Local Councillors and a Feedback Form from Councillors Across the District

Councillors’ submissions to the Arun District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 13 submissions from local councillors and a feedback form from councillors across the district.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

LGBCE Draft Recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Arun District Council

Feedback from Ward Councillors

Area Comment Greater Bognor Regis Cllr Nash - am generally happy with boundary recommendations – general comments regarding the four District Wards of the Town.

Bognor Regis and Bersted

Aldwick and Pagham

Felpham and Cllr English – Felpham – considers that the correct decision was made Middleton-on-Sea in relating to keeping Felpham East as it is already as it is positively able to fully service the residents of the area. However, at item 14 in the report it does bring to light a peculiar anomaly that should be corrected at this time. I would request that what was stated in my original submission for Flansham and Hoe lane to remain within the Ward of Felpham to which it is clear it has a great deal more akin that same argument is considered for the Parish Boundary to be moved to incorporate the area within the Felpham East ward. There are clearly sufficient Parish Councillors on hand to help, advise and generally support the residents. Central Arun – general comments

West Central Arun See letter attached from Cllrs John Charles, Jean Goad and Dougal • Yapton Maconachie, Ward Councillors for Barnham • Arundel & Walberton • See letter attached from Cllr Norman Dingemans, Ward Councillor for Barnham Walberton East Central Arun Cllr Jones – Findon – earlier comments continue to apply, however, I • Ferring am presently at a loss to contribute any material extension to my • Angmering & Findon original comments by the required date as I have not had sight of the LGBCE’s precise uptodate comments or requirements [these have since been provided]. Intends to produce additional evidence to support the status quo for the Findon Ward once this has been sen.

Cllr Jones queried whether or not the person at the LGBCE who has made the decisions to be communicated has any appropriate knowledge of the geographic area concerned and is therefore basing his/her opinions, or even demands, soley on statistical evidence.

See letter attached from Cllr Peter Jones, Ward Councillor for Findon

See letter attached from Cllr Dudley Wensley, Ward Councillor for Angmering and Cllr Deborah Urquhart, County Councillor for Angmering & Findon Greater Littlehampton – general comments

Rustington and See letter attached from Cllr Mike Clayden, Ward Councillor for East Preston Rustington West

Littlehampton

LGBCE Draft Recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Arun District Council

Feedback from Ward Councillors

Parish electoral Cllr Nash – Bognor Regis Town Council Wards - cannot see need for 2 arrangements - extra wards ( Hatherleigh & Marine North ). This will cause confusion • Aldingbourne with electorate and lead to lower turnouts. • Aldwick • Bersted • Bognor Regis • East Preston • Eastergate • Felpham • Littlehampton

Page 1 of 2

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Richard Bower Sent: 29 November 2012 16:45 To: Re views@ Subject: Arun District Warding Review Review Officer Arun Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Dear Review Officer,

I am making this submission both as an elected District Councillor and a resident of East Preston who has known the area since the late 1950’s. I note from the Littlehampton Gazette (29.11.12) the commission’s chairman claim the alterations “reflect the identities and interests of local communities”. This view cannot be recognised by anyone with even a passing knowledge of this part of Arun District. Community interest has been sacrificed for the need to apply an electoral average per councillor determined by a council size of 53. The fact publication of the proposal was delayed by the commission together with the extreme nature of the draft proposals for the East Arun area suggests the commission had difficulty in arriving at their proposal which has the hallmark of having been hurried and lacks adherence to the commission’s own technical guidance.

