Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for County Council

Electoral review

June 2012

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for :

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2012 Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 5

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 8 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 9 Borough 10 District 11 District 12 Borough 14 Borough 16 District 18 Borough of 20 Conclusions 21 Parish electoral arrangements 22

3 What happens next? 25

4 Mapping 27

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 28

B Table B1: Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire 31 County Council

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of Northamptonshire County Council to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Commission commenced the review in 2011.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 25 October 2011 Consultation on council size 24 January 2012 Submission of proposals of division arrangements to the LGBCE 3 April 2012 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 19 June 2012 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them 14 August 2012 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Submissions received

The Commission received 26 submissions on council size. Subsequently, we received 44 submissions for division arrangements, including a county-wide scheme from the Council and alternative schemes for other areas in the county. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

Northamptonshire County Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2017, a date five years on from the scheduled publication of our recommendations. This is prescribed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 5% over this period. The majority of growth in the electorate is focused in the borough of Corby. More modest growth is forecast for every district and borough in the county. The Commission is content that the forecasts are the most accurate available at this time.

Council size

Northamptonshire County Council proposed a council size of between 56 and 59, a

1 reduction of 14 to 17 from the current council size of 73. The Labour Group on the Council proposed a smaller reduction to 67 councillors.

In support of this reduction in council size, the County Council considered the Council’s management and scrutiny functions. It also outlined the representational role of members and member workload. The Labour Group argued that the County Council’s proposed reduction was too large, and that the county’s residents may not be adequately represented by only 57 members.

The County Council’s submission contained evidence that it had considered how it would function with 57 members, and it considered that even with a reduced membership it would be able to carry out all of its functions properly. The Labour Group’s submission did not provide detailed support for their preferred reduction, to 67 members. It instead focused on projections and calculations of electoral divisions and electorates. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a council size of 57 members.

General analysis

Having considered the submissions received on division arrangements, we have developed proposals that are, in some parts of the county, based on those of the County Council. We have proposed notably different divisional arrangements from the County Council in Daventry, Kettering, East Northamptonshire, and Wellingborough as well as some changes to its proposed divisions in Corby, Northampton and South Northamptonshire. Our proposals will provide good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and transport links in the county.

What happens next?

There will now be a consultation period, during which we encourage comment on the draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 13 August 2012. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

We would particularly welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. Express your views by writing directly to us at:

Review Officer Northamptonshire Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk

2 1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review Northamptonshire County Council’s electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 We invited Northamptonshire County Council to submit proposals first on council size and then on division arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review have informed our draft recommendations.

3 We are now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish our final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council in autumn 2012.

What is an electoral review?

4 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

5 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why are we conducting a review in Northamptonshire?

6 We decided to conduct this review because, based on the December 2010 electorate figures, 40% of divisions in the county have 10% more or fewer electors per councillor than the county average. One division, Danesholme, has 53% more electors than the county average.

How will the recommendations affect you?

7 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division and, in some instances, which parish council wards you vote in. Your division name may also change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. The names or boundaries of parishes will not change as a result of our recommendations.

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

3 8 It is therefore important that you let us have your comments and views on the draft recommendations. We encourage comments from everyone in the community, regardless of whether you agree with the draft recommendations or not. The draft recommendations are evidence based and we would therefore like to stress the importance of providing evidence in any comments on our recommendations, rather than relying on assertion. We will be accepting comments and views until 13 August 2012. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in autumn 2012. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 25 and more information can be found on our website, www.lgbce.org.uk

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

9 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

4 2 Analysis and draft recommendations

10 Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed division boundaries, division names and parish or town council electoral arrangements. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

11 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:

 secure effective and convenient local government  provide for equality of representation  have regard to the boundaries of district and borough wards in drawing boundaries for county divisions  ensure that proposed county divisions do not cross external district and borough boundaries  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

12 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the date of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the divisions we put forward at the end of the review.

13 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five-year period.

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.

15 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Northamptonshire County Council or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

16 Prior to, and during, the initial stage of the review, we visited Northamptonshire County Council and met with members and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 26 submissions on council size and 44 submissions relating to division patterns, all of which may be inspected both at our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

17 As part of this review, Northamptonshire County Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2017, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 5% over the period from 2011 to 2017.

18 The majority of growth in the electorate is focused in the borough of Corby. There is expected to be reasonably modest growth in the electorate elsewhere in the county.

19 Having considered the information provided by the County Council, we are content to use their figures as the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

20 Northamptonshire County Council currently has 73 councillors elected from 73 single-member divisions and operates a Leader and Cabinet model. At the outset of the review, the County Council proposed a council size of between 56 and 59. The Labour Group on the council proposed a council size of 67 members.

21 In support of its preferred reduction, the County Council outlined the governance functions of the Council in the context of its political management structure. It provided details of the composition and frequency of meetings for its committees including Audit, Development Control and Standards. It also covered the role of members as community champions and their responsibilities regarding governance on the Council.

22 The County Council considered the impact of a reduction in council size. With such a reduction in members, workload for councillors would increase. The County Council felt that the number of electors per councillor would not be too high, and noted that some existing divisions had a similar number of electors to what the average number would be in a council of between 56 and 59 members. The County Council stated that the flexibility of the Council’s scrutiny arrangements would mean that reduced membership would not have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Council’s scrutiny function. Additionally, a reduction of between 14 and 17 members would represent an overall cost saving per year of around £150,000.

6 23 The County Council was of the view that it would be able to work effectively and efficiently with a council size of between 56 and 59 members. It was also confident that despite the reduction, the representational role of members would remain strong.

24 The Labour Group did not support the County Council’s proposals, and favoured a smaller reduction, to 67 members, predominantly because it felt a large reduction would leave the electorate inadequately represented.

25 Having considered the proposals for council size, we were satisfied by the evidence provided by the County Council in relation to the management and committee structures and their respective workloads. By undertaking an exercise to allocate a proportionate number of members to be elected from each of the seven districts in the county, we determined that of the figures in the 56- to 59-member range proposed by the County Council, 57 members was the best fit.

26 We then undertook a consultation on council size. In response to this consultation we received 26 submissions. The County Council expressed its support for a council size of 57 members.

