Local Government Boundary Commission For Report No.352 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMr.ISSKW FOR Sil

CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Mr J H Runkin QC

MEMBERS

Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CB DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry To the Rt Hon William Whitelaw, CH, MC, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department

PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF IN THE COUNTY OF

1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the district of East Lindsey in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that district.

2. In aooordnnoe with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Aot, notion wan tftvrin on 21 April 197? tliat we worn to unddrtwka Uila r«v.t«w. This trmnrpomted Jit u ucmmil tutton )at;ti?i* HdilrnnBod t.o ifrnl. Undfl».y ninkrlul C»un"M , no pie* of which were oirotilnteil to Lincolnshire County Council, oounoiln and parish meetings in the district, Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of the local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local' government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies.

3. East Lindsey District Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 mid the guidelinen which we set out in our Report No. 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of .their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment.

4.. The Council have not exercised an option under section 7(4) of the Local Government Act 1972. The provisions of section 1(6) will therefore apply and the election of all councillors will be held simultaneously.

5. East Lindsey District Council presented their draft scheme of representation on 14 November 1975- The scheme provided for 50 wards each returning 1, 2 or 3 members to form a council of 60.

6. We considered the District Council's draft scheme together with related comments. We noted that the standard of representation was uneven and it appeared to us that a better standard could be achieved by a regrouping of . This reduced the number of wards from 50 to 46 but maintained a council of 60-members, Subject to -these modifications we decided to base our draft proposals on the draft scheme submitted by East Lindsey District Council.

7. On 20 October 1977 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. East Lindsey District Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us by 15 December 1977•

8. East Lindsey District Council, four parish councils, three parish meetings, several district councillors, a town council and a private individual on behalf of the residents of a parish.objected to various aspects of the draft proposals.

9. In view of these comments we decided that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1972 Act and at our request, Mr F L M Hurd V.R.D. was appointed an Assistant Commissioner. He was asked to hold a local1 meeting and to report to us. Copies of the comments were sent to East Lindsey District Council to be available for public inspection. Notice of the meeting was sent to all who had received our draft proposals or had commented on them, and was published locally.

10. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Town Hall, on 9 November 1978 having previously inspected certain areas of the district. A copy of his report is attached at Schedule 1 to this report.

11. In the light of the discussion at the-meeting and his visits to various parts of the district the Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals should be confirmed subject to the following modifications:- (i) the parish of with Haven be transferred from the proposed Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven ward to the proposed ward which would nevertheless return one councillor only. (ii) the name be adopted for the ward from which the parish of Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven is to be taken and that ward to return one councillor. (iii) the parish of Edlington be transferred from the proposed Horncastle ward to the proposed Rough ton - ward. Horncastle ward will return three councillors and Roughton ward one councillor as in the draft proposals. (iv) the parishes of , , and be transferred from the proposed ward to the proposed Alford ward. (v) the parish of be transferred from the proposed Willoughby with ward to the proposed Huttoft ward. (vi) the parishes of : ; Well, and Claxby .be transferred from the proposed Alford ward to the proposed Willoughby with Sloothby ward. (vii) the following wards in the town of Louth be substituted for those set out in our draft proposals viz; St James; St Margaret's; Korth Holme; Priory: St Mary's; St Michael's, and Trinity; each ward to return one councillor. (vili) the proposed Huttoft ward be renamed "Hogsthorpe" ward.

12. We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We noted that the Assistant Commissioner1s recommendations had the effect of increasing the wards in the town of Louth from 5 to 7 and, consequently, the total district ward* from 46 t~> -IT, but did not alter the total number of councillors. We further noted that the Assistant Commissioner'3 recommendations reflected more closely loc?l community tii-T., which had been stressed in the comments we received, without any detriment to the balance of representation. We concluded that the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted, and that subject to the modifications in paragraph 11 above and to the rewarding of certain parishes, we decided that our draft propoRals should be confirmed as our final proposals. The necessary warding orders have now been tmtde by the District Council.

13. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to this report and on the attached map. Schedule 2 given the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. A detailed"description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the map, is Get out in Schedule 3« PUBLICATION 14. In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to East Lindsey District Council and will be available for public inspection at' the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without the map ) are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. L.S.

S igned: NICHOLAS MORRISON (CHAIRMAN)

JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN)

PHYLLIS BOWDES

TYRRELL BROOCBANK

G E CHERRY

D P HARRISON

R R THORNTON

LESLIE GRIMSHAW (Secretary) 20 September 1979

4f SCHEDULE 1

REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARBANG3MENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF EAST LINDSEY REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (PETER' L. M. KURD, V.R.D.)

TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND,

1. INTRODUCTION.

1 I was. appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 65(2) of the Local Government Act, 1972, as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local inquiry or carry out any consultation or investigation with respect to the review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England of the electoral arrangements for the District of East Lindsoy in Lincolnshire under the provisions of Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972. 2 At the request of the Commission I held a meeting at the Town Hp.ll, Horncastle, on Thursday, 9th November 1973, starting at 101^0 a.m. The names and addresses of those who attended the meeting arid the n^mes of the bodice or persons whom they represented are set out in Appendix 1 to this report. The meeting was held under the consultative powers available under section 6*0 of the Act, and it was in no sense a formal local inquiry.

2. THE DISTRICT COUNCIL'S DRAFT-PROPOSALS

5 On .the 51st April 19751 the Commission invited the 3ast Lindsey District Council to prepare a draft schema of representation for the district, taking into account any views expressed to them by local interests, and to submit^ their draft scheme to tho Commission. 'On th-2 14th November 1975, the District Council submitted their draft scheme for the major part of the district the remaining proposals being submitted in May 197&. This provided for 5^ wards returning e. total of 60 councillors, two more councillors than under the present arrangOReuts* The present arrangements provide for '*! wards returning 5& members to the District Council* As the Council did not exercise an opticii under section ?''0 of the 1972 Act to have election by thirds a system of holding the elections of all the councillors of the district simultaneous],y will operate, k The only comment' on the Council's draft scheme was from Toynton 3t Peter Parish Council suggesting that their parish ard the Parish cf uhuuld bo linked with tho parishy.-i of i&ut.ar.d >'est Keal in tlie proposed ward.'. They claimed a greater affinity betv/een th« Toyntons sna the Keals than between the Toynt'ons and the remaindersof the'parishes in the proposed Mew Lcake ward. - 2 -

