Fuller, Heather

From: Crispin Allard < > Sent: 28 September 2014 23:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of City Council - Submission to the Stage 1 Consultation Attachments: Boundary Submission Stage 1 Final.docx; Bristol LD output area outlines_pdf; Bristol LD output area shaded_pdf; Bristol LD ward boundaries_pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached the Bristol Liberal Democrats' submission to the Electoral Review of Bristol City Council Stage 1 Consultation.

Rather than make proposals for parts of the city, with no consideration of any knock on effects, we have chosen to propose a single warding arrangement, covering the whole city. The attached submission contains a detailed description of our proposal, together with evidence for each proposed ward in relation to the statutory criteria. It includes three annexes, attached as pdf files. In the absence of a submission by the Council as a whole, we hope this will be helpful to the LGBCE.

If you have any queries regarding our proposals, please contact me at this email address in the first instance.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Crispin Allard

Bristol Liberal Democrats

1

Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

Boundary Submission Introduction This contribution to the electoral review of Bristol City Council (BCC) is submitted by Bristol Liberal Democrat Local Party and BCC Liberal Democrat Group. It has benefitted from inputs by over 40 councillors, retired councillors, campaigners and other members, who collectively have provided detailed local knowledge covering the whole city. Whilst we have not been able to consult outside the party, our submission benefits from our understanding of the desires of various community groups as well as large numbers of ward constituents to see their communities reflected in warding arrangements. Rather than make proposals for parts of the city, with no consideration of any knock on effects, we have chosen to propose a single warding arrangement, covering the whole city. In the absence of a submission by the Council as a whole, we hope this will be helpful to the LGBCE. This submission does not preclude individual submissions by any councillor or other member of the Liberal Democrats.

Our approach In drawing up our submission, we have adopted the following approach:

1. Delivering electoral equality for voters. As far as possible, we have sought to maintain the quota (the number of electors per councillor) to within 10% of the average; only in exceptional circumstances do our proposals exceed this tolerance. Our figures have been estimated using Output Area (OA) data – the most granular layer for which BCC has provided electoral data. In addition to using the 2014 electoral figures, we have produced estimates for 2020, recognising the growth planned in a number of areas in the city. These have been calculated by mapping the polling district forecasts provided by BCC onto OAs; our method can be provided to the LGBCE on request. We have used the GIS software made available by BCC to construct the warding arrangements. 2. Interests and identities of local communities. This boundary review provides an opportunity to create a pattern of wards in the city that is based on the local communities people live, work and socialise in. The current ward boundaries do not reflect local communities well in some parts of the city. This is primarily due to the constraint of all wards having to be the same size. In drawing up our submission, we have taken advantage of the move to all-out elections which removes this constraint. Our proposed scheme mostly retains 2-member wards, but where appropriate we have proposed a number of 1-member and 3-member wards. Not only do these result in a better reflection of local community interests and identities, but they also enable the 2-member wards to be better aligned to communities. In drawing boundaries, we have generally stuck to the following principles.

Page | 1 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

a. The most significant boundary in the city is the River Avon. None of our proposed wards cross the New Cut/river, except that Cabot ward includes Spike Island as now. b. Next in significance are the railway lines, M32 and dual carriageways. These form ward boundaries in many cases, although there are exceptions. For example, the area around Glenfrome Road and Cotterell Road identifies most closely with the rest of our proposed Stapleton Ward, even though apparently separated by the M32; because the M32 is raised at this point, a main road under the motorway provides good communication. c. Larger areas of green space, smaller rivers and topography also provide a number of natural boundaries. d. Single carriageway main roads sometimes represent good boundaries, but there are exceptions. For example, Gloucester Road represents the heart of the Bishopston community. e. Where boundaries run along minor residential streets, our view is that both sides of the street should be in the same ward. 3. Effective and convenient local government. In a city, achieving electoral equality and reflecting local communities generally results in effective and convenient local government. However, this criterion does come into play in our consideration of the area covered by the current Lawrence Hill ward, which contains a multitude of small fragmented communities, and is criss-crossed by numerous road, rail and water barriers. (See our commentary below on our proposed Easton and Lawrence Hill wards.)