27 The County Council’s submission clearly outlined how a council size of 57 would operate in the context of the Council’s political management structure. It also outlined how a council size of 57 would provide the optimum number of members for effective and convenient local government.

28 The Labour Group expressed concern that the Council’s scrutiny function may be diminished, and that some councillors in rural areas may have divisions which are difficult to cover efficiently, and could be unmanageably large in geographic terms.

29 It argued that its preferred council size of 67 would mean that the electorate would still have access to their councillor, and allow the Council to work in a ‘variety of management styles’, rather than just ‘streamlining’ the present setup. The Group considered that a council size of 57 members would put the effectiveness of the Council’s scrutiny function at risk.

30 We also received submissions from South Northamptonshire District Council, a county councillor, two local political parties, two residents’ associations, 13 parish councils, and four local residents. The preferences for council size varied between retaining the existing 73 members, down to 57 members. In general, there was support from most respondents for a reduction in council size.

31 After considering the evidence we received, we opted to proceed to the next stage to elicit views on the best pattern of divisions under a council size of 57.

32 In response to the information gathering stage we received some submissions which opposed the reduction in council size, expressing concern about the potential reduction of access they would have to their county councillor under a reduced council size. We are satisfied, however, that county councillors will continue to be able to provide good representation to all of their constituents, even if, on average, councillors would represent more electors than at present. We have therefore been minded to adopt a council size of 57 as part of our draft recommendations.

7 Electoral fairness

33 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations should provide for electoral fairness whilst ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

34 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The county average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the county (521,794 in 2011 and 550,252 by December 2017) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 57 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 9,154 in 2011 and 9,654 by 2017.

35 Under our draft recommendations, only three divisions would have more or fewer than 10% electors per councillor than the county average by 2017. Although the electoral variance for those three divisions is higher than we would normally propose, we consider that the divisions all provide a good balance between the statutory criteria. Overall, we are satisfied that we have achieved very good levels of electoral fairness under our draft recommendations for Northamptonshire.

General analysis

36 We received 44 submissions on division patterns for Northamptonshire. The County Council submitted the only county-wide scheme. It was based on a uniform pattern of single-member divisions. The Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council supported the County Council’s proposals for Corby but proposed alternative division patterns for Northampton and South Northamptonshire. The Northampton Labour Party also proposed a pattern of divisions for Northampton, which was supported by the Labour Group on Northampton Borough Council.

37 Kettering Borough Council proposed an alternative pattern of divisions to the County Council in the borough. We also received localised comments from five district or borough councillors, and one county councillor. Additionally, we received submissions from 13 parish or town councils, two residents’ associations, and 18 local residents.

38 The County Council’s proposals were based on a council size of 57. The Labour Group on the County Council did not submit a proposal at this stage. As discussed in paragraph 32 we have based our draft recommendations on a council size of 57. This provides the following allocations of members across the districts and boroughs in the county as follows:

 Corby Borough – five members  – seven members  East Northamptonshire District – seven members  Kettering Borough – eight members  Northampton Borough – 17 members  South Northamptonshire District – seven members  Borough of Wellingborough – six members

8

39 We received borough-wide schemes of divisions for Northampton from the County Council, Northampton Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council. All three schemes were very different, and each provided for good electoral equality.

40 On balance, we consider that the County Council’s proposals for Northampton would provide a better balance between the statutory criteria than the other two proposals, and would have strong boundaries. Therefore we have adopted its proposals as part of our draft recommendations, with one minor boundary amendment. However, we welcome views on our proposals for this borough as part of our consultation on these draft recommendations.

41 We have based our draft recommendations for the county on many of the County Council’s proposed divisions but we have proposed different arrangements in several districts and boroughs. The arrangements we propose are to better reflect communities and, in some cases, improve electoral equality.

42 Kettering Borough Council provided a different pattern of divisions from the County Council for Kettering Borough. We consider that, despite the Borough Council providing evidence only of electoral equality for its proposals, its division pattern would provide a better balance between the statutory criteria.

43 We have also developed our own proposals for the Borough of Wellingborough, Daventry District, and East Northamptonshire where we had concerns over the Council’s proposed division pattern. In South Northamptonshire District and Corby Borough we have adopted the County Council’s proposed divisions with some minor amendments.

44 Our draft recommendations would result in 57 single-member divisions. A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table B1 (on pages 31–36) and the large maps accompanying this report.

45 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly in relation to those areas where we have modified the proposals submitted by the County Council. We also particularly welcome comments on the division names we have proposed as part of the draft recommendations.

Electoral arrangements

46 This section of the report details the proposals we have received, our consideration of them, and our draft recommendations for each area of Northamptonshire. The following areas of the authority are considered in turn:

 Corby Borough – pages 10–11  Daventry District – pages 11–12  East Northamptonshire District – pages 12–14  Kettering Borough – pages 14–16  Northampton Borough – pages 16–18  South Northamptonshire District – pages 18–20  Borough of Wellingborough – pages 20–21

9 47 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table B1 on pages 31–36 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Corby Borough

48 Corby Borough is in the north of the county, and consists of the town of Corby which is surrounded by rural parishes. It is the least populous borough in the county.

49 The existing divisions in the borough are the single-member divisions of Central, Corby Rural, Danesholme, Kingswood, Lloyds, and Shire Lodge. These divisions are projected to have 17% fewer, 48% more, 60% more, 14% fewer, 6% fewer, and 2% fewer electors than the county average by 2017, respectively. Under a council size of 57, Corby is allocated five councillors, one fewer than at present.

50 The County Council’s electorate forecasts showed that Corby would have the largest increase in electorate of the districts and boroughs in the county, an increase of 12%. On a visit to the borough, we saw several areas of housing development in progress; some of these developments included the construction of schools. Based on evidence received and what was viewed on our visit to the area we are content that this forecast growth in electorate should come to fruition.

51 Aside from the County Council’s county-wide submission, we received three other responses relating to the borough. The Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council expressed its support for the County Council’s recommendations in the area. Weldon Parish Council and Hazel Leys Neighbourhood Association also submitted comments.