THE COKMT.SSIOH'S DRAFT PROPOSALS

5 The Commission concluded that the 'draft scheme submitted by the District Council provided an uneven standard of representation overall and that the boundaries of the new wards proposed for the successor parishes of Louth and could be improved. While adopting the Council's 60 member draft scheme as the basis of their proposals the Commission made a number of modifications to improve the standard of representation. These involved the re-grouping of parishes and parish wards. The Commission also proposed alternative boundaries for some of the new wards within Louth and Skegness.

k. THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

6 Prior to the meeting I was supplied by the Commission v/ith copies of the 13 written representations which they had received in response to the publication of their draft proposals. 7 These related to details of the Commission's draft proposals and are described individually in the paragraphs in this report relating to the discussion at the meeting. I read each representation to the meeting whether or not the individual or body on whose behalf it had been made was present or represented there. The District Council's only comment on the Commission's draft proposals related to the Alford, and Willoughby with Sloothby wards.

5* INSPECTIONS OF TTIE AREA o On the afternoon of the day before the meeting, I drove round the area of the East Lindsey District Council to inspect soir.e of the towns, parishes and proposed wards involved in the written representations. I- travelled through Gringsby, Tattersall and V.'oodhall Spa to Horncastle where I informed the District Council's officers of my arrival. I then proceeded along the A158 through Hagworthin^ham and Partney to where I turned off and made for Alford visiting en route the parishes of Weiton le Marsh, Willoughby with Sloothby, Claxby and Well. I then toured the villages and hamlets surrounding Alford paying particular attention to Bilsby, Markby, Beesby, , Thoresthorpe, Hough and Rigsby. After tea in Alford I returned to Wcodhall Spa by way of , , Toynton All Saints, , , Old Bolinghoke, Claxby Pluckacre, , and .

6. THE CONSULTATIVE MEETING

9 In opening the meeting I indicated that, after a few introductory remarks, it was my intention to invite representations on matters of general principle and thereafter to deal v/ith the representations on the Commission's draft proposals in the following order: - 3 - A. The Skidbrooke with Saltflect Haven and North Somercotec Wards B. The and Hundleby Wards C. The Horncatttle and Roughton Wards D. The Mareham-le-Fen and Wards E. The Alford, Partney and neighbouring Wards F. The Wards within the town of Louth 10 Next I briefly explained the statutory provisions within which the Boundary Commission, and therefore I as Assistant Commissioner, had to act. In particular I dealt with the requirements of Section '*?(!) of the 1972 Act that changes must be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and with the relevant rule in Schedule 11 to the Act, with which the Commission and every District Council had to comply. The latter read as follows: "3(1) This paragraph applies to the consideration by the Secretary of State or either of the Commissions of the electoral arrangements for elections of councillors of a district or borough. (2) Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of the local government electors of the district or borough likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration - (a) the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of councillors to be elected shall be as nearly as may be, the same in every ward of the district or borough; (b) in u district every ward of a parish or community having a parish or community council (whether separate or common) shall lie wholly within a single ward of the district; (c) in a district every parish or community which is not divided into parish or community wards shall lie wholly within a single v/ard of the district,,

(j5) Subject to sub-paragraph (2)' above, in considering the electoral arrangements referred to in sub-paragraph (l) above, regard shall be had to - (a) the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable; and (b) any .local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary".

11 I explained that there was one paramount requirement, namely that the ratio 01 the number of electors to the number of councillors must be, as nearly as may, the same in every ward. iSven the desirability of avoiding the breaking of local ties was sub-ordinated to this. There . was nothing whatever about not including different communities or p&rishoti having no ties with.each other in one ward, or about keeping all wards of one parish in the came district ward; on the contrary rule 3(2)(b) must have had in contemplation that different parish wards may be in different district wards. Nor was there anything about scattered population, width of geographical area, rural weighting, the'burden on rural councillors or having enough councillors in a ward to represent each identifiable community in the Ward. Nor did the Act require regard to bo had to nny party political effect. - 1* -

12 I indicated two areas of discretion. First, the Commission was only required to adhere to the rules "so far as iu reasonably practicable". Secondly, the ratio had only to be the same "as nearly as may be". I expressed the opinion that these two areas of discretion did not however permit the Commission, or myself, to sub-ordinate the same ratio rule to factors of the kind mentioned in the last preceding paragraph which are common factors over England as a whole and not peculiar to the East Lindsey District. 13 I then referred briefly to the various plans on display showing the respective proposals of the Boundary Commission and of the District Council and made a note of those present at the meeting who wished to make verbal representations, while East Lindsey District Council officers circulated a list to be signed by all those attending the meeting. l*t Mr R.W. Bannion, Chief Administrative Officer with the Lincolnshire County Council confirmed that so, far as he could see, the Boundary Commission's proposals should not present any problem in terms of future county electoral arrangements.

15 Mr H.C. Wilkinson, Director of Administration representing the East Lindsey District Council, informed me that the District Council had approved the scheme put forward by the Boundary Commission with the exception of the proposals for the Alford, Partney and Willoughby with Sloothby Wards in respect of which the Council had made a written representation, I attach as Appendix 2 an extract from the Minutes of the District Council to this effect. 16 No one else present wishing to make comments on any matter of general principle I then proceeded to the detailed discussion of the proposals.

A. The SKIDBROOK3 WITH SALTFLS5T KAVSN and NORTH

17 I read the written comment on the Commission's proposals which had been forwarded by Mr W.B. Fenner, the Clerk of the Slcidbrooke and Saltfleet Haven Parish (who was present at the meeting) outlining the community of interest his Council shared with the adjoining North Somercotes Parish Council with which they were linked under the present temporary electoral arrangements.

18 Mr C.P. Ford, the Chairman of the Skidbrook and Saltfleet Haven Parish Council, elaborated, his Council's written comments, spoke of the strong local ties with Worth Somercotes and urged that his Parish should be included in a North Somercotes Ward. He was strongly supported by Mr Fennor. In response to my questions it appeared that the only important connection between Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven and the parishes to the South, with which it was linked in the Boundary Commission's proposals, was ecclesiastically; the Vicar of SkicJbrooke with Saltfleet Haven being also the incumbent of the benefice of the Parishes.