Delivering electoral equality for voters: ward sizes We propose an arrangement comprising 39 wards: 10 of 1 councillor; 27 of 2 councillors and 2 of 3 councillors. The total number of councillors is 70, as already agreed. Details are provided in the table below, which for convenience is in the format used by LGBCE.

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward Name electors per from electors per from councillors (2014) (2020) councillor average (%) councillor average (%) 2 9,001 4,501 -2.3% 10,663 5,332 9.3% 2 9,698 4,849 5.3% 9,979 4,990 2.3% Bedminster 2 9,280 4,640 0.7% 9,979 4,989 2.2% Bishopston 2 9,041 4,521 -1.8% 10,017 5,008 2.6% 2 9,656 4,828 4.8% 9,981 4,990 2.3% East 2 9,235 4,618 0.3% 9,906 4,953 1.5% 2 8,743 4,372 -5.1% 9,217 4,608 -5.6% Cabot 2 8,150 4,075 -11.5% 9,197 4,599 -5.8% Clifton 2 10,051 5,026 9.1% 10,599 5,299 8.6%

Page | 2 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance Ward Name councillors (2014) electors per from (2020) electors per from Cotham 1 4,962 4,962 7.7% 5,517 5,517 13.1% Easton 1 4,568 4,568 -0.8% 4,762 4,762 -2.4% Eastville Park 2 9,134 4,567 -0.8% 9,519 4,760 -2.5% 2 9,516 4,758 3.3% 10,086 5,043 3.3% 2 9,402 4,701 2.1% 10,400 5,200 6.6% 3 12,269 4,090 -11.2% 12,669 4,223 -13.5% 2 9,383 4,692 1.9% 9,618 4,809 -1.5% 1 4,673 4,673 1.5% 4,846 4,846 -0.7% 2 9,484 4,742 3.0% 9,432 4,716 -3.4% Hillfields 2 9,136 4,568 -0.8% 9,873 4,937 1.2% Horfield 2 9,392 4,696 2.0% 10,070 5,035 3.2% Knowle 2 9,359 4,680 1.6% 9,601 4,801 -1.6% Lawrence Hill 1 4,396 4,396 -4.6% 5,320 5,320 9.0% 1 4,212 4,212 -8.6% 4,710 4,710 -3.5% Redcliffe 1 3,710 3,710 -19.5% 5,081 5,081 4.1% Redland 2 9,136 4,568 -0.8% 9,506 4,753 -2.6% Sea Mills 1 4,394 4,394 -4.6% 4,469 4,469 -8.4% 2 9,384 4,692 1.9% 9,871 4,935 1.1% Southville 2 9,650 4,825 4.8% 10,582 5,291 8.4% St Andrews 1 4,346 4,346 -5.6% 4,490 4,490 -8.0% St George 3 15,069 5,023 9.1% 15,290 5,097 4.4% Stapleton 1 5,049 5,049 9.6% 4,922 4,922 0.9% 2 8,931 4,466 -3.0% 8,841 4,420 -9.4% 2 8,678 4,339 -5.8% 8,723 4,362 -10.6% Upper Horfield 1 4,596 4,596 -0.2% 4,859 4,859 -0.4% Westbury- on-Trym 2 8,966 4,483 -2.7% 9,034 4,517 -7.4% Whitchurch 2 9,032 4,516 -2.0% 9,064 4,532 -7.1% Whitehall 2 9,565 4,783 3.8% 10,184 5,092 4.3% Whiteladies 2 9,862 4,931 7.1% 10,835 5,418 11.0% Windmill Hill 2 9,327 4,664 1.3% 9,891 4,946 1.4% 70

Page | 3 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

The following points should be noted: 1. Because OAs do not coincide with appropriate boundaries for the proposed wards, the 2014 electorates are approximate only; the 2020 figures involve further approximation, due to the lack of granularity in the projections provided by BCC. 2. Subject to this caveat, of the 39 wards, three vary from the average quota by more than 10% in 2014, and four in 2020. Of these, Hartcliffe is the only ward outside this tolerance in both years. 3. In only one case is there a large deviation from the quota: Redcliffe in 2014. This area is due to experience substantial redevelopment in the coming years. Consequently, the variance is projected to move from -19.5% in 2014 to +4.1% in 2020; it is likely that ongoing development beyond 2020 will lead to this variance increasing further.

Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities: commentary on the proposed warding arrangements Below we provide brief ward by ward commentary, grouped by area, describing the communities and hard boundaries that lead to the proposed wards. For convenience, the following ward statistics are repeated from the table above: Ward Name Number of councillors Electorate (2014) Electorate (2020) North West and North Bristol Main changes in this area: The communities of Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle form a natural 1-member ward. This allows us to improve arrangements in neighbouring wards: Lawrence Weston moves into Henbury ward; moves from Henbury ward into Southmead ward. By revising Lockleaze to be a single member ward bounded by the railway line (see below under the North East Bristol section), we have been able to rationalise Horfield, creating a 2-member Horfield ward and a single member Upper Horfield ward. Avonmouth 2 9,698 9,979 There are two distinct communities in the current ward, Avonmouth village and , with the M5 crossing the ward on the Avonmouth Bridge. However, Avonmouth village is too small for a single member ward, while Shirehampton is too big. We therefore propose retaining the existing boundaries. Bishopston 2 9,041 10,017 Bishopston’s identity is strongly associated with Gloucester Road, and retailers, that sits at the heart of the community. The railway line to the east and Kellaway Avenue to the north west provide clear boundaries. Other than that, we have done our best to draw boundaries that reflect local people’s identity whilst achieving electoral equality.

Page | 4 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

Henbury 2 9,383 9,618 We have balanced Henbury ward by moving Lawrence Weston into the ward and moving Brentry into Southmead ward. This results in an improved community fit, whilst achieving electoral equality. We have selected strong boundaries where possible: the main line railway and M5 to the north and green corridor to the south. Kings Weston Lane forms the western boundary and the dual carriageway Passage Road the majority of the eastern boundary. Henleaze 2 9,484 9,432 The current ward has been a coherent community since 1999 covering the core area of The Henleaze Society and the major part of Westbury Park Community Association (WPCA). We have added in an area of similar demographic profile around Henleaze Lake (to the north) and included more of the WPCA area in the south-west. Horfield 2 9,392 10,070 Upper Horfield 1 4,596 4,859 Using the railway line as the proposed boundary of Lockleaze gives the opportunity to define a single member ward for Upper Horfield. This area has undergone significant regeneration since the last review and is a community that straddles the existing ward boundary along Avenue. Sea Mills 1 4,394 4,469 Sea Mills is a distinct community developed as a garden suburb by the council. A small neighbouring area to the east known as Coombe Dingle is separated from Westbury by a river valley and is therefore included in this ward. The boundaries are compelling, consisting entirely of rivers and green corridor. (This presents a significant improvement on current arrangements in this area, where the existing ward is divided physically by the ridge of the Blaise Castle estate.) Southmead 2 9,384 9,871 The current Southmead ward needs to be enlarged and currently includes in its south west corner some areas that self-define as Westbury, e.g. The Bristol Free School. By moving this part into Westbury ward and transferring Brentry (east of the dual-carriageway Passage Road) in from Henbury ward, the electorate better matches the quota. Stoke Bishop 2 8,678 8,723 Stoke Bishop is bounded to the north by the River Trym, to the west by the River Avon and to the south by The Downs, so there is limited scope for increasing the electorate to aid electoral equality. We suggest addressing this by including a small area of the current Westbury-on-Trym to the west of Canford cemetery. Westbury-on-Trym 2 8,966 9,034 We have maintained Westbury-on-Trym ward with the Westbury “village” at is heart, using strong boundaries (green spaces/main roads) wherever possible.