52 We are proposing to adopt the County Council’s proposals for the borough, subject to two small modifications to the division boundaries in Corby town. The County Council’s proposed Corby Rural division does not have internal communication links throughout, as it is not possible to travel between Gretton parish and Weldon parish without either leaving the division or the borough. In order to provide for complete internal communication links throughout the division, we are proposing that the boundary between the proposed divisions of Corby Rural, Corby West and Lloyds should instead follow the A6116.

53 To provide for good electoral equality in the Lloyds division, we are also proposing a small amendment to the County Council’s proposed boundary with Corby West. These modifications would result in the divisions of Corby Rural, Corby West and Lloyds having equal to, 4% more and 10% more electors than the county average by 2017, respectively.

54 We received two other responses from the borough. One from Weldon Parish Council which favoured a division focusing on rural areas and rural needs. The proposed Corby Rural division would be separate from the main urban area of the borough. The other was from Hazel Leys Neighbourhood Association which stated that it wanted the Hazel Leys estate to be included with the Kingswood and Exeter estates in a single division. We are adopting the County Council’s proposed Kingswood division as part our draft recommendations. This division reflects the neighbourhood association’s wishes, and would have 4% more electors than the county average by 2017.

10 55 We are also adopting the Council’s proposed Oakley division as part of our draft recommendations. This division would have 4% more electors than the county average by 2017.

56 We have been mindful to provide good electoral equality where possible in time for the next scheduled county elections in 2013. Based on the 2011 electorate, our proposed Corby Rural division would have 34% fewer electors than the county average. We acknowledge this variance is significantly higher than we would normally be minded to adopt as part of our proposed electoral arrangements. However, this is forecast to improve to equal to the number of electors of the county average by 2017.

57 Table B1 (on pages 31–36) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Corby. The draft recommendations for Corby are shown on Map 1 and Map 2 accompanying this report.

Daventry District

58 Daventry is located in the west of the county, and contains the towns of Daventry and Long Buckby, as well as a large rural area with a number of small villages and settlements. The district is entirely parished, and was recently reviewed by us as part of our electoral review programme.

59 The existing divisions in the borough are the single-member divisions of Braunston, , Daventry East, Daventry West, Long Buckby, Moulton, Uplands, and Woodford & Weedon. These divisions are projected to have 11% more, 6% more, 12% more, 19% more, 9% fewer, 7% fewer, 6% more, and 3% fewer electors than the county average by 2017, respectively. Under a council size of 57, Daventry is allocated seven councillors, one fewer than at present.

60 With the exception of the County Council’s submission, we received only one other submission in this area, from Newnham Parish Council.

61 We are proposing several modifications to the County Council’s proposed division pattern for the district. These modifications have been to achieve better levels of co–terminosity between county divisions and the newly implemented district wards, and to improve internal communication links within divisions.

62 Firstly, we were concerned that the County Council’s proposed Long Buckby division would not have internal communication links throughout. Under the County Council’s proposal it would not be possible to travel by road between the parishes of Brockhall and Flore in the south to the parishes in the north without leaving the division. We are proposing to include the parishes of Brington and Althorp in our proposed Long Buckby division. This would ensure that our Long Buckby division has complete internal communication links throughout. This modification would also result in improved co–terminosity with the district wards.

63 In order to address the electoral inequality that this amendment would create, and to provide better levels of co–terminosity, we are proposing a Moulton division that would comprise three whole district wards: Moulton, Spratton, and Walgrave. This would result in our Moulton division having 7% fewer electors than the county

11 average by 2017.

64 We are also proposing amendments to the County Council’s proposed Brixworth division and further modifications to its proposed Long Buckby division. We are proposing that the parishes of Lamport and Scaldwell be included in the proposed Brixworth division. This would result in the district ward of Brixworth being completely included in the proposed Brixworth division. We also propose that the parishes of Cold Ashby, Elkington, Thornby, and Winwick be included in the proposed Brixworth division. This division would reflect the east–west geography in this part of the district, and provide a better balance between the statutory criteria. These modifications would result in our divisions of Brixworth and Long Buckby having 6% fewer and 10% fewer electors than the county average by 2017, respectively.

65 We are also proposing modifications to the County Council’s proposed divisions around the town of Daventry itself. We considered whether it was possible to propose divisions for Daventry town that were wholly contained in the town’s boundaries. However, this arrangement would result in the rural divisions surrounding the town having very poor levels of electoral equality. We therefore concluded that it was necessary to include parts of Daventry town in rural divisions.

66 The County Council proposed that an area of central Daventry town be included in the proposed Braunston & Crick division, which is largely rural. We consider that this area would be better included in the Council’s proposed Daventry East division as it provides for a clearer differentiation between the urban and rural areas. We propose that an area to the north-east edge of Daventry town should be included in the Council’s proposed Braunston & Crick division. This modification would result in the divisions of Braunston & Crick and Daventry East having 11% fewer and equal to the county average of electors by 2017, respectively.

67 For the rest of the district we have decided to adopt the remaining divisions – Daventry West and Woodford & Weedon – proposed by the County Council as part of our draft recommendations.

68 We have been mindful to provide good electoral equality where possible in time for the next scheduled county elections in 2013. Based on the 2011 electorate, all of our proposed divisions would have electoral variances within 10% above or below the county average for electors per councillor.

69 Table B1 (on pages 31–36) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Daventry. The draft recommendations for Daventry are shown on Map 1 and Map 5 accompanying this report.

East Northamptonshire District

70 East Northamptonshire district is on the eastern edge of the county, and its largest settlement is . It is a largely rural district, with many sparsely populated parishes. The district is entirely parished.

71 The existing divisions in the borough are the single-member divisions of , , , Prebendal, , Rushden East, Rushden South, Rushden West, and . These divisions are projected to have 11%

12 more, 18% more, 4% fewer, 11% fewer, 9% fewer, 5% more, 10% more, 6% fewer, and 4% more electors than the county average by 2017, respectively. Under a council size of 57, East Northamptonshire is allocated seven councillors, two fewer than at present.

72 In addition to the County Council’s county-wide scheme, we received two responses regarding this district – one from Higham Ferrers Town Council and the other from Oundle Town Council.