19 Mr Wilkinson for the District Council agreed that, if the pariah of Skidbrooke with Saltfloet Haven was transferred to the- proposed North Somercotes electoral ward, the name Theddlethorpe St. iislen would moat appropriately be given to the v/ard from which it was to be taken. _ 5 - B. The NEW LSAKE and HUKDLgBY Wards

20 I read to the meeting the letter dated 29 September 1975 written to the Director of Administration of the East Lindsay District Council by the Clerk of the Toynton St. Peter Parish Council commenting adversely on the proposal to include that parish, and the adjoining parish of Toynton All Saints, in the proposed New Leakc Ward, with the other parishes of which it was suggested they had little in common, and requesting that serious consideration be given to linking the Toynton parishes with the parishes of East Keal and West Keal with which there were strong educational, historical and geographical tics. I also read out the Parish Clerk's letter of the 30 November 1977 to the Secretary of the Local Government Boundary Commission maintaining the objections of the Parish Council when the Commission repeated the District Council's proposal to include the Parish in the New Leake ward.

21 Mr G.W. Ellis, the Chairman of the Working Party constituted by the East Lindsey District Council to prepare the draft scheme of representation agreed that in making its proposals the District Council had been influenced more by the requirement to achieve wards which resulted in an equality of representation than with the social implications of the parish groupings but nevertheless considered that both Toynton Parishes did in fact have strong historical affinities with the Fenland parishes to the South.

22 Mr Ellis informed us that he was himself a member of the Tcynton St. Peter Parish Council but that he did not agree with that Council's representations.- He felt that none of the parishes included in the Hundleby Ward would have any affinity with the Fenland parishes and it would be inappropriate to transfer any of those parishes to the New Leake Ward if it was considered desirable to remove the Toynton Parishes from that ward. 23 The Rev. P. Walpole Wigginton, a District Councillor for the present Ward 37 and who has lived for 22 years in West Keal, confirmed that there we.a no community of interests between that parish and the Fenland parishes to the South and supported the Commission's proposals for the ward boundaries. 2^ The Rev. Wigginton did however ask that serious consideration be given to changing the name of the proposed Hundleby ward to Bolingbroko. Hundleby, although the largest parish in terms of population, was not associate;} with the other parishes in the ward in the same way as was the parish of Bolingbroke which was both historically and geographically dominant in the new ward and was the name by which the ecclesiastical Rural Deanery was known. 25 No one appeared to represent the views put forward by the Toynton St. Peter's Parish Council and no view either written or verbal was put forward from the Parish of Toynton All Saints.

C. The HORflCASTIE and KOUGHTON Wards

2o I read out the written comments of Mr R.A. Griffin opposing, on bahc!f of the residents of Kdlington, the inclusion of that parish in the largoi.y urban Horncastle Ward, and suggesting thut a more understanding reprooentnticn of the parish's view would result from its inclusion in a ward with t.hc neighbouring rural parishes. - 6 -

27 Mrs Griffin and Mr A. daunt were present at the meeting and supported that view.

D. The MAR^HAM-LS-FEN and TETFORD Wards

28 The letter from the Clerk of the Mareham-le-Fen Parish Council was read to the'meeting wherein it was suggested that the parishes of Wood Enderby and Moorby should be included in the Mareham-le-Fen ward so as to maintain present electoral associations.

29 No one was present however from the Mareham-le-Fen parish nor from cither of the other parishes named so the matters raised in the written comment could not be further explored at the meetingo

E. The ALFQRD, PARTNEY and Neighbouring Wards

30 More written comments had been received on the Commission's proposal.s for the v/ard including the former Urban District of Alfcrd and the neighbouring wards than in respect of any other part of the scheme and before taking verbal representations I read out the written comments of the East Lindsey District Council, the Alford Town Council, the Willougby and District Parish Council, the Chairman of the Skendleby. Parish Meeting, the Chairman of the Claxby Parish Meeting, the Chairman of the Well Parish Meeting and Mr Reeve the representative for.Well on the Willoughby and District Parish Council, Mr J.V. Ranyard, District Councillor for the present Partney Ward and Mr M.J.C. Starky, another District Councillor for the area. I also read out to the meeting a letter handed up to me from Mr G.A. Crust, Chairman of the Skendleby Parish Meeting, regretting his inability to attend and urging the views of his fellow parishioners.

31 A fair siuamary of the written comments would-be to say that, while the Alford Town Council proposed the inclusion with the parish of Alford of those neighbouring villages and hamlets whose inhabitants habitually use Alford as a convenient centre for shopping and business purposes, the rural parishes concerned preferred to be associated for voting purposes with other rural parishes with similar interests and problems. Tne District Council's concern was to draw the Commission's attention to a 1970 Parish Grouping Order affecting three of the parishes involved.

32 The Alford Tovm Council was not represented at the meeting but Mr J.V. Ranyard, District Councillor for the present Ward 52, Mr H. Hill of the Bilsby with Farlesthorre Parish Council and'Mr J.G. Speed, District Councillor for the present V/ard 37 were particularly helpful in the information they were ablo to give about the interests, inter-relation/ships and problem:; of the: parishes under consideration and Mr J. Reeve of Well, and Mr R. Read of Claxby both members of the Willoughby and District Parish Council.also made very useful contributions to the discussion.