Page | 5 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

North Central and West Bristol Main changes in this area: The current Cabot, Lawrence Hill and Ashley wards are all significantly oversize at present, and this gets worse on the 2020 projections. Also, the Severn Beach railway line is a significant obstacle to communication in this area, something that is not reflected in current ward boundaries. Therefore, wards in this area have been substantially recast, including the creation of a number of single member wards to better reflect communities. Ashley 2 9,001 10,663 Ashley ward is one of largest wards currently, with continuing growth forecast. We believe that the M32, , Cheltenham Road and Severn Beach railway provide strong boundaries for a more compact two member ward, containing the St Paul’s, Montpelier and Stokes Croft communities. (The small residential area around St Werburgh’s City Farm just to the north of the railway is included, because its primary connectivity is via Mina Road.) Cabot 2 8,150 9,197 Redcliffe 1 3,710 5,081 Cabot is a historic ward that has been made of half a dozen small communities, with Kingsdown as the largest. Too small to be single member wards, they have long been joined together as Cabot ward. Due to huge population growth, Cabot needs to shrink dramatically to maintain fair numbers. Apart from some minor tweaking on the western and northern boundaries, this is achieved by splitting off a single member Redcliffe ward to the east, by following the line of St Augustine's Reach and the old “Inner circuit road”. Rather than following the water boundary through Bathurst Basin, the boundary is taken down Wapping Rd so that the Bathurst Basin community can remain linked with Redcliffe, as it currently is. The community of Redcliffe is a historic community, based on the River Avon (the New Cut) and Floating Harbour (the old River Avon course). It is currently divided between Cabot and Lawrence Hill. Members of the Redcliffe community forum and many others have suggested a desire that a single-member ward should be created here that can best reflect community interests, and we support them. We believe that the proposed one member ward will represent a distinct community where there is significant change expected over the coming years. Easton 1 4,568 4,762 Lawrence Hill 1 4,396 5,320 We are proposing to separate Easton and Lawrence Hill into two single member wards rather than leaving them as a reduced-population two-member “old” Lawrence Hill because it is generally acknowledged that the existing Lawrence Hill ward is unmanageably large. This is due to more than just its over-sized population – it is a feature of its multitude of small fragmented communities, and also due to the numerous road, rail and water barriers that criss-cross it. Getting from one end of the ward to the other can take an hour in the car in traffic, and is difficult by bike and extremely difficult or even impossible on foot.

Page | 6 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

The existing ward is home to some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. On top of this, the high rate of new-build and change in the ward makes it difficult to keep track of changes across a two-member ward. A very high rate of community involvement is needed by sitting councillors, and since councillors cannot “divide up” the ward to focus on communities (councillors may not belong to the same party), then all councillors must be involved with and be experts of all the communities. This is exceptionally difficult in the current Lawrence Hill ward and is best addressed by single-member ward solutions. Consequently, our argument for creating two single member wards in this area is based principally on achieving effective and convenient local government, whilst also delivering electoral equality and reflecting the interests and identities of local communities. For the avoidance of confusion, our proposed ward of Easton, which includes Easton Leisure Centre and the Upper Easton community, is entirely different to the existing ward called Easton, which sits on the other side of the railway line. Clifton 2 10,051 10,599 Whiteladies 2 9,862 10,835 A re-drawing of boundaries revises the current Clifton East ward (which we suggest should be re-named Whiteladies), to encompass both sides of Whiteladies Road, which is the communal and shopping focus for residents on both sides of it. Minor adjustments are proposed to the current Clifton ward boundary to bring it closer to electoral equality. Cotham 1 4,962 5,517 St Andrews 1 4,346 4,490 Redland 2 9,136 9,506 The Severn Beach railway line is a significant obstacle to communication, and effectively represents the boundary between Cotham and Redland. We have therefore revised Cotham as a single member ward to better reflect the Cotham identity. In addition to the railway to the north, its other boundaries are similar to the current Cotham ward. St Andrews has a distinct community identity, centred on St Andrew’s Park, forming a natural 1 member ward. Creating Cotham and St Andrews as single member wards allows us to significantly redraw Redland ward to better reflect community identities. The new ward has at its centre Redland Green School (which did not exist the last time the boundaries were drawn), and now includes Redland’s distinctive Chandos Road restaurant/retail area. The southern boundary is formed by the Severn Beach railway line. To the west, Hampton Road (residents further west identify more with Whiteladies). To the north, Coldharbour Road/Kellaway Avenue forms a strong boundary. The eastern boundary is less clear – we have drawn it to balance community identity with electoral equality.

