Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 May 2014 09:48 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Conservative counter-proposals: electoral review of Attachments: Letter to LGBCE_20140519_121305_signed.pdf; ATT00001.htm

From: Leicester Conservatives Sent: 19 May 2014 21:04 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Conservative counter-proposals: electoral review of Leicester

Dear Sir,

Please find attached counter-proposals from the City of Leicester Conservative Association in relation to the electoral review of the Local Authority area.

Comprehensive maps of our counter-proposals can be found via this link: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zXIsNdYCTfUM.kjVx8hwxuhio

The two documents referred to in the letter can be found here: http://138.253.67.7/~alex/downloads/openatlas/E06000016.pdf and here: http://opendatacommunities.org/deprivation/map

I would be grateful if you can confirm receipt of this email.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Whelband Chairman City of Leicester Conservative Association

1

By e-mail to [email protected]

Review Officer (Leicester) Local Government Boundary Commission for Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Monday 19th May 2014

Dear Sir, ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LEICESTER I refer to your electoral review of Leicester City Council and in particular to the draft recommendations published on 11th March 2014. I am responding on behalf of the City of Leicester Conservative Association and though I refer throughout to “I” and “my”, the proposals are those of the Association and have been approved by it. I was, to say the least, somewhat surprised by your draft recommendations in a number of respects, not least the decision to largely base your recommendations on the warding pattern proposed by the Labour Party. You state that the Labour Party’s proposals provided for good levels of electoral equality and were better supported by evidence related to community identity and effective and convenient local government. However, any examination of their proposals demonstrates a level of electoral inequality much larger than in the Conservative Party proposals, an evidential basis little greater than that provided by the Conservative Party in support of its own proposals and an evidential basis which was significantly flawed. I suggest that it was deliberately flawed so as to deliver a pre-determined outcome. I was therefore surprised and disappointment that you so readily adopted the proposals. On Council size, I am surprised and disappointed that you failed to appreciate that a local government decision-making structure in which executive power lies solely with a mayor, supported by a cabinet, and where the role of the vast majority of councillors is confined to ward work and the scrutiny function, the latter barely registering in terms of time commitment even for the leading members of that function, requires fewer councillors that before. It requires fewer councillors than even the leader and cabinet structure which immediately preceded the present structure, never mind than compared with the committee structure which was in existence up to the time of the last review. You appear to have accepted without question Labour’s proposal to retain the current Council size which is little more than a demand for job retention by its councillors. Common sense, if nothing else, points to the need for fewer councillors in a mayor and cabinet structure of local government that in a committee system in which every councillor actively participates in all decision-making. On the proposed warding pattern, I am again surprised and disappointed that you have been persuaded by the Labour Party’s often fallacious evidence of community identity, some of which bears little scrutiny. The objectives of the proposals put forward by the Labour Party, though unstated, were two-fold.