33 Mr Ranyard in urging the transfer of the parishos of Ulceby with Ford-.r.rjti: and Skendleby to the proposed Partney V/ard agreed that the parishes of Svaby. South Thore^by and Hough would mere suitably form part of the with Stain wo.rdc / • • • * - 7 - • 3*+ Mr Speed while reasoning against Alford Town Council's proposal to have Bilsby and Farlesthorpe transferred to the Alford ward accepted the strong affinity.which Hogsthorpe had with-the "coast road" parishes to its north and with in particular. 35 Mr Reeve and Mr Read in furtherance of the points made by the Willoughby and District Parish Council drew attention to the strong social and educational links between Well, Glaxby and Willoughby and emphasised the difficulties for the parish Council if its constituent parishes were to be separated for the purposes of District Council representation. 36 Mr Hill was persuasive in putting forward the case for keeping Bilsby separate from Alford for electoral purposes, drawing attention to the large rural area of this parish and its linkage withFarlesthorpo in a joint Parish Council. He emphasised that, although the village of Bilsby itself was the subject of"much recent development including a supermarket, busy motor garage and the largest bakery in the district, it was quite a separate development to that of Alford to which town it was by no" means a dormitory suburb. It did however appear that the Vicar of Alford was also the incumbent of Bilsby in which latter village his curate resided. 37 Every view put forward at the meeting represented the desirability of keeping the representation of the former Urban District quite separate from that of its surrounding rural parishes and in particular'no one supported the joining Well or Claxby with Alford on social or any other grounds.

F. The Wards in the town of LOUTH

38 I read to the meeting the comment on its draft proposals sent, to the Boundary Commission in December 1977 by the six members who at that tine represented the Louth electorate on the District Council and who urged the combination of the proposed St. Mary's, St. Michael's and Trinity Wards into one electoral ward returning three members which would result in Louth being divided, for the purpose of District Council elections .into two three member wards and one single member ward.

39 While none of the signatories of the 1977 comment was present at the meeting, the Louth Town Council was represented by the Town Mayor, Mr G.A. Cuppleditch and by Kr B..A. Gharpley, Solicitorfwho put forward frosh suggestions for dividing the former Borough into seven single member constituencies.

**0 The .Town Council's proposals, while generally following the boundaries for the southern three wards and for the St. Margaret's ward in the North East of the town as put forward by the District Council - and largely accepted by the Boundary Commission - proposed entirely new boundaries between.the two wards in the North Vest, to provide for a central ward to be named St. James, and a northern ward to be called North Holme. **1 Although no written descriptions of the-now wards were submitted, Mr Sharpley did verbally define all the Town Council's proposed boundaries for me so that I could draw them on an Ordnance Survey Map to a acale of 1:10,000 and since the meeting the Town Clerk of Louth has agreed a r-'.ap illustrating the wards proposed by ids Council and a writtun description of them which I attach to this report as Appendix 3 and Appendix 'i respectively. - 8 - **2 I have set out a numerical analysis of the Town Council's proposals in ray conclusions.

7- GENERAL BACKGROUND TO MY RECOMMENDATIONS

^3 In later paragraphs in this report I set out recommendations with reasons in respect of the various particular cases discussed before me. In order that these recommendations may be better understood however I think it desirable at this point to refer again by way of general background to the statutory provisions within which the Commission, and in turn I as Commissioner,have to act^and which I have already summarised in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of this report.

*t 4 I accept that, because the statutory requirement places particular emphasis on the need for every ward to have as nearly as possible the same ratio of electors to councillors, this is not to say that all other relevant ' factors should not be examined in each individual case. They"should be, and I have considered all the arguments put to me in relation to their own particular facts, but this'same ratio rule cannot be disregarded and the general background provided by the statutory requirements must affect the weight that is to be given to matters such as I described in paragraph 11 above. ^5 Before leaving the general background I would like to write a further word or two about new associations of parishes. As I have said there is nothing in the Act requiring regard to be had to the effect of these. I do not find this surprising because in most cases the new district councils themselves are new associations bringing together forir.er urban and rural areas. The electors are associated together in the district, the elections concerned are to the district council, and the general aim of Parliament was, I think, to give each elector in the district the same share, as nearly as may be, of representation wherever in the district he might live* I would emphasise that the grouping together of parishes in wards with which we are here concerned is solely for the purposes cf elections to the district council and it is for this purpose alone that the rules which I have set out earlier apply. My recommendations are not to be regarded as creating a precedent for other purposes, such as the review of parish boundaries, whore quite other criteria may apply, e.g. for parish council boundaries, where section ';? of the Act lays down the interests of effective and convenient local government as criteria. Nor I think will my recommendations, for electoral ward bour.einrios only, have much effect on the social, religious or educational life of a pjirir.h as some seemed to fear they might.

8. INDIVIDUAL HSCOKMSNDAriONS AND R2ASONS

A. The SKIDBSOOiCWITK SALTFL'JST KAV3N nnd NOPTII GQMZaCOISS -Wards

k6 I vac impressed by the case made on behalf .of the Parish Council of Skidbrooke and Saltfleet Haven and readily accept the practical advant&^a of continuing the present electoral association of the'-parish with that of North Somercotes. - 9 - 47 Although numerically the Boundary Commission's Draft Proposals are a little superior to those achieved by complying with the request of the Ckidbrooke with Saltfleot Haven Parish Council an analysis of the latter propooal ohowti that its adoption would still provide a satisfactory ratio of electors per councillor with tho advantage of retaining the present local ties. For comparison I show the respective figures: Commission's Draft Proposals

No. of I960 Ward Cllrs Electorate Entitlement

North Somercotes 1240 0.94 Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven 1482 1.12 2?22 2.C6

Alt ernative Proposals

North Somercotes (with Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven) 1578 1.19 . Remaining parishes to South 0.86 2722 2.05

48 The inclusion of the Parish of Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven in the proposed North Somercotcs electoral ward would necessitate the choice of another name for the.adjoining ward to the south which was named after the Parish in the Boundary Commissionfs proposals. 49 The largest parish remaining in the more southerly ward, would be Theddlethorpe St. Helen so that, following the usual practice,this would appear to be the most appropriate name for the ward if it is not to include Skidbrooke with Saltfleot Haven,

50 I recommend that the Commission's Draft Proposals for these wards be not confirmed; that the Parish of Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven be included in the North Somercotes Ward, and that the ward immediately to the south of the North Somercotes Ward be named the Theddlethorpe'St. Helen Ward.