North East Bristol The Ward Boundaries in this part of the city simply do not reflect natural local communities; instead they appear to have been created purely to achieve numerical balance. In the

Page | 7 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014 current ward pattern in this part of the city, wards appear to have been configured on a ‘north-south’ basis. This has led to wards such as Easton, Eastville, and which group together local communities with little in common with each other. It has also led to a situation where for example the district of Whitehall finds itself divided between three City Council wards. This part of the city grew organically from west to east as Bristol expanded in the 19th Century. Today the natural run of communities is still broadly east-west running into the city centre. The road network supports this pattern of travel through the major roads which are:

• B4058 Stapleton Road/Bell Hill/Park Road • A432 Fishponds Road • B4465 Easton Road/Whitehall Road • A420 Lawrence Hill/Church Road/Two Mile Hill Road All of these are used daily by residents to go to work, take children to school, go shopping etc. All have bus routes that run along them, and between them they carry the bulk of vehicular traffic in this part of Bristol. In drawing up our proposals we have been mindful of these patterns, and tried to fit wards within them, rather than force them into an unnatural ‘north-south’ mould as at present. Lockleaze 1 4,212 4,710 The Lockleaze estate is a clearly established community. It is undergoing considerable regeneration as part of a Neighbourhood Planning initiative. To the north east of Lockleaze is a railway line which serves as a hard boundary line between it and the Upper Horfield area. Stapleton 1 5,049 4,922 Stapleton is a clearly defined part of Bristol; it is a historic parish, the centre of which has very much a ‘village’ feel to it. It grew with the building of the Colston Estate in the 1930s, the Duchess Way and Trendlewood Park estates in the 1970s, Begbrook in the 1980s and the Bailey’s Mead/Barkley’s Hill area in the 1990s. The bulk of Stapleton is currently the EEA Polling District of Eastville Ward, to which we have added the Glenfrome Road and Cotterell Road area (see above) and the other areas north-west of the River Frome currently in the Frome Vale Ward. This enables us to create a ward which reflects its natural community, and which for the most part is bordered on one side by the River Frome. On the 2014 boundaries the ward is on the large side in terms of its electoral population, however much of it is a Conservation area, and the 2020 population projections suggest a fairly rapid short to medium term fall in its population. To the South of the Lockleaze estate is the area around Glenfrome Road and Cotterell Road. Residents here do not identify with Lockleaze, which is at the top of a steep hill, and there is some resentment about the current ward composition.

Page | 8 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

The most similar neighbourhood to them is the Colston estate around Averay Road and Welsford Rd/Ave (currently in Eastville Ward). Although the areas are either side of the M32, the motorway is elevated at this point, so it does not form a hard boundary. Indeed children either side of it go to Glenfrome Primary School, and any users on foot will tend to use the Merchants Arms. The area is also in the historic Parish of Stapleton. Bus services into the City centre run along Bell Hill and Glenfrome Road. Moving this area from the existing Lockleaze Ward and reconnecting it with its adjacent neighbourhood is logical, and we believe would be locally popular. Whitehall 2 9,565 10,184 This is a community that is divided by the Ward pattern and (in common with Fishponds) feels a little forgotten as a result. One of the main focal points (Whitehall Road) currently forms the dividing line between wards. We felt there was a natural north-south boundary to Whitehall. The valley between Upper Eastville and Clay Bottom, Greenbank Cemetery, the bridge and nature reserve at Royate Hill and the Bristol/Bath cycle path (former Midland Railway line) form the northern limits, and the River Avon its southern point. To the east the district clearly ends around Croft End, and to the west at March Lane. We have kept the Redfield area together, but have merged it with Whitehall to its East, rather than Easton to its north at present. We believe this is far more in tune with the east- west nature of day to day activity in both communities. Eastville Park 2 9,134 9,519 The current Eastville Ward is a misnomer; it includes areas like Stapleton and Whitehall which have never considered themselves ‘Eastville’, whilst parts of Lower Eastville in the Stapleton Road area have been put in Easton Ward since 1981. Greenbank was historically linked with Eastville, but in 1981 half of it was put into Easton Ward, followed by the rest of it in 1999. Our proposal seeks to unite Upper and Lower Eastville with Greenbank in a new Eastville Park Ward (with the park in it!). This does form a natural community with Fishponds Road as its focal point. Fishponds 2 9,402 10,400 As a consequence of creating a Stapleton Ward we have the opportunity to create a ward based around the main shopping area of Fishponds, and Oldbury Court. Most of this area is currently contained within present Frome Vale ward, with some of current Hillfields added in. We feel the new ward should be called Fishponds. Hillfields 2 9,136 9,873 This also enables Hillfields Ward to have a more natural community boundary based on the estate and the Mayfield Park areas.

