL INITIAL PROPOSALS AFTER AMENDMENTS Proposed Proposed Target Deviation Proposed Proposed Target Deviation No. of No. of Number from No. of No. of Number from Ward Electors Members of Electors Target Electors Members of Electors Target Reasoning (and net movement of electors) Beverley 6243 2 6436 -2.999% 6243 2 6436 -2.999% No change. Orchard Park 6793 2 6436 5.547% 6793 2 6436 5.547% No change. University 8909 3 9654 -7.717% 8909 3 9654 -7.717% No change. Bricknell 6355 2 6436 -1.259% 6355 2 6436 -1.259% No change. Very large student population so always difficult to be sure of the exact numbers of electors. Also a very strong sense of community, with Newland Avenue as the main artery through the centre of the ward, with Newland 3655 1 3218 13.580% 3655 1 3218 13.580% boundaries of main roads or railway lines on all sides. Southcoates 2873 1 3218 -10.721% 2975 1 3218 -7.551% MOVED Pendrill St from MYTF to NWDB (+102) Avenue 9546 3 9654 -1.119% 9546 3 9654 -1.119% No change. Derringham 9534 3 9654 -1.243% 9534 3 9654 -1.243% No change. Boothferry 9510 3 9654 -1.492% 9510 3 9654 -1.492% No change. Newington 10383 3 9654 7.551% 10383 3 9654 7.551% No change. Pickering 6235 2 6436 -3.123% 6235 2 6436 -3.123% No change. St Andrews 9137 3 9654 -5.355% 9137 3 9654 -5.355% No change. Myton 6509 2 6436 1.134% 6407 2 6436 -0.451% MOVED Pendrill St from MYTF to NWDB (-102)
= Deviation from LGBCE-specified targets is too high ABC = Population increase
ABC = Population decrease
WEST OF THE RIVER HULL
Newland Ward
We recognise that the deviation of the Newland percentage from the ideal is high, but in actual elector numbers it is small. We believe considerable weight needs to be attached to the very significant community of interest this ward represents. Made up of a declining number of long-term residents, properties here largely go to the rented sector when they become free. The greatest proportion of those rentals are for the University students which presents a clear community cohesion issue and also presents challenges for capturing electoral data that at any moment in time is absolutely precise. Newland falls within Wyke Area, Wyke takes the lead on student matters and it seems to make sense to reduce the disparate number of voices, possibly divided by ideology, who will supply good governance for the students as a community as well. Whilst many students may only be here for three years they are still significant in terms of the economy and the demands placed on services that are far from designed around them. Furthermore Newland Avenue is a recognised focus for the streets to both the west and the east, with a range of shops that satisfy the needs of many residents be they long-term or students. Although there is a major bus-route into town along Newland Avenue, the retail and leisure offer supplies needs that mean the bus route is largely the sensible link to run services from the area north of Cottingham Road – and to assist transport connectivity for those wishing to leave Hull. We feel the creation of this ward, bounded by a major road to the north, and a high- level railway line to the south makes sense. Whilst the western boundary with Bricknell Ward lacks an obvious “physicality”, we reiterate that the line on the ground reflects a very clear divide in housing stock and other data determined in the census – even at the one road that connects them (Goddard Avenue) the original terraced pre-1914 housing stock, with “courts” off the main street and many student houses (currently in Newland Ward and recommended as such by us) is very different from the Bricknell Goddard Avenue. The part of Bricknell Avenue currently in Bricknell ward and proposed for retention by us, characterised by inter- war ribbon development closer to the semi-detached “Metroland ideal”, is largely owner- occupied, older, and has virtually no identification with Newland Avenue being mobile car drivers who, if they shop locally at all, use the convenience store or possibly Chanterlands Avenue when not driving into town.
Southcoates Ward
Too small by 10.7% in a Ward where voter registration is likely to be more accurate and population projections can be predicted with more reliability despite the existence of a private rented sector but it is one with more diversity of occupancy than that in the Newland that we propose. Historically there has been a tendency to respect, as a line on the ground, the former railway line to Botanic sidings and the seaside. Alas this railway line has not existed for some time, and the tracks as well as the track-bed largely no longer exist although it does form part of the council’s cycle-network, it is not adjudged a wild success in terms of the Dutch experience! With the closure of Endeavour School, it would seem possible to separate Pendrill Street from St Hilda Street, they are only connected otherwise in the sense they both access on to Beverley Road, and slightly deviate the boundary along the railway line at that point. By putting Pendrill Street into Myton Ward, Southcoates Ward would be 7.55% from target, with the impact on our proposals for Myton Ward altered to only 0.45%.