73 We are proposing modifications to some of the County Council’s proposals and propose some different divisions in this district. We are proposing modifications to the County Council’s proposed Raunds, Thrapston, Chichele and Irthlingborough & Brigstock divisions.

74 In the north of the district the County Council proposed an Oundle division comprising the town of Oundle and several rural parishes around it. The submission from Oundle Town Council stated that it would prefer Oundle to be in a division which included ‘the Parishes directly surrounding Oundle as ‘these parishes see Oundle as their “Service Hub” ’. The County Council’s proposed division includes three whole district wards, as well as the whole of Oundle parish. We consider that this division reflects existing communities, has good communication links throughout and note that it provides for good electoral equality. This division would have 1% more electors than the county average by 2017.

75 We propose that the parishes of Brigstock, Sudborough, Lowick and Twywell be included in the Thrapston division. The County Council’s proposed Irthlingborough & Brigstock division was a narrow, north–south running division. We consider that an east–west–focused division better reflects communication links in this part of the district. We are also proposing to include, as part of our draft recommendations, an Irthlingborough division which includes the parishes of Denford and Ringstead. This division has good internal communication links, including a road crossing over the . Our proposed divisions of Irthlingborough and Thrapston would have 7% more and 9% more electors than the county average by 2017, respectively.

76 We also propose that the parish of Newton Bromswold be included in the proposed Rushden South division. The parish has good communication links to Rushden and we considered that local residents are likely to use Rushden for services and amenities. This modification would result in the Rushden South division having 6% more electors than the county average by 2017. We are proposing to adopt the County Council’s proposed Rushden Pemberton West division without modification, it would have 9% more electors per councillor than the county average by 2017.

77 We are proposing to include the parish of Chelveston cum Caldecott in the Higham Ferrers division, which would result in the proposed Raunds division having 11% fewer electors than the county average by 2017. We considered including Denford parish in the Raunds division, rather than in the Irthlingborough division. Including Denford in a division with Raunds would have resolved the high variance in this division. We considered that, on balance, Denford was more likely to be in a community with other parishes in Irthlingborough division than Raunds. However, we are keen to hear the views of local people on this particular issue.

13 78 To the south, we are proposing to re-name the County Council’s proposed Chichele division as Higham Ferrers. This name change was suggested by Higham Ferrers Town Council, and we consider that this name would reflect the communities included in the division. As mentioned above, we also propose that the parish of Chelveston cum Caldecott be included in the Higham Ferrers division. This parish is in the same district ward as Higham Ferrers and we considered was likely to use Higham Ferrers for services and amenities. This division would have 4% fewer electors than the county average by 2017.

79 We have been mindful to provide good electoral equality where possible in time for the next scheduled county elections in 2013. Based on the 2011 electorate, our proposed Thrapston division would have 13% more electors than the county average. We acknowledge this variance is significantly higher than we would normally be minded to adopt as part of our proposed electoral arrangements. However, this is forecast to improve to 9% more electors per councillor then the county average by 2017.

80 Table B1 (on pages 31–36) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in East Northamptonshire. The draft recommendations for East Northamptonshire are shown on Map 1 and Map 4b accompanying this report.

Kettering Borough

81 Kettering Borough consists of the town of Kettering and a number of smaller settlements in the rural area surrounding it. The largest of these settlements are , and Rothwell.

82 The existing divisions in the borough are the single-member divisions of Brambleside, Burton, Desborough, Grange, Ise, Kettering Central, Kettering Rural, Rothwell, St Andrew & St Peters, and Wicksteed. These divisions are projected to have 15% fewer, 23% more, 11% more, 14% fewer, 17% fewer, 3% fewer, 43% more, 14% fewer, 5% more, and 2% fewer electors than the county average by 2017, respectively. Under a council size of 57, the borough is allocated eight county councillors, two fewer than at present. The borough is partially parished.

83 Aside from the County Council’s submission, we also received a borough-wide proposal from Kettering Borough Council, and localised comments from Cranford Parish Council and a local resident.

84 Kettering Borough Council proposed a different pattern of divisions from the County Council. The County Council’s and Borough Council’s proposals for the town of Kettering were similar, but not identical.

85 The proposal from Kettering Borough Council did not provide any supporting community identity evidence for its division arrangements. However, its proposal did provide for good levels of electoral equality. We have considered both division patterns in detail and assessed them on the ground during our visit to the borough. We consider that the Borough Council’s proposed division pattern provides a better balance between our statutory criteria. We have therefore decided to adopt the Borough Council’s proposals for the rural area of the borough, subject to one minor amendment.

14 86 The County Council and Borough Council both proposed that the parish of Burton Latimer be included in a division to its east with the parishes of Pytchley and Broughton. Both proposals would result in a Burton & Broughton division that would not have complete internal communication links throughout, as the main communication route of the A14 would leave the division. In order to provide for complete internal communication links throughout the division, we are proposing to use the A14 as part of the boundary between the Burton & Broughton and Wicksteed divisions. This boundary would result in a parish ward of only 77 electors in Barton Seagrave parish, which is a smaller parish ward than we would normally be minded to propose. However, in this case we consider that such a small parish ward is justified, as creating it provides for a strong and easily identifiable boundary between the county divisions. This proposal also provides for good electoral equality and effective and convenient local government. Our proposed Burton & Broughton division would have 4% fewer electors than the county average by 2017.

87 We recognise that in this area the A14 splits communities in Barton Seagrave parish. Kettering Borough Council may want to consider the possibility of undertaking a Community Governance Review in this area.

88 To the east of Kettering town, the County Council proposed an Ise Valley Rural division which would span from the north to the south of the borough. This proposed division would not have complete internal communication links throughout. The Borough Council proposed a geographically smaller Ise division which would have complete internal communication links. The Borough Council proposed that the southern boundary of this division run along the A6003. This would unite the Spinney area in the same division. The County Council proposed this area be split between divisions.