B. The MKW LEAKS AND HUNDL3BY Wards

51 A comparison of the numerical analysis of the Boundary Commission's Draft Scheme and the effect of complying with the proposal of the Toynton St. Peter Parish Council makes it quite clear that the latter proposal by itself would lead to too great an inequality of ratio-to be acceptable^given the statutory constraints ao the following figures show: - 10 -

Draft scheme

No.of 1976 • 1980 Cllrs Electorate Entitlement Electorate Unt.it.I i-

1 128^ 1.03 1312 0.99

1 1*U1 1.3 A 1^95 1.1,3 2 2695 . 2.17 2.o07 2/12

Toynton St. Peter Parish Council's proposal

New Leake 1 883 0.?2 906 O.?0 (minus parishes of Toynton St. • Peter, Toynton All Saints)

Hundleby 1 1812 1.48 m 1901 l.V? m (plus parishes of Toynton St. Peter, Toynton All Saints) 22695 2.20 280? 2.1?

(m = meagrely represented)

52 it is clear that the Parish Council's desire to be included, with Toynton All Saintsxin the proposed Hundleby Ward could only be complied with if some of the parishes already proposed for the Hundleby Ward were instead to be included with the Fenland parishes in the New Leake Ward.

53 The evidence at the meeting v/as however unanimous, not only in the view that none of the parishes included by the Commission in its proposed ilundleby Ward had any social or historical affinity with the Fenland parishes in the proposed New Leake Ward, but also, in contradiction of the arguments advanced by Toynton-St. Peter, that the two Toynton Parishes did ir. fact have strong historical affinities with the parishes to the south.

5+ I note too that the Parish of Toyntcn All Saints, included in the Toynton St. Peter proposals, has at no time itself objected tc the proposals, first advocated in the District Council's scheme and then by the Boundary Commission, to include it in the proposed New Leake Ward.

55 The point made by Toynton St. Peter that it would be much easier all round if parishes coulrt be similarly grouped for all local government purposes may well be a valid one but I am only concerned with ensuring the proper electoral arrangements and must leave the County and District Councils respectively to follow the electoral groupings for planning and other purposes of local government administration if they think it proper to dc .so.

5° In so far as the question of the proper name for tho proposed Hundloby Ward was raised by Councillor'the Rev, Wig^inton I v/as sympathetic to tho casi he presented for naming the ward after the Pariah cf Bolin^bro.ko on the grounds of tradition, geography and ariu'cciatiun. I su,

C. The HORNCASTLE and POUGIITON Wards

58 The inclusion of the small parish of Edlington in the rural Roughton Ward instead of the urban Horncastle Ward ae proposed by the Boundary Commission would have a minimal effect on the ratio of electors to Councillors in either ward and, in fact, would marginally improve the figures for the Roughton Ward as will be seen from the following analyses: Commission's Draft Proposals 1980 Ward No. of Cllrcs Electorate Entitlement Horncastle 3 3686 2.79 Roughton 1 971 0.7^ 4 ^657 3.53

Alternative Proposals

Horncastle 3 3592 2.?2 (less Edlington) Roughton (plus 1 1065 0.80 Edlington) 3.52

59 My inspection of the area inclined me to chare the view, put forward by Mr Griffin on behalf of the residents of iCdlington, th.it the problems of the electors in that parish were likely to be more similar to the problems of the electors in the.rural parishes in tho Roughton Ward than to those of the town people of Horncastle.

60 Accordingly I rocornmerH that the Commission's draft proposals in respect of these wardu bo not, confirmed but that the Parish of Ealingtejn be included in the proposed Rough ton Wa^rdo - 12 -

D. The MAR3HAM-U5-FKN and TE7FOHD

6l The Boundary Commissionfn proposal.-; for these wards result in a ratio of olcctorr, tn councillors of almost exactly the mean in the district ns the following tables show:

Commission's Draft Pronosals

No0 of 1980 Ward Cllrs Slectoratu Entitlemont

Mareham-le-Fen 1 1311 0,99

Tetford 1 1313 1.00 2 262^ 1.99

Alternative Proposals

Mareham-le-Fen 3M2 1.09

Tctford 1182 0.89 1524 1.98

62 The letter from the Clerk of the Mareham-lc-Fen Parish Council war, unusual in th-it it did not indicate any dissatisfaction with the Commission's proposals in so far as his own Parish was concerned but advocated a- change in the arrangements for the two adjoining parishes of Wood cinderby and Moorby,

63 In the absence of any indication at all that the electorate of cither Wood Snderby or Moorby parishes were in any way dissatisfied with tho Commission'3 draft proposals I am not impressed with the suggestion from the Marehrir:!-le--Fcri Parish Council.

^ I according': y rocomurja that the Commission confirms its draft proposals to include the Parishes of Vood Enderby and Moorby in the proposed Tetford Ward.

E. The ALKORD, PARTNEY and Neighbouring Wards

65 It is apparent to me that, while it is generally accepted both in Alford and in the rural area surrounding that town, that Alford, which until the 197^ reorganisation had its own urban district council, should continue to be represented by two members on the District Council, none of the rural parishes concerned is itself willing to join with Alford in returning those, representatives. Unfortunately with a population of only 2077* Alforu by itself is not numerically entitled to two rcpresentatives|although with one- councillor it would be severely underrcpresented and the only sensible solution to the problem rriust be the inclusion in the Ali'ord electoral ward of one or more adjoining parishes. The Boundary Commission's proposals present a numerically satisfactory solution but clearly conflict with what the electors of the rural parishes involved consider their beet interests as well as with 'lie present arrangements for parish administration. The Alforrt Town Council's proposals, not only conflict with the views ci' the rural parishes and with the pariah administration but would also result in *:n un&von standard of rapresentation in two of the wards it proposes. - 13 - 66 A full and informative discussion at the meeting and a careful personal inspection of the area concerned leads me to the view that the most satisfactory way to resolve the difficulty is to include with the Alford Ward the three parishes immediately to the east of the town. Bilsby itself is clearly a fast developing .community and with its supermarket, bakery and garage is independently offering services to the surrounding towns and villages in rather the same way as Alford has done traditionally. Of all the Parishes involved in this part of the district it appears to be the most urbanised although I accept - as was .clearly further emphasised in the letter received from the Chairman of the Bilsby and Fariesthorpe Parish Council by the Boundary Commission after the meeting - that the three parishes as a whole are predominantly rural in character. 67 Markby and Farlasthorpe vote with Bilsby at present and the two latter parishes are also presently linked for the purposes of a Parish Council? Further it appears from Mr Snell's letter that these arrangements may be extended to include Markby. In these circumstances it seems better to transfer the three parishes together and accordingly I recommend the Commission's Draft Proposals for the Partney and Withern with Stain Wards be confirmed but that the proposals for the Alford, Huttoft and Willoughby with Sloothby Wards be not 'confirmed but instead tnat - (1) The Parishes of Bilsby, Farlesthorpe and Markby be transferred to form part of the proposed Alford Wardi (2) In order to compensate the proposed Huttoft Ward for the IOGK of the electorates of its three western parishes, the Parish 9*" Hogsthorpe.twhich has I understand a strong community of interest with Muraby and the other villages on the coastal road^be transferred to the proposed Huttoft Ward.