The recognition by the Commission of the reality of no direct road connection, local service or interest commonality between the two parishes of Ferring and Kingston and thus creating a detached ward as proposed by others is welcome. However the same reasoning has not been applied to the commission’s proposal that South Angmering should be included in a new Ferring ward. The recognition by the commission that Ferring is effectively detached from Arun District should be the first issue to be solved by the Commission rather than the overall size of the council. A council of 56 on the existing Ferring ward boundary would produce an average per councillor of 1972, only -10.87% deviation from the average. The proposal to divide East Preston almost through the village’s centre is illogical when 3 councillors currently represent East Preston with Kingston. Placing the East Preston parish church and Langmeads Field in a ‘Rustington’ ward would significantly increase the workload of Rustington East members. They would be expected to attend not only Rustington parish meetings but also East Preston meetings. This type of arrangement was never considered in the workload statistics presented to the Electoral Review Sub Committee of Arun DC when they concluded that 53 was a workable number of councillors. It is now blatantly obvious that a ward boundary structure based on 53 cannot be accommodated in the east Arun area without irreparable damage to community of interest. The proposal to increase from 2 to 3 the number of councillors elected in Rustington East cannot be justified when the eastern boundary is suggested to include a huge area of East Preston. There are arrangements between Arun DC and East Preston PC in respect of Langmeads Field and it makes no sense that Arun councillors representing Rustington would have to follow through such matters with East Preston PC. Hardly effective local government or accountability. East Preston Parish has never been warded and the arrangement the commission proposes would introduce a wholly unnecessary change. While it is understandable that those without local knowledge may assume that East Preston, Rustington and Littlehampton are the same urban area when viewed on a map, the fact remains they each have their own parish level of local government, their own rival and cherished community identities and services. The proposal for Rustington West would mean Littlehampton Town Council area District members having to attend Rustington parish meetings. Again a workload increase that was not calculated for by Arun. As present Rustington parish can call on 8 district councillors – 3 shared with East Preston. The commission’s proposal would decrease this to 7 of whom 5 would be shared with other

30/11/2012 Page 2 of 2

parishes. Hardly conducive to better coherent representation. In conclusion I would submit the LGBCfE should abandon an Arun DC council size of 53 as the basis for rewarding the district as a whole and re-work their proposal on the basis of 56 ADC members which as I see it would only require minor adjustments to achieve a reduced deviation from the average.

Yours Cllr Ricky Bower

Cllr Ricky Bower Arun District Council Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastruture Ward member for East Preston with Kingston

30/11/2012 Draft Boundary Commission Recommendations for Arun District Council.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed warding arrangements for Rustington being a serving councillor for the Rustington West Ward.

The recommendations take no account of the strong community identity which exists in Rustington and for that matter East Preston. This I believe is one of the LGBC statutory criteria, Community identity 5.21 (The need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities).

Rustington may be a village but in reality it is the size of a small town, (in fact in the past it was a town for a few days, but residents objected) and to move large chunk of it into the next town would be most unfair, and not reflect the needs of the community.

The residents of the Rustington North West Ward are already part of a Littlehampton county division which is not popular with them, as the focus is always on Littlehampton resident’s needs and not their own.

They do not have direct road links to Littlehampton and naturally tend to walk or drive into the village for their shopping and use the Rustington Supermarkets on the outskirts of the village.

Rustington has a very recognisable village centre, which is a thriving shopping centre one of the most successful shopping areas in Arun if not Sussex and still maintains the presence of all the 4 main banks and others. It has a village information office, with wide base information and sign posting for residents on most matters relating to daily life and a large list of local organisations.

There are very few empty shops in Rustington which are soon re-let, and not usually by charity shops, although we do have a few.

Rustington has a vibrant community with a large number of clubs and societies covering most interests and wide age groups. We also have six places of worship which are all well attended.

The Parish Council is a strong well led organisation which has strived successfully to help maintain, the village environment and community pride winning many coveted awards for the quality of the village environment. It is responsible for running many very successful community assets.  Community Centre (Woodlands Centre)  Rustington Museum  Youth Centre  Information Centre (In main shopping Centre)  Sports fields. The Parish Council also takes the lead in interaction between the community and the principal local authority and the Policing for the community, all working together to keep the Village a smart, clean and safe environment in which to live.

The Parish Council have brought the whole community together (Businesses, schools , community groups) in the aim of improving the village environment, this in turn has allowed Rustington to win in the South East in Bloom competition and recently gain a Gold Award in the Entente Florale Europe Awards. This Award is only given at the Judges’ discretion, and depends very much on the quality of the entrant.

It would be a great loss in my opinion if the village was split up in this way, and after living in East Preston for a while and serving on the Parish Council there, I know that they have a distinct Village identity, different to Rustington, but just as important as ours to them.

It would also make life harder for the District Councillors in the proposed Rustington East Ward who would need to keep up-to-date with the life of two large parishes, increasing their work load considerably and sometimes making it difficult on the occasions when the parishes disagreed on issues.