Page | 9 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

St George 3 15,069 15,290 As a consequence of the creation of a Whitehall ward, we can create a three seat Ward to represent the whole of St. George, rather than perpetuate the current artificial division into two wards.

South Bristol The first and most obvious point to make is that no ward should straddle the river or new cut. This means that on strict numerical terms the average quota for wards south of the river is a fraction lower than the city average but not so much as to warrant the loss of a single councillor. A number of the existing boundaries work quite well in terms of community and where this is the case we have left as is even if the projected numbers are slightly low. There are key hard boundaries which we have respected but it must be noted that some of the existing wards are strange constructs that have resulted from the rigid 2 member ward pattern. 2 9,235 9,906 Brislington West 2 8,743 9,217 Stockwood 2 8,931 8,841 The existing boundaries for these three wards work well on a community basis and we are recommending that they remain largely as they are apart from tidying up some anomalies. Although the numbers are slightly below quota there is no way to fully overcome this. We also feel that there is likely to be more small ad hoc adding of dwellings that might have been allowed for in the projections. Brislington West ward should take in the Bath Rd properties that are at present in Windmill Hill ward and Stockwood ward should fully absorb all the properties on what is commonly known as the Imperial estate off West Town Lane (which at the moment is bizarrely split between 3 wards including Brislington West and Knowle even though there is no direct access). It should be noted that, whilst further in to town Wells Rd is one that communities gather around and cross, from Airport Rd outwards it is mostly dual carriageway that forms a pretty hard boundary. Filwood 2 9,516 10,086 Filwood is often commonly known as “”, although some feel that this name is inappropriate and is regarded with varying degrees of affection. The key point though is that it is a clearly identifiable community that has hard boundaries on 3 sides of it with Airport Rd, Hartcliffe Way and an escarpment. Importantly there is a regeneration area boundary that covers all of the ward and small sections of Knowle and Windmill Hill wards. Filwood ward is low on numbers and the only logical way to increase this is to incorporate into Filwood ward the few roads that are at present in both Knowle ward and the regeneration area up to and including Salcombe Rd.

Page | 10 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

The other movement that is needed here is that Beckington and Winfield Roads were included in Filwood ward (and by default into the regeneration area) in a previous boundary change to “make up the numbers”. They do not fit there either in terms of character or geography and should be in Knowle ward (and out of the regeneration area). Filwood and Knowle ward councillors have long agreed on this and residents are confused by the boundary. Knowle 2 9,359 9,601 Knowle has a very strong community around the shopping area at Wells Rd / Broadwalk with the attendant facilities and park. Large numbers of residents get ALL of their services and social interaction within this tightly knit area. The Wells Rd from Airport Rd to Totterdown is unifying rather than dividing and the existing ward is a very cohesive unit. However, the side roads from Crowndale to Knowle Rd (but actually not including the latter) regard themselves as Knowle and look towards the Knowle centre. The area between Redcatch Rd and the Wells Rd on the Knowle side of St Johns lane is labelled as “Lower Knowle” and in terms of character has a lot in common with the rest of Knowle. This area is not so strongly bound to the Knowle centre but certainly has no other stronger tie and should be incorporated into Knowle. Perretts Park is used by residents from existing Knowle and Lower Knowle and is a strong community feature. Windmill Hill 2 9,327 9,891 Totterdown is a very distinct area with an exceptionally strong residents association and although it does not necessarily show clearly on a map this area should be kept as a unit within Windmill Hill ward. It looks more to the city centre than to Knowle. At the other end of Windmill Hill it is possible to absorb small amounts off Bedminster and Southville and retain community boundaries that are at least as coherent as present; this helps to solve the number problems for Southville in particular. Hengrove 1 4,673 4,846 Whitchurch 2 9,032 9,064 Hartcliffe 3 12,269 12,669 Bishopsworth 2 9,656 9,981 These four wards are considered together, as we are proposing a complete recasting of the existing boundaries, which poorly reflect the interests and identities of local communities. The problems with current arrangement are summarised below:

• The existing ward is the most divided ward in the city. One “half” is fully committed to Whitchurch and fits absolutely in terms of character and lifestyle with the rest of Whitchurch that is in the present Hengrove ward. The other half of the ward belongs to Hartcliffe. At the moment the Whitchurch community is divided with much of it in Hengrove ward. This causes confusion as well as unhappiness amongst residents. • The existing Hengrove ward is a strange patchwork with little unifying it. The A37 Wells road that crosses it provides a hard boundary to the Hengrove and Whitchurch