(3) A consequence of this addition to the Huttoft Ward will be the . renaming of that ward after the parish of Hogsthorpe which will then be the most populous in the ward. CO Finally^in order to some extent to compensate Willoughby with Sloothby Ward for the loss of the electorate of Hogsthorpe^the parishes of Ulceby with Fordington, Skendleby, Well and Claxhy be transferred thereto from the proposed Alford Y/ard a move which .will have the incidental advantage of retaining in oie electoral ward the constituent parts of the Willoughby and Pistrict Parish Council. 68 A numerical analysis of my recommendations compares not too unfavourably overall with the proposals of the Boundary Commission and is certainly an improvement on that of the Alford Tov/n Council. Commission's draft proposals No. of 1980 Ward Cllrs. Electorate Entitlement Alford . 2 2370 l.So Withern with Stain 1 1170 - 0.86 Partney 1 1035 0.78 Huttoft 1 UM 0,87 Willoughby with Sloothby * 1290 7009 37^)9" A1ford Town Council's proposals No. of 1980 Ward • CLlrs. Electorate Entitlement Alford 2 2572 1.9** Withern with Stain 1 . 1272 . 0;96 Partney 1 1011 0.76 G

Huttoft 1 829 0.62 G

Willoughby with Sloothby . 1 -1325 1.00 (including Claxby) 6 7009 5.28

(G = generously represented) My recommendation Alford 2 24V? . 1.86 (less Ulceby with Fordington, Skendleby, Well snd Claxby but with Bilsby, Farlesthorpe and Markby) V/ithern with Stain 1 1170 0.88 Partney 1 1035 • 0.78 Hogsthorpe (the former Huttoft .1 . 1316 ; 0.99 Ward less Bilsby, Farlesthorpe and Markby but vith Hogsthorpe)

Willoughby with Sloothby 1 ' 10^1 0.79 (less Hogsthorpe but with Ulceby with Fordington, Skendleby, Well and Claxby) 7009 5.31

F. Wards in the town of LOUTH

69 The District Council's draft scheme proposed that Louth (including for this purpose the parish of from the former ) should be divided into seven electoral wards each returning one councillor. This scheme, although providing a reasonable equality of representation, proposed some very unsatisfactory ward boundaries particularly in the case of the Northolme" ward.

70 In order to secure satisfactory boundaries the Boundary Commission proposed the combination of the St. James-and Northolme wards in the District Council's scheme to make a single ward returning three Councillors and the removal from the-St. Michael's v;ard of the rural parish of Keddin^ton.

A--- - 15 - » 71 The District Councillors representing Louth approved the proposed three-member Gt. James and St. Margaret's ward but suggested the amalgamation of the three proposed wards of St. Mary, St. Michael and Trinity to the south of the town to form a second three-member ward: they did not suggest a-name for this ward but for convenience I propose to refer to it as Trinity as being the-most apt in the circumstances. This amalgamation*would however have the -disadvantage of causing the electorate in the new Trinity ward to be underreprescnted as will be seen from the following tables which show the numerical analyses of the three proposals. Commissions draft proposals - Louth No. of • Ward Cllrs. Electorate Entitlement

St. James and St. Margarets 3 3918 2.97 St. Mary's 1 1584 1.20 Priory 1 102? 0.?7 Trinity 1 155* '1.17 St. Michael's 1 1596 1.21 7 9679 7-32

District Councillor?; representing Louth - suggestion

St. James and St.. Margaret's. . 3 3918 2.9? Trinity .. - 3 473* 3-58 u

Priory 1 1027 0.77 7 9679 7-32

(U = under represented)

East Lindsey District Council Proposals St. James 1 110* 0.83 St. Margarets X 1670 1.27 St. Mary* s 1 137i 1.0* Priory. . 1 1238 0.9* Trinity 1 12*9 0.95 Northolme 1 1616 1.22 St. Michael's 1 1235 . 0.94 9*837.18 - 16 - 72 A fourth proposal was put forward, so- far as I know for the first time, at the consultative meeting on behalf of the Louth Town Council which in effect re-enacted the principles of , the District Council's scheme but which seems to me to rectify the lack of satisfactory ward boundaries in that earlier scheme. The numerical analysis of the Town Council's proposals for seven single-member wards .follows from which it will be seen that a reasonable equality of representation results. The figures for the 1980 electorate have .been provided, since the meeting, by the East Lindsey District Council. . Town Council's proposals . •

No. of 1980 Cllrs. Electorate Entitlement

1 126? 0.96

1 1509 3L.H* ' 1 17JA 1.30 1 1224 0.93.. 1 1236 0.9^

1 1326 1.00 1 • ' 1395 1.06 7 9671 7.33 73 In my opinion the Town Council's scheme provides the most satisfactory scheme for electoral wards in Louth and accordingly I recommo^nd that the Boundary Commission's proposals be not confirmed but that the warding for Louth should follow that proposed by the Town Council namely St. James, St. Margaret, .North Holme, Priory, St. Maryf St. Michael, and Trinity Wards each returning one councillor as shown in the map attached to chis as Appendix 3 the boundaries of each. such ward beinp ^lescrjibed^in^ Appendix J4 hereto. I attach as Appendix 5 a letter from the Director of Administration of the District Council to the effect that his Council has no objection to my recommendations in respect of Louth» This should ensure that making the consequential ward orders will present no difficulty.

G^» Remaining: Ward^in _thg_ District of East Lindsey 7*f I have carefully considered the draft proposals put forward by the Boundary Comnissiorr^khose wards in the district in respect of which r.o representations were received and recommend that they be confirmed at> follows?