So in conclusion please reconsider the warding arrangements for Rustington and East Preston as they are strong communities which deserve District Councillors fully focused on them and not split across two communities, or as in my ward moved into the next town with a community they have very little in common with.

So I would suggest that the paragraph 75 in the Draft Recommendations is suggesting limited community identity is totally inaccurate, were in fact the communities have very strong identities especially in the case of Rustington.

A look at the parish web site would give insight to community life in Rustington.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Clayden

Ward Councillor for Rustington West. adam cunard

Bognor Regis Town Council Parish councillor 09/11/2012 14:23 The proposed 6 wards for Bognor Regis Town Council will be very difficult for people to relate to. Fragmenting the 4 with 4 per ward to 6 with 4,4, 3,3,1 and 1 councillor makes no sense. Elections for town and district representatives take place at the same time so it would be much more sensible to have the ward boundaries the same as those proposed for the district,or there will be great confusion, it works very well with 4 in 4 at the moment, so I cannot see what gain there would be in doing this.

sandra daniells

Bognor Regis Town Council Parish councillor 08/11/2012 20:33 Re the Parish Boundaries proposed. Having six wards is going to be very confusing to the electorate especially as they are different to the District Ward boundaries. Could the Parish boundaries be the same as for the District to avoid confusion, ie. 16 councillors representing only 4 wards, Pevensey, Hotham, Orchard and Marine as now? Thank you Paul Dendle

Web: pauldendle.org

Re Submission by Councillor Paul Dendle (Arundel Ward & Cabinet member for the Environment) to the Local Government Boundary Commission concerning the draft New electoral arrangements for Arun District Council.

As Councillors we build relationships with our electorate, the relationship is based on us as Councillors doing a good job and the electorate offer their thanks by voting for us and our future proposals. You are proposing a ward with nine parishes, how can any member attend regular meetings with nine parishes within any regularity and quality.

if we artificially divide geographical responsibilities between councillors, then we will have no direct relationship, but due to a larger ward we still have to ask residents to vote for us, even though we won't have worked for them, its deprives the voter the opportunity to vote based on your record as with a larger ward they will not be able to make that judgement. I believe the three member ward is entirely pointless and retrograde.

I believe the review should have been based on the following principles, firstly it should be Parish based as the building blocks, and the towns should be the first parts of the puzzle to be solved and that we should have single member wards.

I also believe that we should reduce the number of Councillors to 45 with a Cabinet of 6 members.

In your proposals you make the point regarding Ferring and the Kingston not being connected, they are by the A259 at the top of the wards and by a footbridge between the parishes. By ignoring the obvious joining of Ferring and Kingston you knock on to every other rural ward and tie yourself in knots trying to find a solution to the detriment of my ward and the Walberton ward.

The proposal seems to be based solely on electoral numbers rather than any recognition of community identity. I have represented the Arundel ward since 2003 and service all six parishes. There is a clear advantage in single member wards in that the electorate know exactly who is representing them in the District Council and there is no confusion as to which Councillor to approach as occurs in wards with more than one Councillor.

www.pauldendle.org

I agree with Cllr Dingeman when he says “The present Walberton Ward has no affinity to Arundel and in the LGBC report in Para 62 it talks of ‘strong links’ along the A27 between Walberton and Arundel. In practice Walberton residents avoid the A27 as much as possible due to the inadequacies of the A27 and the lack of a proper Arundel by‐pass. Residents of Walberton ward would tend to go west to Chichester rather than east to Arundel”

In reality it will take half an hour (10 miles) to drive from one side of the ward to the other, we do not receive expenses for travel to and from Parishes, but you expect us to service 9 at our own expense.

In summary, I believe your proposals are retrograde and you should start again with the premise of 45 members, Parishes as the building blocks and make those wards single member wards and that there should be cross party support for any solution redesigning the town’s boundaries.

Yours Faithfully

Cllr Paul Dendle

www.pauldendle.org Page 1 of 1

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Sent: 09 October 2012 15:36 To: Re views@ Subject: Review of Arun District Council Submission by Councillor Norman Dingemans to the Local Government Boundary Commission concerning the draft New electoral arrangements for Arun District Council.