89 The Borough Council’s proposed Ise division also united all of Cranford parish in the same division. The County Council proposed that the parish be split between divisions. In doing so its proposal would place a proposed housing development in the west of Cranford parish in a division with part of Kettering town. We received a submission from Cranford Parish Council which stated that it did not wish to be part of a division with Burton Latimer (which the County Council had proposed). It preferred to be part of a rural division with smaller parishes. The Borough Council’s proposed division reflected this request. We visited this area as part of our consideration of our draft recommendations, and did not see evidence of new housing development on the ground. However, we understand through contact with officers at the County Council that planning permission has been granted for development here. It should be noted that even if the parish does not experience any increase in electorate, the proposed division’s total electorate will still provide for a good level of electoral equality. The proposed Ise division would have 3% more electors than the county average by 2017.

90 To the north and west of Kettering town, we have adopted the Borough Council’s proposed Desborough and Rothwell & Mawsley divisions. These divisions would have 6% more and 6% fewer electors than the county average by 2017, respectively. We consider that the proposed divisions would have good internal communication links and reflect communities. The proposed Desborough division was also supported by a local resident who stated that the parishes of Sutton Bassett, Weston by Welland, Ashley, Stoke Albany, and Wilbarston all share a link through their churches. This proposal keeps them in one division. The resident also

15 noted the presence of the A427 road which links parishes across the centre of the division.

91 In the town of Kettering itself, as stated above, both the County Council and Borough Council proposed different division boundaries for the four divisions. We carefully considered the County Council’s proposals for the town but, on balance, we have decided to adopt all four of the divisions proposed by the Borough Council – with one amendment, to include part of All Saints ward in Windmill – as part of our draft recommendations. Therefore, the divisions of Clover Hill, Northall, Wicksteed, and Windmill would have 8% fewer, 1% more, 6% more, and 4% fewer electors than the county average by 2017.

92 We have been mindful to provide good electoral equality where possible in time for the next scheduled county elections in 2013. Based on the 2011 electorate, all of our proposed divisions would have electoral variances within 10% above or below the county average for electors per councillor.

93 Table B1 (on pages 31–36) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Kettering. The draft recommendations for Kettering are shown on Map 1 and Map 3 accompanying this report.

Northampton Borough

94 Northampton is the largest town in the county, it is partially parished, and was recently the subject of an electoral review by the Commission. Under a council size of 57, Northampton is allocated 17 county councillors, six fewer than at present.

95 The existing divisions in the borough are all represented by a single member, and the number of electors projected by 2017 for each is shown in brackets. They are as follows: Abington (9% fewer), Billing (10% fewer), Boughton Green (18% fewer), Castle (12% more), Delapre (3% more), (9% fewer), Eastfield (10% fewer), Ecton Brook (22% fewer), Headlands (13% fewer), Kingsley (4% fewer), (12% fewer), Lumbertubs (19% fewer), Nene Valley (19% more), New (14% fewer), Old Duston (3% fewer), Parklands (14% fewer), Spencer (15% fewer), St Crispin (equal to the average), St Davids (5% fewer), St James (4% fewer), Thorplands (23% fewer), (39% more), and Weston (6% fewer).

96 We received different patterns of divisions for the borough from the County Council, the Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council and Northampton Labour Party. We also received 15 identical letters from local residents in support of the Labour Party’s proposal. Its proposal was supported by the Labour Group on Northampton Borough Council, four Northampton Borough Councillors and a County Councillor. We also received a submission from the Double H Residents’ Association.

97 As we have recently completed an electoral review of Northampton Borough, we aimed to achieve good levels of co–terminosity between borough wards and county divisions. However, this was not always possible as it would result in divisions with very poor levels of electoral equality.

98 Having considered the different proposals for the borough, we consider that the County Council’s pattern of divisions provides the best balance between the statutory

16 criteria. Therefore, we have decided to adopt the County Council’s pattern of divisions as our draft recommendations for the borough, subject to one modification.

99 All three borough-wide schemes proposed different configurations of divisions in the Briar Hill area, to the south-west of the town centre. The division or divisions in to which each borough-wide scheme had included Briar Hill impacted on the pattern of divisions across much of the south of the borough. The Labour Party based its proposals for this area on the borough wards. However, in order to achieve reasonable levels of electoral equality, the Labour Party proposed a split of the Briar Hill area, along Hunsbury Hill Avenue. We had concerns with this proposed split of the Briar Hill area, and that this division would have a bottleneck at the point where the Briar Hill area joined with the East Hunsbury area.

100 The Liberal Democrat Group’s proposal for the Briar Hill area sought to keep the communities of West Hunsbury and Shelfleys together, and split the Briar Hill area between its proposed divisions of Delapre and West Hunsbury & Upton. While we considered that this proposal had some merit, we were again concerned with the proposed split of the Briar Hill area. The County Council’s proposal for this area did not split the Briar Hill area and proposed it be wholly included in a division. The County Council’s proposal for this area also used the railway line to Briar Hill’s east as an easily identifiable division boundary.

101 We visited this area on a tour of the county, and concluded that keeping the Briar Hill area together was logical. We observed that the boundaries of the County Council’s proposed Sixfields division, and adjacent divisions of Delapre & Rushmere and East Hunsbury & Shelfleys were clearly identifiable.

102 The County Council’s proposals in this area do result in two divisions (Sixfields and Delapre & Rushmere) which would contain areas on both sides of the River Nene. While we recognise it is not ideal to include communities north and south of the River Nene, we consider that it is necessary to do so in order to achieve good levels of electoral equality across the borough. Having considered the different proposals for this part of the borough, we have decided to adopt the Council’s proposed divisions of Sixfields, Delapre & Rushmere as part of our draft recommendations.

103 We are proposing a modification to the County Council’s proposed East Hunsbury & Shelfleys division. The County Council proposed that the southern boundary of this division run along the weir to the north of the community. This proposal would result in all of the Collingtree community being included in a Nene Valley division to its east. This proposed boundary does not reflect the communication links on the ground. The County Council’s proposal follows the parish boundary. The parish boundary of Collingtree does not follow the weir in its entirety – it deviates around one house on Belfry Lane. Under the County Council’s proposal this property would be included in the East Hunsbury & Shelfleys division to its north. The weir would provide a strong division boundary but would require the creation of an unviable parish ward of only one household.