Proposed Ward Description No. of Councillor.-: The parish«? of Blnbrook, Burgh on rViin, 1 Calcethorv'O, Sast Wykc-hv.w, , Kelstcrii, iAH!ford ;/;;d r>our/n l'.r^?l.ir;;l

Burgh Le Marsh The parishes of"Burgh lo Marsh find Croft - 17 - Proposed Ward Description No. of Councillors Chapel St. Leonards The parish of Chapel St. Leonards The parish of Coningsby

Donington on Bain The parishes of , , , , Donincton on Bain, , Gouiceby, ' Great Sturto, , , Ranby, , , , and Fri'skney The parish of The parishes of Carrin,-*ton, Frithville, , , West Fen, and Westville The parishes of Brackenborough, Fotherby, Keddington, Little , North Elkington, , South Elkington, , and Wyham cum Cadeby Griraoldby The parishes of , , , and

Halton Holegate The parishes of Eratoft, , , Hatton Holegate, Irby in the Harsh, and Thorpe St. Peter Holton le Clay The parish of Holton le Clay Kundleby The parishes of Bolingbroke, Sast Keal, , , , Hundleby, , Raithby, and West Keal The parishes of and Ingoldmells The parishes of Burwell, , , Legbourne, Little , Maidenwell, , North Rcc'ton, Raithby cum Maltby, , Tathv;ell, , Wclton le V/old and The Hablethorpe North Ward and the Mablethorpo South Ward.of the pariuh of Mureham le Fen The parishes of Marcham le Fen, Revosby, Tumby, and - 18 -

Proposed Ward Description No. of Councillors

Marsh Chapel The parishes of AlvinRham, , Covenham St. Bartholomew, Covenham St. Mary, , Marsh Chapel and The parishes of , , , North Thoresby and Partney The parishes of , 1 , , , Candlesby, Dalby, , Gunby,. Harrington,' Haugh, , Partney, , , cum , , and St Clement The St Clements Ward of the parish of Skegness 2 Scarbrough The Scarbrough Ward of the parish ' 2 of Skegness Seacroft The Seacroft Ward of the parish of 2 Skegness

Sibsey The parishes of and 1 Stickney Spil^by The parish of Spilsby Sutton and The Sutton Ward and the Trusthorpe Ward of the parish of Mahlethorpe and Sutton The parishes of Tattcrshall and Tetford The parishes of Asgarby, , Claxby Fluckacre, , Greetham, , Haraeringham, , , Lucby, , , Moorby, , Scrivelsby, Somersby, Tetford, , and Wood Enderby The parishes of and Tetney Wainfleet The parishes of and Wainfleet St. Mary

Winthorpe The Winthorpe Ward of the parish of - 19 - Proposed Ward Description No. of Councillors

Withern with Stain The parishes of , "' 1 -, Beesby in the Marsh, - Belleau, , , , Saleby with Thoresthorpe, , with Woodthorpe, Tothilltand Withern with Stain • .. .The parishes of , 2 , and Woodhall Spa The.parishes of , , 1 • Hatton, Ijangton by Wragby, , Panton, , West Torrin,~ton, and V/ra^by.

CONCLUSION 75 In the result ray recommendations amount to the conclusion that the Commission's Draft Proposals should be amended so as:- (1) to transfer the Parish of Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven to the North Somercotes Ward to continue to return one councillor; (?) to adopt the name "Theddlethorpe St. Helen" for the ward from which the Parish of Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haver, is to be taken which will continue to return one councillor; (5) to transfer the Parish of Edlington from the Horncastle to the Roughton V/ard which will continue to return three councillors and one councillor respectively; CO to transfer the Parishes of Bilsby, Forlesthorpe and Mr.rkby from the Huttoft to the Alford V/ard which will continue to return two councillors; (5) to transfer the Parish of "Hogsthorpe from the Willoughby vith Sloothby to the Huttoft Ward both wards continuing to return one councillor each; (6) to rename the proposed Huttoft V/ard the "Hogsthorpe Ward"; (7) to transfer the Parishes of Ulceby with Fordln^ton; Skondleby; Well and Claxby from the Alford Ward to the Willoughby with Sloothby Ward; and (8) to substitute for the proposed St. Jamen and Gt. Margarets; St. Mary's; Priory; Trinity; and St. Michael's Wards in the town of Louth the new wards of St. James; St. Marewret-; North liolaio; Priory; St. Mary; St. Michael; and Trinity -he • . boundaries of which are described in Appendix '4 hereto each such ward to return one councillor; but that otherwise no amendments should be mnde to the Commission1?; I/.v»ift Proposals. - 20 -

?6 I have only come to thic conclusion after very careful consideration and I have endeavoured to set out fairly fully the reasons which have impelled me to it. While come of those who made representations or who attended the meeting may be disappointed in the conclusion, I hope they may appreciate the reasons for it. I should like to express my thanks to all those who attended the meeting for the kindness and courtesy they showed me and the help they gave me in ray efforts fully to comprehend the facts and the arguments involved.

|e «^- P3T15R L. M. KURD

February 1979. APPENDIX 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

MEETING TO INQUIRE INTO THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT Of EAST LINDSEY HELD AT THE TOWN HALL HORNCASTLE ON THURSDAY 9th NOVEMBER 19?8

NAME (BLOCK CAPITALS) REPRESENTING c . C . /3

a tf 0 1^ &L{

iZw^^o^C .