I would like to register my opposition to the LGBC’s proposals for creating a three member ward for West Central Arun by merging the present single member Walberton ward with the two member Arundel ward. The proposal seems to be based solely on electoral numbers rather than any recognition of community identity. I have represented Walberton, Slindon and Madehurst since 1995 and previously Houghton as well until it was transferred to Arundel in the last review. There is a clear advantage in single member wards in that the electorate know exactly who is representing them in the District Council and there is no confusion as to which Councillor to approach as occurs in wards with more than one Councillor. We should be moving to make more single member wards rather than removing the last two even if that means reducing the number of Councillors to below 50 and possibly to 45. The present Walberton Ward has no affinity to Arundel and in the LGBC report in para 62 it talks of ‘strong links’ along the A27 between Walberton and Arundel. In practice Walberton residents avoid the A27 as much as possible due to the inadequacies of the A27 and the lack of a proper Arundel by-pass. Residents of Walberton ward would tend to go west to Chichester rather than east to Arundel. In essence there is no community identity between Walberton, ( Slindon and Madehurst) and Arundel and it will not make sense to Walberton Ward electors to find themselves voting for Councillors in Arundel with whom they have little connection. If these proposals go ahead it is most likely that one of the three Councillors would look after Walberton Ward area and the other two would look after Arundel as is done under the present arrangements and hence make the proposals a pointless exercise just to balance numbers while not recognising the reality on the ground nor the lack of affinity between the two present wards. The numbers in the present wards may not be ideal but the wards are understood and work well. The District Council’s proposal to move Madehurst to Arundel is ill conceived as Madehurst is close to Slindon geographically, socially and in spirit, sharing the same Vicar, and with little connection to Arundel. The LGBC proposal will also cause confusion between District and County electoral boundaries. In summary, removing the only two single Member wards in Arun is a retrograde step and will not be welcomed by the affected wards of Walberton and Findon and will be seen as working against democracy and the localism agenda. A better move would be to create all single Member wards even if that means reducing the number of Councillors to around 45. In the case of Central Arun the decision should be based on Community Interest rather than slavishly working on numbers alone and the Walberton Ward should be left much as it is now and as a single Member ward.

11/10/2012 PAGE 2/2

Approx suggested line

New housing area

1000 ft 200 Map data ©2012 Google - Report a problem Nicholas Dunkeyson PAGE 1/2 Review Officer (Arun) Councillor Paul English The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG Dear Mr Dunkeyson

Electoral Review of Arun Warding of Hoe Lane, Flansham

Please note, these are my personal opinions.

Dear Sirs, I do consider that the correct decision was made in relation to keeping Felpham East as it is already as it is positively able to fully service the residents of the area; .however on reading your draft I would bring to your attention :-

At item 14 in the report it does bring to light a peculiar anomaly that should be corrected at this time. I would request that what was stated in my original submission for Flansham and Hoe lane to remain within the Ward of Felpham to which it is clear it has a great deal more akin that same argument is considered for the for the Parish Boundary to be moved to incorporate the area within the Felpham East ward.

There are clearly sufficient Parish Councillors on hand to help, advise and generally support the residents.

I leave this to your discretion. 14 Additionally, in circumstances where we propose to divide a parish between district wards or county divisions, we are required to divide it into parish wards so that each parish ward is wholly contained within a single district ward or county division. We cannot make amendments to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

Parish electoral arrangements 87 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

88 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Arun District Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements. Copies: Nigel Lynn, Chief Executive, Arun District Council Paul English, Resident of Felpham (District and Parish Councillor of Felpham) Liz Futcher, Head of Democratic Services, Arun District Council

Page 2 of 2

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1534 Time of Submission: Oct 24th 2012 at 9:16pm

Form Answers

Name: Cllr Alan Gammon

Area your Arun submission refers to: Organisation you other (please specify in your submission) belong to: Your feedback: I do not agree that the new proposal will be of any benefit to Brookfield Ward and Rustington North West councillors. Brookfield Ward will cross the Littlehampton border and take up a part of Rustington which comes under another parish. This in my opinion is unworkable for a ward to come under two parishes.

Lastly, the Central Ward proposal looks to be illogical, the ward looks too big and unmanageable even for 3 councillors.