First, the warding pattern had to be absolutely consistent with the current division of parliamentary constituencies. As was the case with the last review which significantly altered the warding pattern across the Leicester East/Leicester West constituency boundary resulting in a consequential change in parliamentary constituency boundaries at the next parliamentary review, changes in parliamentary constituency boundaries cause significant internal turmoil and dispute within the Labour Party, not least between the respective Members of Parliament. Such turmoil and dispute are no doubt better avoided even if it results overall in one constituency having a significantly higher quota of electors than the others. That is why, even on the latest actual figures, the average number of electors per councillor for the recommended wards in the Leicester West constituency is 3.5% greater overall than that for the recommended wards in the Leicester East constituency. That is right across the board, comparing the whole of one constituency with the whole of the other. That is caused solely because the current parliamentary boundaries were regarded by the Labour Party, and with your endorsement, as sacrosanct, even though it ought to be an irrelevant factor in any warding pattern. The pattern of parliamentary constituencies is meant to respect ward boundaries, not vice versa. Second, in its proposals the Labour Party, not satisfied with its numerical domination of the Council since 2011, has been determined to effectively dismantle any ward with a tendency of electing non- Labour councillors. This has been done in two ways; first through the creation of much larger wards and thus diluting areas of opposition and second through the splitting of pockets of likely opposition between wards. So it is that, though the size of the Council remains the same, the warding pattern recommended is one of six two-member and fourteen three-member wards as against the current pattern of twelve two-member wards and ten three-member wards. This in itself represents a significant further shift towards three-member wards, the pattern between 1983 and 2003 being entirely one of two- member wards. However what also masks the real effect and indeed real intention is the fact that the vast majority of the existing two-member wards are recommended for dissolution and three of the new two-member wards proposed (, Troon and Wycliffe) are created out of solidly Labour-inclined areas. In seeking to achieve the creation of much larger wards and the splitting of pockets of likely opposition between wards, none other than “gerrymandering”, the Labour Party has come up with some patently absurd proposals. I cite just two at this point. village, a quite distinct area with a close community identity and an area which has been contained within a single ward since its absorption into the City of Leicester in 1891 is now recommended to be split between two wards. Its only crime appears to be that for over the last thirty years it has consistently returned non-Labour councillors. The Western Park area of the City, again a quite distinct area with a close community identity and an area which has been contained within a single ward for just as long is now also recommended to be split between two wards. Its crime is the same as Aylestone’s. I do not blame the Labour Party for coming up with these proposals, but I do seriously question the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission in so readily adopting them apparently without question. I recognise that it is not the role of the Commission to have regard to the party political effects of its recommendations, but it is the role of the Commission to scrutinise proposals that are put to it to ensure that they are consistent with its brief and to test whether those proposals not only provide for good levels of electoral equality, but also reflect community identity. I must seriously question the extent to which that has been done in circumstances where traditionally distinct communities such as those in Aylestone and Western Park have been carved up. Any “evidence” supporting either carve up is fallacious and entirely self-serving and any proper examination of that “evidence” would have revealed it to be so.

I would seriously invite you to revisit your draft recommendations as a whole in the light of my comments above. The proposals put forward originally by me on behalf of the Conservative Party were not only fully compliant with the appropriate criteria for any warding pattern, they were evidence-based to the same degree as were the Labour Party’s proposals – but based on genuine evidence unlike Labour’s – and balanced. However, recognising that you are unlikely to go back to the drawing board and effectively start from scratch, I also put forward a more limited counter-proposal covering just three areas of the City without those counter-proposals having any knock-on effect elsewhere. Those counter proposals cover the following area: • The Aylestone area (incorporating your two recommended wards of Aylestone & and Saffron & Aylestone Park); • The and Uppingham Road areas (incorporating your two recommended wards of Evington and Green Lane); and • The West of the City (incorporating your recommended wards of Abbey, Fosse, and Western). They are the three areas of the City where the Labour Party’s proposals and your adoption of them bear the least scrutiny. I will outline the counter-proposals, but they are detailed on the map which is attached which should be an accurate reflection of the counter-proposals themselves. Where the counter- proposals refer to the boundaries of an existing ward or a ward recommended in your draft recommendations, then insofar as there may be minor differences between those boundaries and the boundaries shown on the attached map, then the boundaries of the existing ward and the boundaries of wards recommended in your draft recommendations prevail. In other cases the boundaries shown on the attached map prevail. As well as the map, I also a link to two documents which provide supporting evidence. The first consists of mapping of certain census data produced by the University of Liverpool, the link to which is at http://138.253.67.7/~alex/downloads/openatlas/E06000016.pdf. Reference is made to pages within this document. The second is the Office for National Statistics’ map of multiple deprivation which is at http://opendatacommunities.org/deprivation/map. By typing in any Leicester postcode (eg. LE1 1AA) into the search engine, you will be directed to the mapping for Leicester.

THE AYLESTONE AREA Your draft recommendations envisage the creation of two three-member wards in this area, Aylestone & Eyres Monsell and Saffron & Aylestone Park. I propose that the same area be divided into three two-member wards, Aylestone, Eyres Monsell and Saffron, with no knock-on effect elsewhere. The counter-proposal is simple and straightforward. It is that both the current Aylestone and Eyres Monsell Wards be retained within their existing boundaries and that the remainder of the area, drawing from the existing Castle and Freemen Wards, be combined to create a new Saffron Ward. This recreates the Saffron Ward which existed from 1983 to 2003, albeit on slightly different boundaries.