104 During a visit to the area, we observed that it is not possible to get from one part of Collingtree to another by road. It is only possible to travel by road to the northern part of Collingtree via East Hunsbury to its north. We therefore propose that the Collingtree area is split between the East Hunsbury and Nene Valley divisions. This

17 amendment would mean that the boundary between the divisions would be coterminous with the borough ward boundaries in the area.

105 This amendment would result in Nene Valley division having 12% fewer electors per councillor than the county average by 2017.

106 In the north-west of the town centre the three borough-wide schemes were again very different. All three proposed different splits of the Duston area. The Labour Party proposed including part of Duston in a division with King’s Heath to the east of the A428. This division would not have complete internal communication links, as it is not possible to travel between the two areas without leaving the division. The Liberal Democrat Group proposed Duston be split north–south, creating divisions of New Duston and Old Duston. The County Council proposed Duston be split east–west, creating divisions of Duston East and Duston West & St Crispin.

107 Having considered the different proposals we consider that the County Council’s proposed division pattern for the Duston area uses easily identifiable boundaries. On a visit to the area we observed that the County Council’s proposed southern boundary of both divisions was the A4500 and the east boundary of the Duston East division the A428. We consider that these are strong boundaries.

108 In remainder of the borough we are adopting all of the County Council’s proposals as part of our draft recommendations. All of the divisions have strong boundaries, and will achieve good electoral equality in time for the 2013 elections, and by 2017.

109 We have been mindful to provide good electoral equality where possible in time for the next scheduled county elections in 2013. Based on the 2011 electorate, our proposed Duston West & St Crispin division would have 23% fewer electors than the county average. We acknowledge this variance is significantly higher than we would normally be minded to adopt as part of our proposed electoral arrangements. However, this is forecast to improve 7% fewer electors than the county average by 2017.

110 Table B1 (on pages 31–36) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Northampton. The draft recommendations for Northampton are shown on Map 1 and Maps 6, 7 and 8 accompanying this report.

South Northamptonshire District

111 South Northamptonshire District is on the southern edge of the county, and contains the towns of and . The other main settlement in the district is . The district is largely rural, and is fully parished.

112 The existing divisions in the district are the single-member divisions of Brackley East, Brackley West, Bugbrooke, Deanshanger, Greens Norton, Hackleton, Middleton Cheney, Roade, and Towcester. These divisions are projected to have 12% more, 11% fewer, 8% fewer, 13% more, 4% more, 6% fewer, 6% more, 31% more, and 1% more electors than the county average by 2017, respectively. Under a council size of 57, the district is allocated seven county councillors, two fewer than at present.

18 113 In addition to the County Council’s county-wide scheme, we received a district- wide scheme from the Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council, as well as submissions from five parish or town councils, a district councillor and a local resident.

114 We have adopted the County Council’s proposals for the district as part of our draft recommendations, subject to one amendment between its proposed Silverstone and Middleton Cheney divisions, which is discussed below.

115 The Liberal Democrat Group proposed a different division pattern from the County Council for the district. The division pattern was particularly different from that of the County Council in the Towcester area. The County Council proposed a Towcester & Roade division which brings both of those settlements together in one division. The Liberal Democrat Group proposed that the settlements would be included in different divisions. The Group proposed a Towcester division based on the Towcester area and some more of the surrounding rural parishes.

116 The Liberal Democrat Group also proposed that the settlement of Roade be included a division with Deanshanger, a parish to its south. In its submission, the Group stated that the A508 road links Deanshanger and Roade. However, the road leaves the proposed division, and goes through the parish of Stoke Bruerne (which is in the Liberal Democrat Group’s proposed Towcester division). Adding Stoke Bruerne to the Group’s proposed Deanshanger & Roade division would result in the division having 13% more electors than the county average by 2013.

117 In order to facilitate its Deanshanger & Roade and Towcester divisions, the Liberal Democrat Group proposed a geographically very large Silverstone division, which would run from the north-west corner of the district down to the south-west of Towcester. We considered that this division would be unnecessarily large. We considered the County Council’s proposed division pattern provided a better balance between the statutory criteria.

118 We are proposing one modification to the County Council’s proposed Silverstone and Middleton Cheney divisions – that the parishes of Sulgrave and Thorpe Mandeville be included in the proposed Silverstone division, rather than in the County Council’s proposed Middleton Cheney division. We consider this modification would improve the internal communication links in the Silverstone division. This modification would result in the divisions of Silverstone and Middleton Cheney having 6% more and 7% fewer electors than the county average by 2017, respectively.

119 In the south of the district, the County Council proposed a Brackley division which was based on the boundaries of Brackley Town Council and would have 6% more electors than the county average by 2017. We received a submission from Brackley Town Council, and from District Councillor Peter Rawlinson (Brackley East) regarding the County Council’s proposed Brackley division. Councillor Rawlinson and the town council both mentioned proposed growth around the town, and recommended that two county councillors should represent the town. The County Council’s forecasts do not include any significant increase in electorate in this area. We consider that the County Council’s proposed Brackley division provides a good balance between the statutory criteria and so we are adopting this division as part of our draft recommendations.

19 120 For the rest of district we propose to adopt the remaining divisions proposed by the County Council as part of our draft recommendations. The proposed divisions of Bugbrooke and Hackleton & Grange Park would each have 9% more electors than the county average by 2017.

121 We have been mindful to provide good electoral equality where possible in time for the next scheduled county elections in 2013. Based on the 2011 electorate, all of our proposed divisions would have electoral variances within 10% above or below the county average for electors per councillor.

122 Table B1 (on pages 31–36) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in South Northamptonshire. The draft recommendations for South Northamptonshire are shown on Map 1 accompanying this report.

Borough of Wellingborough

123 Wellingborough is located in the centre of the county. The main focus of the borough is the town of Wellingborough; the remainder is semi-rural in nature with a number of small towns and settlements.

124 The existing divisions in the borough are the single-member divisions of Croyland, Earls Barton, Finedon, Hemmingwell, Irchester, Queensway, Redwell, and Swanspool. These divisions are projected to have 23% more, 4% fewer, 2% more, 2% fewer, 13% fewer, 22% fewer, 19% fewer, and 8% fewer electors than the county average by 2017, respectively.