Alan Gammon Brookfield Ward Councillor Arun District Council. File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

25/10/2012

19 November 2012.

Review Officer Arun Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir,

I am relying on the sentence at page 2 of your Draft Recommendations that states that you will take into account all submissions received by 3 December 2012.

I understand your need to recommend electoral arrangements that  Secure effective and convenient local government  Provide for equality of representation and  Reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular o The desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable o The desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties.

I refer to your recommendations for Felpham, contained in paragraphs 51-57. I agree with most proposals, but firmly disagree with your proposal that Flansham be included in Felpham East ward. This is where it sits at present: but almost all the residents, supported by Yapton Parish Council, have put to you strongly felt views that they should be warded with Yapton. I have had considerable dealings with the Flansham residents through my Councillor role, and I am very aware of their feelings.

The fact is that they regard themselves as a rural community. They flatly refuse to vote at a Felpham polling station; they have representation on Yapton Parish Council; and they attend Yapton PC meetings. It is not relevant that they can most easily access Felpham: the urban area is not part of their identity.

I believe the Boundary Commission would be missing an opportunity if it did not regard the new Bognor Regis Relief Road as the natural boundary to the north of Felpham both for District and Parish wards. It clearly emphasises the urban edge of Bognor Regis (and therefore Felpham) and the rural nature of Flansham. In terms of equality of representation, there were 100 electors in Hoe Lane Flansham at the last count, out of an electorate for Felpham East (your Appendix B) of 4177 projected to rise to 4849. A loss of 100 will improve the positive variance. Yapton, on the other hand, has 4321 projected to 4421. An increase of 100 will improve the negative variance.

As for the third criterion, to secure effective and convenient local government, the fact that the Chairman of Yapton Parish Council is also one of Yapton’s District Councillors and is known personally to the Flansham residents is a strong argument for listening to the views of the electors and acting accordingly.

I am aware of the views of my fellow Arun District Councillor for Felpham East, Councillor English, to which you have referred at paragraph 53, and have to disagree with his point of view. Flansham residents don’t use Felpham’s local facilities; there are no community ties linking the two together; and the geographical proximity is only true on a map. The relief road, when completed, will emphasise this separation. Any argument for the retention of Flansham in Felpham East is not borne out by the residents’ feelings or lifestyle. It is equally true that the residents of Felpham have no affinity whatsoever with the hamlet of Flansham. The majority have never heard of it, let alone explored Hoe Lane which is the only road in the settlement.

I therefore put my case that the three core requirements of the 2009 Act, listed above, will be best served by moving the settlement of Flansham from Felpham East ward into Yapton ward.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor John Holman Arun District Council Member for Felpham East.

Page 1 of 1

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Philippa Bower Sent: 30 November 2012 16:28 To: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Subject: Response to Arun boundary change Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d Dear Sir, as a resident of East Preston and a district councillor representing Rustington East I would like to place on record my concerns about changing boundaries.

Things work well at the moment with ward boundaries roughly following parish boundaries. In the new system, a large part of East Preston would be designated Rustington, which will cause confusion and distress to those who live in the cross‐over area. Both villages have very defined characters, East Preston is self‐contained and largely up‐market. Rustington is a thriving retail semi‐town.

Although the proposed changes seem to work okay in the western wards of Arun, we in the East are faced with new boundaries that dislocate our communities. This has somewhat split the council. Half the councillors are satisfied with the arrangements and half are desperate for them not to happen. Hence the lack of coherent response from Arun.

I would be very grateful if you would look again at the boundaries in the East of Arun. We have spent many hours trying to work out a system which would comply with reduced numbers of councillors but time and again we return to the need for 56 councillors.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Philippa Bower

03/12/2012 Comments on the LGBCfE Draft proposals for the re-warding of Arun DC.

When the present review of the future representational arrangements in Arun District Council was initiated an aspirational base figure of 53 members was agreed by the LGBCfE and ADC. However, after detailed analysis and iteration it has become evident that slavishly pursuing this number will have the effect of undermining existing community interest and lower tier local government arrangements. In the time since the agreement of the 53 figure legislative changes and increased duties applied by the Government to District Councils nullifies the reasoning used to justify the aspirational number of 53 councillors. In fact the breaching of so many Parish boundaries by the revised draft proposals would heavily increase the work-load on District Councillors as they would have to attend considerably more Parish meetings than the current arrangements require.