EAST OF THE RIVER HULL INITIAL PROPOSALS AFTER AMENDMENTS Proposed Proposed Target Deviation Proposed Proposed Target Deviation No. of No. of Number from No. of No. of Number from Ward Electors Members of Electors Target Electors Members of Electors Target Reasoning Kingswood 9884 3 9654 2.38% 9884 3 9654 2.382% No change. Bransholme MOVED Eastern portion of BHEA, East of Noddle Hill East 7424 2 6436 15.35% 6623 2 6436 2.906% Way, into Sutton (-801). Bransholme MOVED Southern-most portion of BHWC south of West 3683 1 3218 14.45% 3535 1 3218 9.851% Cricket Ground into SUTA (-148). Sutton Park 5801 2 6436 -9.87% 5801 2 6436 -9.866% No change. MOVED Southern-most portion of BHWC south of Cricket Ground into SUTA (+148). MOVED Eastern portion of BHEA, East of Noddle Hill Way, into Sutton (+801). MOVED INGF from Sutton to Wilberforce (- Sutton 10368 3 9654 7.40% 10375 3 9654 7.468% 942) MOVED INGF from Sutton to Wilberforce (+942). MOVED Southern-most portion of LOND, South of Wilberforce 10281 3 9654 6.49% 10088 3 9654 4.496% Main Road, from Wilberforce to Bilton (-1135) Moved LONA from Bilton to Marfleet (-470). MOVED Southern-most portion of LOND, South of Main Road, from Wilberforce to Bilton (-1135). MOVED Southern- most portion of MARF, South of Hopewell Road, from Bilton 6644 2 6436 3.23% 6734 2 6436 4.630% Bilton to Marfleet (+575). Moved LONA from Bilton to Marfleet (+470). MOVED Southern-most portion of MARF, South of Hopewell Marfleet 8383 3 9654 -13.17% 9428 3 9654 -2.341% Road, from Bilton to Marfleet (+575). Sculcoates 10104 3 9654 4.66% 10104 3 9654 4.661% No change. Drypool 9423 3 9654 -2.39% 9423 3 9654 -2.393% No change. Holderness 8942 3 9654 -7.38% 8942 3 9654 -7.375% No change.
= Deviation from LGBCE-specified targets is too high ABC = Population increase
ABC = Population decrease
EAST OF THE RIVER HULL
Bransholme West
Proposals too big by 14.44% are tackled by moving the southernmost portion of BHWC (Truro Close, Redruth Close, Lanyon Close et al, some 148 people) into SUTA. Views on the ground revealed a close affinity to “the cricket ground” was felt in SUTA rather more than in BHWC so we propose the line be drawn along the NNE-SSW axis to the north of the actual open space. Net effect, Bransholme West varies to being 9.85% away from the average and Sutton becomes 8.93% deviation and whilst both are on the high side, enough for “margin of error” if a real headcount was taken, we feel that further alterations would make for poorer government by interfering too much with community interests.
Marfleet
Proposals too small by 13%. By tidying the existing rather bizarre City Council boundary where the east of MARF meets the west of LONA and bisects a semi-circular road we suggest alterations from our Bilton whereby the entire LONA goes to Marfleet. As a result Marfleet is too small by -2.34% and Bilton too small by -13% which is necessary to deal with Bransholme East which is too large by 15.35% as identified from the initial submission. To deal with Bransholme East means we propose the following for Bilton, Bransholme East, and Sutton.
Bilton
Move the southern area of LOND, south of Main Road (some 1135 citizens) from Wilberforce Ward to Bilton. Although Main Road is not a great barrier, such as Holderness Road or Cottingham Road etc. in other parts of the City a road can be an identifier and the population density south of Main Road is rather greater than the area to the north so we consider this variation does not fail any community test since it recognises the area around Ark Royal is a community itself but the other communities around it are “pockets” and were not intended under the Town Planning process as pockets connected by an over-arching community identity. Consequently Bilton is 4.65% deviation above the notional average. Wilberforce becomes 5.2% below the notional average.
Bransholme East
We had tried to retain this Ward in an acceptance of the strong local feeling towards the idea of Bransholme. However one proposal was that but another suggests the “new build” private sector housing in BHEA (some 801 citizens) may feel less marginalised if they are moved into the more predominantly owner-occupied area of the new Sutton Ward, thereby leading to greater social cohesion and better governance by a clearer focus on the needs of citizens and an equality of interests. Bransholme East therefore becomes 2.9% above the average but Sutton Ward becomes 17% too large.
Sutton
Move the current INGF (some 942 citizens) from the proposed Sutton Ward to the proposed Wilberforce Ward. Again these proposals seem not to create a sense of community cohesion conflict wheresoever INGF should lie, but this variation maintains the current connection with INGD which has prevailed since the last boundary review. Consequently Sutton Ward becomes 7.46% above the average, and Wilberforce is above the average by 4.49%.