125 Under a council size of 57, Wellingborough is allocated six county councillors, two fewer than under the existing arrangements. The County Council’s submission was the only submission we received for the borough.

126 We are proposing some modifications to the County Council’s proposal. We considered that the County Council’s proposed Finedon Rural division would not reflect existing communities in the borough. We also found the boundary between the County Council’s proposed Castle & Irchester and Hatton Park divisions to be arbitrary and illogical. By addressing these concerns we are proposing a different pattern of divisions from the County Council’s.

127 The County Council proposed that Finedon parish should be included in a division with a number of parishes to the west of Wellingborough town. We instead propose to include Finedon parish in a division with Castle district ward, on the eastern edge of Wellingborough town. This reflects the communication link that Finedon has with Wellingborough along the A510.

128 As a consequence of this change, we propose that Irchester parish be included in a division with the parishes to its south-west. This division would comprise the parishes of Irchester, Wollaston, Strixton, Bozeat, Easton Maudit and Grendon. The division would be bound to its north-west by the River Nene, and would have good communication links throughout. The division would have 10% fewer electors than the county average by 2017. We are proposing that this division be named Irchester.

129 Due to these modifications we are also proposing that Earls Barton parish be included in a division with parishes to the north of the River Nene. This division would

20 comprise the rural parishes to the north and west of Wellingborough town. The largest settlement in this division would be the village of Earls Barton, and the division would contain largely rural, sparsely-populated parishes. The division would have good communication links throughout and have 5% fewer electors than the county average by 2017. We propose that this division be named Earls Barton.

130 We also propose a number of modifications to the County Council’s proposed division boundaries in Wellingborough town. As mentioned above, the County Council had proposed an arbitrary boundary between its proposed Castle & Irchester and Hatton Park divisions. The Council’s proposed boundary arbitrarily split the housing estate centred on Nest Farm Road from the surrounding area. We observed this proposed boundary as part of our tour of the area. Our proposed Hatton Park and Finedon divisions have addressed this split, and provided a strong, recognisable boundary between these divisions.

131 We propose that the northern boundary of the Finedon division run along Nest Lane. This would unite the housing estate in the same division. We also propose to include an area of housing off Wellingborough Road, to the north of the A510 Northern Way, in the Hatton Park division. We consider that this area has closer links to the town than to the rural area.

132 As a consequence to ensure good electoral equality, we propose an area of housing between Kilborn Road and Hardwick Road be included in the Brickhill & Queensway division. Secondly, we propose that an area of housing bound by the A509 and Hardwick Road should be included in the proposed Brickhill & Queensway division. This area of housing is bound to the north by a footpath which we viewed on a visit to the area, and considered was easily identifiable. These modifications would result in the divisions of Hatton Park and Brickhill & Queensway having 7% and 6% electors than the county average by 2017, respectively.

133 The remaining division in Wellingborough town proposed by the County Council was Croyland & Swanspool. This division would have 2% fewer electors than the county average by 2017. We adopt this division without modification as part of our draft recommendations.

134 We have been mindful to provide good electoral equality where possible in time for the next scheduled county elections in 2013. Based on the 2011 electorate, our proposed Finedon division would have 13% fewer electors than the county average. We acknowledge this variance is higher than we would normally be minded to adopt as part of our proposed electoral arrangements. However, this is forecast to improve to 5% fewer electors than the county average by 2017.

135 Table B1 (on pages 31–36) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Wellingborough. The draft recommendations for Wellingborough are shown on Map 1 and Map 4a accompanying this report.

Conclusions

136 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2011 and 2017 electorate figures.

21

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations 2011 2017 Number of councillors 57 57 Number of electoral divisions 57 57 Average number of electors per councillor 9,154 9,654 Number of divisions with a variance more 6 3 than 10% from the average Number of divisions with a variance more 2 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Northamptonshire County Council should comprise 57 councillors serving 57 divisions, as detailed and named in Table B1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

137 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 divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

138 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority division arrangements. However, the respective principal authority (the district or borough council in the area) 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.

139 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Barton Seagrave, Daventry, Duston, Rushden, and Upton. We would particularly welcome comments on these proposals from the parish councils concerned and local residents during this consultation stage.

140 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Barton Seagrave parish.

22 Draft recommendation Barton Seagrave Parish Council should comprise eight councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Barton (returning seven members) and Southfield (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 3.

141 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Daventry parish.

Draft recommendation Daventry Town Council should return 17 councillors, as at present, representing eight wards: Abbey Central (returning two members), Abbey North (returning one member), Abbey South (returning two members), Ashby Fields (returning two members), Daneholme (returning one member), Drayton (returning five members), Hill North (returning two members), and Hill South (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5.

142 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Duston parish.

Draft recommendation Duston Parish Council should return 12 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Old Duston (returning six members), New Duston (returning four members), and New Duston East (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 6.

143 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Rushden parish.

Draft recommendation Rushden Parish Council should return 21 councillors, as at present, representing eight wards: Rushden Bates (returning three members), Rushden Hayden (returning four members), Rushden Hayden Central (returning one member), Rushden Pemberton (returning five members), Rushden Sartoris East (returning two members), Rushden Sartoris West (returning one member), Rushden Spencer North (returning two member), and Rushden Spencer South (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 4b.

144 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Upton parish.

Draft recommendation Upton Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Upton North (returning eight members), and Upton South (returning three

23 members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 6 and 7.

24 3 What happens next?

145 There will now be a consultation period of eight weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council contained in this report. We will take into account fully all submissions received by 13 August 2012. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

146 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire and welcome comments from interested parties relating to the proposed division boundaries, number of councillors, division names and parish electoral arrangements. We would welcome alternative proposals backed up by demonstrable evidence during the consultation. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

147 Express your views by writing directly to:

Review Officer Northamptonshire Review Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

Submissions can also be made by using the consultation section of our website, www.lgbce.org.uk or by emailing [email protected]

148 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all Stage Three representations will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of Northamptonshire County Council and at our offices in Layden House (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk. A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

149 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

150 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

25 151 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for Northamptonshire County Council in 2013.