The overarching approach of seeking an equality of electorate per councillor appears to have been given undue weight by the LGBCfE in regard to other criteria, particularly the need to secure convenient and effective local government and might be considered to amount to a potential mis-direction.

Because of the relative isolation of Ferring and Findon from the rest of Arun District it is eminently sensible to determine the overall number of councillors for Arun based on the average per councillor of electorates of these wards given the +/-10% variance.

2017 56 Members Electors (2212) Ferring 3943 -10.9% Findon 2282 +3.1%

Responses on Wards local to and including East Preston with Kingston. Ferring – There is no community of interest whatsoever between Ferring Parish Council area and South Angmering. These two parts have no commonality at any electoral level. For the residents of South Angmering it can only introduce confusion and increase, by a significant margin, the work of the Ferring ward members. The LGBCfE state in their report (66) regarding the access to Ferring from the west ‘the link from the A259 only provides access for buses, while cars must leave the district and use a roundabout inside Worthing Borough in order to access Ferring.” This draft recommendation, as it stands, does not reflect the distinct identities of these two communities and it would hinder, not help, the future provision of effective local government. The proposal would also have the effect of creating a “detached ward” which in turn would lead to the “creation of electoral areas that lack community identity”, see para 5.50 of LGBCfE’s own technical guidance. In terms of services hierarchy the residents of Ferring are linked to Goring in Worthing Borough to the east rather than to the Arun District area They are however adamant that they have a separate identity. The nearest railway station for Ferring is Goring again outside of Arun and the inadequacies of the A259 make travelling to the east considerably easier than travelling into other parts of Arun.

East Preston with Kingston – While welcoming the change of stance by LGBCfE from that argued by others and their acceptance that the Parish of Kingston remains

1 part of the East Preston with Kingston ward because of” lack of internal ward access and local opposition” it doesn’t seem logical to then recommend that the existing three member ward should be reduced to two members by the wholly unnecessary division of East Preston parish and the consequential re-warding of a Parish that has never been so divided. The East Preston Parish church located on the western edge of the Parish would not, under the LGBCfE proposals, be within the East Preston with Kingston Ward which it wholly serves. Also removed would be Langmeads Field where there are joint arrangements between Arun DC and East Preston PC, the Willowhayne Estate, the Midholme retirement complex all of which are integral to the cohesion and identity of the East Preston village community. The draft proposals would also remove from the ward the electors on the East side of Sea Lane whose gardens back onto the East Preston Bowls Club, the Warren Recreation Ground, Cricket pitch and Village Hall all of which are actually in the centre of the village and form a major part of the focus of community life. LGBCfE may not be aware but the only road connection from the proposed Langmead Parish Ward to Rustington East is along Station Road, there are no other public East/West connections and the amenities and cultural and public services of East Preston are nearer, more conveniently located and used by residents to a far greater extent than those in Rustington East. The draft recommendations, if implemented as they stand, would hinder the provision of effective and convenient local government because issues in the new Langmead Parish ward of East Preston would be reported to East Preston Parish Council by a District Councillor from Rustington and similarly matters proper to the County Division of East Preston and Ferring, in the same Parish ward, would be reportable to either Rustington and/or East Preston Parish Councils by the County Councillor for the East Preston and Ferring Division. This would create muddled lines of democratic accountability, responsibility and reporting and cannot be regarded as conducive to effective and convenient local government. It is a retrograde and wholly unnecessary proposal.

Rustington Rustington is a thriving commercial centre that has a distinctive identity of it’s own and those who reside in the Parish identify with the village rather than anywhere else. In many ways it vies with Littlehampton as the local service centre and like Littlehampton has the presence of all four major banks and several national high street retailers. The character of Rustington is in many ways that of a small town although the residents reversed a decision of the Parish council to change it’s status many years ago. The Parish council has control of many assets throughout the village and even a sports ground within the parish of Angmering. Over recent decades growth inevitably leaves the impression to outsiders of an urbanisation of the area but this fails to recognise the cherished separate identities of the communities in this part of Arun.

