sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bramling, Chartham, Harbledown, Rough Common, Upper Hardres

CANTERBURY & COASTAL LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Canterbury City Council Re-warding proposals

Canterbury & Coastal Liberal Democrats note the Draft re-warding proposals issued by the Local Government Boundary Commission and are disappointed that they have been largely based on the views of the Canterbury Conservatives (masquerading as the views of Canterbury City Council). There are some positive differences, notably the proposed Ward which exactly matches our previous proposal although this is not mentioned in your commentary. This reuniting of a parish into one ward is very welcome so it is disappointing that you have proposed to split the Parish of & . We believe it is now possible to amend your draft proposals in a way that keeps most civil parishes within single wards. Our detailed comments are as follows.

Blean Forest Ward: The LGBCE proposal for this ward throws a bit of everything into one large ward. Very rural areas are mixed with University campus and residential urban areas. This seems to be an unwieldy construct without any logical identity. We also object to the splitting of Harbledown & Rough Common across two wards. It is therefore our suggestion that the existing Forest ward be retained as a 2 member ward. This will give 2013 electoral figures of 5710 (-2%) and 2019 electoral figures of 5907 (-4%).

Harbledown, Rough Common and St Thomas Ward: We recommend that the polling district CWE1 be joined with polling districts RH2 and RH3. This keeps Harbledown & Rough Common civil parish complete within a single ward and we understand that this is the solution favoured by the Parish Council. Indeed the CWE1 area was previously joined to Harbledown & Rough Common before previous boundary changes. This gives electoral figures for 2013 of 2959 (+2%) and for 2019, electoral figures of 3061 (-1%) and would be a single member ward.

Chartham & Stone Street Ward: It is good that your draft proposals re-unite the civil parish of , but unfortunate that the civil parish of Harbledown & Rough Common is split across proposed wards. We suggest that polling district RH2 (Harbledown) be joined with RH3 and CWE1 as outlined above. Chartham & Stone Street ward would then consist of the entire civil parishes of Chartham, , Waltham, and as well as the CWI2 polling district, part of Without Parish Council. This gives 2013 electoral figures of 5159 (-11%) and 2019 electoral figures of 5393 (- 13%). The figures are outside the preferred variance, but this does give a logical geographical and community boundary. We would rather keep CWI2 within Ward (the preferred option of Thanington Without Parish Council), but this would cause even greater variation from the mean in Chartham & Stone Street.

Barham, Bridge & Ward: This proposed Ward is completely unworkable and your assertion of good internal road links indicates you haven’t explored the area on the ground! Barham Downs Ward Councillor Mike Sole and Little Stour Ward Councillor Brian Staley have proposed splitting this ward into two single member Wards.

Nailbourne Ward This ward would consist of the polling districts of (RNN1), Bridge (RNN2), Barham (RBD2), Kingston (RBD3) and /Woolage (RBD4). The 2013 electoral figures are 3117 (+7%) and 2019 electoral figures would be 3242 (+5%).

Little Stour & Ward This ward would consist of the polling districts of Littlebourne (RLS2), Ickham/ (RLS3), (RLS4), Adisham (RBD1), (RNN3) and (RNN4). The 2013 electoral figures would be 3164 (+9%) and 2019 figures 3262 (+6%). We are in complete agreement with the comments from Councillors Staley and Sole. This proposal is supported by most, if not all Parish Councils within your proposed ward.

In conclusion, we consider that the decision to reduce representation on Canterbury City Council to 39 Councillors has been an arbitrary one, based purely of financial concerns and has nothing to do with local democracy or the clear views of residents as expressed in your initial consultation process. So much for “Localism”!

There is clearly no perfect solution to this exercise and it is to be hoped that the final outcome will be the least worst option possible. We believe that the suggested amendments outlined above will go some way to achieving that.

Nigel Whitburn

Agent

Canterbury & Coastal Liberal Democrats