152 This report has been screened for impact on equalities; with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

26 4 Mapping Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire

153 The following maps illustrate our proposed division boundaries for Northamptonshire County Council:

 Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for Northamptonshire County Council.

 Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Corby town.

 Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Kettering town.

 Sheet 4, Map 4a illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Wellingborough town.

 Sheet 4, Map 4b illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Rushden town.

 Sheet 5, Map 5 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Daventry town.

 Sheet 6, Map 6 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in the centre and west of Northampton town.

 Sheet 7, Map 7 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in the south of Northampton town.

 Sheet 8, Map 8 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in the east of Northampton town.

27 Appendix A

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

28 Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Commission for England in April 2010

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

29 Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Commission for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision-making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

30 Appendix B

Table B1: Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from average electors per from average name councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % Corby Borough

1 Corby Rural 1 6,070 6,070 -34% 9,637 9,637 0%

2 Corby West 1 9,763 9,763 7% 10,034 10,034 4%

3 Kingswood 1 9,957 9,957 9% 10,087 10,087 4%

4 Lloyds 1 10,340 10,340 13% 10,655 10,655 10%

5 Oakley 1 8,981 8,981 -2% 10,070 10,070 4%

Daventry District

Braunston & 6 1 8,196 8,196 -10% 8,634 8,634 -11% Crick 7 Brixworth 1 8,926 8,926 -2% 9,108 9,108 -6%

8 Daventry East 1 8,728 8,728 -5% 9,607 9,607 0%

9 Daventry West 1 8,599 8,599 -6% 8,967 8,967 -7%

31 Table B1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % 10 Long Buckby 1 8,484 8,484 -7% 8,652 8,652 -10%

11 Moulton 1 8,613 8,613 -6% 9,023 9,023 -7% Woodford & 12 1 8,729 8,729 -5% 8,950 8,950 -7% Weedon East Northamptonshire District

13 Higham Ferrers 1 9,056 9,056 -1% 9,238 9,238 -4%

14 Irthlingborough 1 9,583 9,583 5% 10,319 10,319 7%

15 Oundle 1 9,280 9,280 1% 9,754 9,754 1%

16 Raunds 1 8,420 8,420 -8% 8,583 8,583 -11% Rushden 17 1 9,810 9,810 7% 10,507 10,507 9% Pemberton West 18 Rushden South 1 10,069 10,069 10% 10,245 10,245 6%

19 Thrapston 1 10,318 10,318 13% 10,551 10,551 9%

32 Table B1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from average electors per from average name councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % Kettering Borough Burton & 20 1 8,332 8,332 -9% 9,295 9,295 -4% Broughton 21 Clover Hill 1 8,818 8,818 -4% 8,879 8,879 -8%

22 Desborough 1 9,913 9,913 8% 10,241 10,241 6%

23 Ise 1 8,302 8,302 -9% 9,986 9,986 3%

24 Northall 1 9,641 9,641 5% 9,707 9,707 1% Rothwell & 25 1 8,523 8,523 -7% 9,116 9,116 -6% Mawsley 26 Wicksteed 1 9,130 9,130 0% 10,222 10,222 6%

27 Windmill 1 8,743 8,743 -4% 9,295 9,295 -4%

Northampton Borough

Abington & 28 1 9,347 9,347 2% 9,489 9,489 -2% Phippsville Billing & 29 1 9,572 9,572 5% 9,986 9,986 3% Rectory Farm Boothville & 30 1 9,000 9,000 -2% 9,282 9,282 -4% Parklands

33 Table B1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from average electors per from average name councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % 31 Castle 1 9,591 9,591 5% 10,044 10,044 4% Dallington 32 1 8,516 8,516 -7% 8,648 8,648 -10% Spencer Delapre & 33 1 8,791 8,791 -4% 9,344 9,344 -3% Rushmere

34 Duston East 1 8,747 8,747 -4% 9,497 9,497 -2%

Duston West & 35 1 7,060 7,060 -23% 9,018 9,018 -7% St Crispin East Hunsbury 36 1 9,489 9,489 4% 9,583 9,583 -1% & Shelfleys

37 Headlands 1 9,634 9,634 5% 9,735 9,735 1%

Kingsthorpe 38 1 9,854 9,854 8% 10,034 10,034 4% North Kingsthorpe 39 1 9,680 9,680 6% 9,853 9,853 2% South 40 Nene Valley 1 8,406 8,406 -8% 8,530 8,530 -12%

41 Riverside Park 1 9,944 9,944 9% 10,066 10,066 4%

34 Table B1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from average electors per from average name councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % 42 Sixfields 1 9,477 9,477 4% 9,843 9,843 2%

43 St George 1 9,137 9,137 0% 9,326 9,326 -3%

44 Talavera 1 10,430 10,430 14% 10,543 10,543 9%

South Northamptonshire District

45 Brackley 1 10,019 10,019 9% 10,213 10,213 6%

46 Bugbrooke 1 10,069 10,069 10% 10,528 10,528 9%

47 Deanshanger 1 9,333 9,333 2% 9,932 9,932 3% Hackleton & 48 1 9,826 9,826 7% 10,545 10,545 9% Grange Park Middleton 49 1 8,728 8,728 -5% 9,020 9,020 -7% Cheney

50 Silverstone 1 9,718 9,718 6% 10,251 10,251 6%

Towcester & 51 1 10,035 10,035 10% 10,564 10,564 9% Roade

35 Table B1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from average electors per from average name councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor %

Borough of Wellingborough

Brickhill & 52 1 10,090 10,090 10% 10,230 10,230 6% Queensway

Croyland & 53 1 8,757 8,757 -4% 9,443 9,443 -2% Swanspool

54 Earls Barton 1 8,878 8,878 -3% 9,138 9,138 -5%

55 Finedon 1 7,960 7,960 -13% 9,209 9,209 -5%

56 Hatton Park 1 9,832 9,832 7% 10,307 10,307 7%

57 Irchester 1 8,550 8,550 -7% 8,689 8,689 -10%

Totals 57 521,794 – – 550,252 – – Averages – – 9,154 – – 9,654 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Northamptonshire County Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

36