Rustington East Ward – As stated above (East Preston); there seems no logic in making Rustington East a three member ward when currently it is served by two members and is wholly within the parish of Rustington - turning East Preston with Kingston into a 2 member ward and moving a large part of the electorate out of the ward. (Should the LGBCfE be determined to maintain this proposal then a more appropriate name for this ward would be Preston Manor which is at the centre of the

2 area the LGBCfE define.) Rustington East district councillors would have to attend not only Rustington Parish council meetings but also East Preston parish council meetings which would represent a significant increase in the work load. We have no doubt this was not factored into the determination of the Arun District council size of 53 as such an arrangement was never contemplated.

Rustington West Ward – We see no benefit in reducing this ward from three members to two. The effect of ceding part of Rustington Parish (wholly within the Worthing West Parliamentary Constituency) to a Littlehampton Town district ward (Brookfield) could be reduced if the ward was redefined on a council size of 54, 55 or 56. The 2017 electorate of 6536 (existing boundary) would produce a variance of only -3.8% (3 members). While it is acknowledged that under the current County Council arrangements Polling District WRUSW4 forms part of the Littlehampton East ED this should be ruled out of any consideration of the District Ward boundaries (LGBCfE rules). In any case and without doubt the general redistribution of ward boundaries within Arun will require a minor review of the County seat boundaries. While we recognise that ensuring WRUSW4 is retained in the Rustington West District ward would have a ‘knock-on’ effect on Littlehampton Brookfield we can only suggest that the alignment within the Littlehampton TC boundary should be reconsidered with perhaps a three member ward being created out of a two member ward.

Historically whenever a re-warding exercise of Arun District has taken place it has been recognised that the arrangements for Ferring, Kingston, East Preston and Rustington are key to arrangements throughout the district as a whole and significantly contributed to the determination of the size of the council. The fact that this part of the district has minimal development potential with no strategic housing allocations indicates there is stability in electorate numbers and the moving of boundaries is totally unnecessary and adversely effects co-terminousity with all other Local Government tiers and Parish arrangements.

Comments on proposals outside of the Worthing West Constituency wards. Angmering with Findon

While Angmering with Findon is a proposal that replicates the County Council Division (with the exception of South Angmering) it is in effect a proposal for a detached ward. Findon Village at the extreme north east of Arun wholly looks to Findon Valley within Worthing Borough in the hierarchy of local services. Findon together with Clapham and Patching Parishes are entirely within the South Downs National Park and only have the A280 to connect them. No buses connect Findon with Angmering, in fact to travel by bus to Angmering requires bus changes within Worthing Borough. The A27 is a major barrier throughout the district as well as providing the general line of boundary with the South Downs National Park which came into being more recently than the last county seat review.

Comment has been made that because the electors who live in South Angmering have a postal address of ‘East Preston they do not belong to Angmering’. They are however within the Parish council boundary and of course Postal areas form no part of the civil boundary structure nor do they define local interest areas. The Coastway West railway line is a major boundary to the south and we are pleased the LGBCfE have recognised this in their proposals however Highdown Hill and the rural nature of the strategic gap between Angmering and Ferring now reinforced by the ‘Angmering By-pass’ provide a natural containment to Angmering Parish.

Continuing to maintain Findon as a single member ward together with maintaining the existing Angmering ward boundary would have the following effect on the distribution of electors – all scenarios giving figures of less than the +/-10% variation.

Cllrs 2017 54 Members 55 Members 56 Members Electors (2294) (2252) (2212) Angmering 3 6406 -6.9% -5.2% -3.4% Findon 1 2282 -0.5% +1.3% +3.1%

Conclusion Bearing in mind the severe impact that the revised LGBCfE proposals would have on the convenience and effectiveness of local government, the inherent undermining of community interest and coherence and the increased workload for District Councillors it is clear that the proposals are unwelcome, unworkable and run counter to the guidelines issued by LGBCfE. The proposals should be withdrawn and the status quo based on a council size of 56 members maintained.

Submitted by Cllr Colin Oliver-Redgate Cllr Ricky Bower Cllr Terence Chapman Cllr Dennis Wilde Cllr Philippa Bower Cllr Graham Tyler Cllr Michael Clayden Cllr Florence Harrison Cllr Ray Steward Cllr Paul Bicknell Cllr Dudley Wensley