Page | 11 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

communities, in many places being 4 lanes wide. Hengrove has a distinctive character, can be more Knowle-facing and many people look to Brislington and Knowle for shopping - as in the Tesco’s store and Broadwalk shopping centre. • Hartcliffe community is defined by the council estate between Dundry Hill and the soon-to-be-finished Hengrove Way/South Bristol link road. Currently, the east half of Hartcliffe is in Whitchurch Park, artificially joined with Whitchurch – a community that it has little in common with. For example, many people in Whitchurch shop at the Asda store in the Whitchurch town centre area while the majority of Hartcliffe residents will use the Morrison’s store at Symes Avenue in Hartcliffe. They use very different bus routes, churches and primary schools. In the current Hartcliffe ward, Headley Park is joined to Hartcliffe, despite having no links with it – it is actually part of the Bishopsworth community. • Finally, in the current Bishopsworth ward, Withywood is currently joined to Bishopsworth, when it has better links to Hartcliffe. We have solved these interconnected problems by:

• Combining Headley Park with Bishopsworth in a redrawn 2-member Bishopsworth ward, with the soon-to-be-finished Hengrove Way/South Bristol link road forming a strong southern boundary. • Uniting Hartcliffe, together with Withywood, to create a redrawn 3-member Hartcliffe ward. • Bringing the Whitchurch community together in a new 2-member Whitchurch ward. • Recognising the distinctiveness of the Hengrove community in a redrawn 1 member Hengrove ward that can properly be identified as the real Hengrove. We appreciate that the electoral quota in the 3 member Hartcliffe ward is on the low side and is projected to remain so (albeit the new link road can be expected to encourage development in future years). However, the ward boundaries are strong (Link Road in the north and distinction between Hartcliffe and Whitchurch in the east), so we have prioritised community interests and identity over electoral quality in this case. Bedminster 2 9,280 9,979 Southville 2 9,650 10,582 We are suggesting just minor trimming around Southville and Bedminster to address the numbers issue but do not feel there is need for a major shift of structure.

Appendices There are three maps that form an essential part of this submission. They have all been produced using Bristol City Council’s MapInfo software and are therefore subject to copyright. The copyright statement for all three is: © Crown Copyright and database rights 2014. Ordnance Survey 100023406 The map files are:

1. Bristol LD output area shaded

Page | 12 Bristol Liberal Democrats – ward boundary review submission 2014

2. Bristol LD output area outlines 3. Bristol LD ward boundaries The first two of these show the output areas we have selected as the numerical basis for our wards. On these the boundaries are not exactly where we would wish them to be because of the granular nature of the output areas. The third map has our suggested boundaries drawn more accurately on it, though we have not attempted to show the detail of where a boundary is behind houses on a road or in the centre of the road. We plan to look more closely at the finer detail in the consultation on the LGBCE’s draft recommendations. The MapInfo data tables on which these are based can be provided on request.

Page | 13 Fuller, Heather

From: Crispin Allard < > Sent: 28 September 2014 23:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Re: Electoral Review of Bristol City Council - Submission to the Stage 1 Consultation

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Further to my previous email, here are my full details, as requested in your submission page:

First name: Crispin Surname: Allard Email: Postcode: Organisation Name: Bristol Liberal Democrats Organisation Type: Representative of a community group/organisation

I would be grateful if you would confirm by email the receipt of both the submission and this information.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Crispin Allard > wrote: Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached the Bristol Liberal Democrats' submission to the Electoral Review of Bristol City Council Stage 1 Consultation.

Rather than make proposals for parts of the city, with no consideration of any knock on effects, we have chosen to propose a single warding arrangement, covering the whole city. The attached submission contains a detailed description of our proposal, together with evidence for each proposed ward in relation to the statutory criteria. It includes three annexes, attached as pdf files. In the absence of a submission by the Council as a whole, we hope this will be helpful to the LGBCE.

If you have any queries regarding our proposals, please contact me at this email address in the first instance.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Crispin Allard

Bristol Liberal Democrats

1

2