Canterbury) LGBCE Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Review Officer (Canterbury) LGBCE Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

22 April 2014

Dear Sir

Canterbury Boundary Review – Comments on Draft Proposals – “Barham Bridge & Littlebourne” ward

We are writing as ward councillors for Barham Downs and Little Stour in respect of the proposed new large two member ward of Barham Bridge & Littlebourne.

We believe that the interests of local people would be better served if this proposed two member ward were split into two single member wards.

It is our suggestion that the following two single member wards are created:

Nailbourne This ward would consist of the polling districts of Bishopsbourne (RNN1), Bridge (RNN2), Barham (RBD2), Kingston (RBD3) and Womenswold/Woolage (RBD4)

Little Stour & Adisham This ward would consist of the polling districts of Littlebourne (RLS2), Ickham/Bramling (RLS2), Wickhambreaux (RLS4), Adisham (RBD1), Patrixbourne (RNN3) and Bekesbourne (RNN4)

The electoral numbers from these two wards would be:

Ward Name Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance councillors (2013) electors per from (2019) electors per from councillor average councillor average % % Nailbourne 1 3,117 3,117 7.5% 3.242 3,242 5.1%

Little Stour & 1 3,164 3,164 9% 3,262 3,262 5.7% Adisham

Total 2 6,281 6,504

This compares with the draft proposals for a two member ward of:

The case against the proposed two member ward

We believe that rural areas are best served, where possible, by single member wards for the following reasons:

1) The proposed two member ward includes ten parish councils. The Canterbury District Parish Charter (draft) states that “Canterbury city councillors will endeavour to attend parish council meetings when appropriate”. It can often be difficult to attend parish council meeting when there are just three or four in a ward, but with ten the contact between city councillors and the parishes will be greatly reduced; 2) The proposed ward will be by far the largest in the district. City councillors will have a large area to cover and it will be difficult for them to be familiar with all issues and areas in the ward; 3) Due to the large area voters are less likely to know candidates contesting elections; 4) There are no community links between the extremes of the ward; 5) There are no public transport services across the ward without having to go into Canterbury City centre; 6) We are aware of the argument that with two councillors the work load can be shared. However we fear that this will be difficult to achieve, especially if the councillors elected are not from the same political party. This could well lead to a doubling or duplication of work and effort by both councillors. 7) As city councillors we have discussed the proposed ward with parish councillors in our wards and they have expressed concerns about the loss of contact with their city representatives should the proposed ward be adopted. 8) A precedent for a single member rural ward is the proposed ward of Reculver and we can see no reason why this ward is any different from either of our proposed wards.

The case for single member wards of “Nailbourne” and “Little Stour & Adisham”

Our proposed “Nailbourne” ward follows the A2 and also the Nailbourne river. There are many social and community links in the ward, especially between Bridge and Barham, and therefore in the smaller villages around and in between them. Bridge is the major village in this ward with shop, post office, health centre, primary school, butchers, farmers’ market, hairdressers etc. The majority of residents in our proposed ward will use Bridge as their centre for these services. Barham also has a primary school.

Our proposed “Little Stour & Adisham” ward follows the route of another major route into the city, the A257. This ward would consist of the existing Little Stour Ward plus the neighbouring villages of Bekesbourne and Adisham. Both Bekesbourne and Adisham are on the main railway line from Canterbury to Dover. Littlebourne is the major village in this ward with shop, post office, health centre, primary school, hairdressers etc. The majority of residents in our proposed ward will use Littlebourne as their centre for these services. Adisham also has a primary school.

When seen on a map these proposed wards fit in well geographically and there is no split of parish boundaries.

How do our proposals fit in with the LGBCE criteria?

A good pattern of wards should:

■ Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters – We believe that our figures as set out in the tables above achieve this.

■ Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links – As set out above we believe this to be the case.

■ Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries – We believe this to be the case with two single member wards but much less so with a large two member ward.

■ Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government – Two single member wards will improve contact between city and parish councillors, delivering more effective and convenient local government.

Electoral equality:

■ Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the council area? - Yes

Community identity: ■ Transport links: are there good links across the ward? Is there any form of public transport? – Public Transport routes on the whole follow routes on or parallel to the A2 and A257. By making two single member wards transport links are much improved. The “Littlebourne and Adisham” ward would also be served by the mainline railway from Canterbury to Dover that passes though Bekesbourne and Adisham stations. These villages are also linked by the 89B Stagecoach bus service. Bus services through Littlebourne along the A257 are served by the 14 and 13A bus routes. The 17 & 16A Stagecoach buses run through the Nailbourne valley passing through Bridge, Kingston, and Barham in our proposed “Nailbourne” ward. There is no direct public transport link from our proposed “Nailbourne” ward to Littlebourne, the major village in the “Littlebourne & Adisham” ward. Any such journey has to be carried out via Canterbury, which is why two single member wards would work better than a large two member ward.

■ Community groups: is there a parish council, residents association or another group that represents the area? – Our proposals would create two wards of 5 parish councils each. There would be no splitting of parishes.

■ Facilities: does your pattern of wards reflect where local people go for shops, medical services, leisure facilities etc? – Yes, as set out above.

■ Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? – Our proposed Nailbourne ward in particular has been bound together by recent flooding issues.

■ Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals? – Yes, the A2 and the geography of the “The Downs”, together create the “Nailbourne” ward which is much different geographically from the