COr-ftVr.it,

S- re-*. W-^jt^j rc s_J< f LD c

V. A 'K c i^/x <;/-^ c i •o ^ SCHEDULE 2

DISTRICT OF SAST I.INDSEY: NAMES OF PROPOSED WARDS AND NUMBERS OF COUNCILLORS

NAME OF WARD . NO. OF COUNCILLORS Alford 2 Binbrook -1 1 1 Conlngsby 1 1 Friskney 1 Frithville 1 Fotherby 1 Grimoldby 1 1 Hogsthorpe , .1 Holton le Clay , > - ... 2 Horncastle . - 3 Hundleby 1 IngoldmellB 3 Legbourne 1 Mablethorpe 3 Mareham le Fen 1 Marsh Chapel - 1 New Leake 1 North Holme ^ North Somercotes 1 North Thoresby • 1 'Partney 1 Priory 1 Roughton 1 St Clement's 2 St James 1 St Margaret1s 1 St Mary's 1 St Michael's 1 Scarborough 2 Seacroft 2 Sibsey 1 Spilaby 1 Sutton and Trusthorpe 2 NAME OP WARD NO. OP COUNCILLORS

Tattershall Tetford Tetney Theddlethorpe St Helen Trinity Wainfleet Willougjiby with Sloothby Winthorpe Withern with Stain Woodhall Spa Wragby

The proposed ward boundaries are shown on the map which can be inspected at tht* Council's offices. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards as defined on the map is attached at Schedule 3.

2f DISTRICT OF EAST LINDSEY - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WARD BOUNDARIES

ALFORD WARD The parishes of Alford Bilsby Farlesthorpe Markby Rigsby with

BINBROOK WARD The parishes of Binbrook East Wykeham Hainton Ludford

BURGHi LE MARSH WARD The parishes of Burgh le Marsh Croft

CHAPEL ST LEONARDS WARD The parish of Chapel St Leonards

CONINGSBY WARD

The parish of Coningsby

DONINGTON ON BAIN WARD• The parishes of Asterby Baumber Benniworth Cawkwell Donington on Bain Gayton le Wold Hemingby Market Stainton Ranby Scarablesby Sotby Stenigot West Ashby FRISKNEY WARD The parish of Friskney

FRITHVILLE WARP The parishes of Carriiyjton Frithville Langriville Thorton le Fen West Fen Westville

FOTKERBY WARD The parishes of Brackenborough Fotherby Keddington Little Grimsby North Elkington North Ormsby South ELkington Utterby Wyham cum Cadeby

GRIMOLEBY WARD

The parishes of Griraoldby Manby North Cockrington South Cookrington

HALTON HOLEGATE WARD

The parishes of Firsby Great Steeping Halton Holegate Little Steeping

HOGSTHORPE WARD

The parishes of Hogsthorpe Huttoft Mumby HOI/PON LE CLAY WARD The parish of Holton le Clay

HORNCASTLE WARD

The parishes of Horhcastle * Thimbleby

HUNDLEBY WARD The parishes of Bolingbroke East Keal East Kirby Hagnaby Hareby Hundleby Mavis Enderby Raithby West Keal

INGOLDMELLS WARD

The parishes of Addlethorpe ' Ingoldmells

LEGBOURNE WARD

The parishes of Burwell Hallington Haugham Legbourne Maidenwell Muckton Raithby cum Maltby Stewton Walmsgate Withcall

MABLETHORPE WARD The Mablethorpe North Ward and the Mablethorpe South Ward of the parish

of Mablethorpe and Sutton. MAREHAM LE FEN WARD

The parishes of Mareham le Fen Ravesby Tumby Wildmore

MARSH CHAPEL WARD

The parishes of Conisholme Covenham St Mary Grainthorpe Marsh Chapel Yarburgh

NEW LEAKE WARD

The parishes of Eastville Midville New Leake Toyriton All Saints Toynton St Peter

NORTH HOLME WARD

The North Holme Ward of the parish of Louth

NORTH SOMERCOTES WARD The parishes of North Somercotes Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven

NORTH THORESBY WARD

The parishes of Fulstow Grainsby Ludborough North Thoresby Waithe PARTNEY WARD

The parishes of Ashby by Partney Aswardby Brinkhill Calceby Candlesby Dalby Driby Gunby Harrington Haugh Langton by Spilsby ' Partney Sausthorpe Scremby South Ormsby cum Ketsby South Thoresby Swaby

PRIORY WARD The Priory Ward of the parish of Louth

ROUGHTON WARD

The parishes of Bucknall Edlington Horsington Langton Roughton ' Thornton Woodhall

SCARBROUGH WARD

The Scarbrough Ward of the parish of Skegness

SEACROFT WARD The Seacroft Ward of the parish of Skegness SIBSEY WARD

The parishes of Sibsey Stickney

SPILSBY WARD ... The parish of Spilsby

ST CLEMENTS WARD

The St Clements Ward of the parish of Skegness

ST JAMES' WARD

The St James1 Ward of the parish of Lou.th

ST MARGARET'S WARD

The St Margaret's Ward of the parish of Louth

ST MARY'S WARD The St Mary's Ward of the parish of Louth

ST MICHAEL'S WARD

The St Michael's Ward of the parish of Louth

SUTTON AND TRUSTHORPE WARD The Sutton Ward and the Trusthorpe Ward of the parish of Mablethorpe and Sutton.

TATTERSHALL WARD

The parishes of Tattershall Tattershall Thorpe

TETFORD WARD

The parishes of Asgarby Belchford Claxby Plu£kacre Fulletby Greethara '. Hagwor thingham TETFORD WARD (CONTD) High Toynton Low Toynton Lueby Mareham on the Hill Miningsby Moorby Salmonby Scrivelsby Soraersby Tetford Winceby Wood Enderby

TETNEY WARD The parishes of North Coates Tetney

THEDDLETHORPE ST HELEN WARD

The parishes of Saltfleetby All Saints Saltfleetby St Clement Saltfleetby St Peter Theddlethorpe St Helen

TRINITY WARD The Trinity Ward of the parish of Louth

WAINFLEET WARD The parishes of Wainfleet All Saints

WILLOUGHBY WITH SLOOTHBY WARD The parishes of Claxby Skendley Ulceby with Fordington Willoughby with Sloothby 8

WINTHORPE WARD The Winthorpe Ward of the parish of Skegness

WITHERN WITH STAIN WARD The parishes of Aby with Greenfield Authorpe Beesby in the Marsh Belleau Claythorpe Hannah cum Hagnaby Maltby le Marsh Saleby with Thoresthorpe South Reston Strubby with Woodthorpe Withern with Stain

WOODHALL SPA WARD The parishes of Kirkby on Bain Kirkstead Woodhall Spa

WRAGBY WARD

The parishes of East Barkwith Gautby Hatton Minting Panton West Barkwirth Wragby