The electoral make up with variances from the City average would be as follows: 2012 2019 Aylestone 8,739 0% 9,014 +2% Eyres Monsell 8,281 -5% 8,516 -3% Saffron 9,165 +6% 9,002 +2%

Of all your draft recommendations, those for the Aylestone area were the most incomprehensible. There were already two existing wards in the area, Aylestone and Eyres Monsell Wards, which were of the correct electoral size and were largely homogeneous, Aylestone Ward consisting of Aylestone village plus the Gilmorton estate and Eyres Monsell Ward consisting of the Eyres Monsell council estate. The Freemen Ward was a multi-community ward, but it effectively comprised three parts; the Saffron council estate, Aylestone Park and the area between the railway line and Welford Road. The latter area is envisaged to transfer to Knighton Ward under your draft recommendations. Instead of starting with the status quo, one which is reflective of existing communities, you have taken a knife to Aylestone village and have split is between your two new recommended wards. Whilst there might be a legitimate debate about where Aylestone ends and where Aylestone Park begins, there can be no doubt that the existing community of Aylestone has been split by your proposals such that you envisage having an Aylestone & Eyres Monsell Ward consisting of the Eyres Monsell council estate and much of Aylestone, which have nothing in common, and a Saffron & Aylestone Park Ward consisting of the Saffron council estate, the remainder of Aylestone, Aylestone Park and the Walnut Street area, which also have nothing in common. It is bound to be the case that wards will necessarily include areas with nothing in common, but it is rare that they include areas with nothing in common but at the same time exclude other areas with which they have an identity of community interest. You have achieved this with your recommendations for the Aylestone area. That your recommendation splits an existing community is clear not only from a cursory walk or drive through the affected area, but is supported by latest census data, particularly the data relating to economic activity, tenure and household composition. I refer you in particular to the maps at pages 31, 33, 50, 53, 171-173, 178, 179, 181, 183, 203, 214, 218 and 228. Further supporting evidence is provided by the ONS map of multiple deprivation. I therefore propose that the combined area of your recommended Aylestone & Eyres Monsell and Saffron & Aylestone Park Wards be instead divided into three wards, the existing Aylestone and Eyres Monsell Wards and a new Saffron Ward.

THE EVINGTON AND UPPINGHAM ROAD AREAS Your draft recommendations envisage the creation of two three-member wards in this area, Evington and Green Lane. I propose that the same area be divided into three two-member wards, , Coleman and Evington, with no knock-on effect elsewhere. The counter-proposal is again fairly simple and straightforward. It is that the current Charnwood, Coleman and Evington Wards be retained, but with new boundaries better reflective of the communities living in the area. That is better both as compared with either the draft recommendations or the current boundaries. In the case of Evington Ward the boundary change is

minimal, being only the loss of the 283 electors to Ward from the area to the South of Uppingham Road already envisaged in your draft recommendations. Evington Ward would otherwise be unchanged. Charnwood Ward would become geographically more compact. Your draft recommendations already envisage the loss of the Northfields council estate to the new Troon Ward. My proposal North of Uppingham Road would transfer the Tailby council estate from Charnwood Ward to Coleman Ward and I also seek to make a clearer division between Charnwood and Coleman Wards south of Uppingham Road by drawing the boundary along St. Barnabas Road and East Park Road. The electoral make up with variances from the City average would be as follows: 2012 2019 Charnwood 8,417 -4% 8,103 -8% Coleman 8,773 0% 8,603 -2% Evington 8,588 -2% 8,787 0%

Charnwood Ward has existed for over 75 years but, though the boundaries were slightly altered in 2003, it has been largely unchanged since 1983. It consists of a number of fairly distinct areas, particularly the area to the North and South of Humberstone Road, an area of mainly older but some newer terraced housing and an area of semi-detached housing around Willowbrook Road, newer mainly social housing around Hastings Road, the Northfields council estate and the Tailby council estate. As I have said, your draft recommendations already envisage the loss of the Northfields council estate to the new Troon Ward. Coleman Ward has existed since 1983, though its current boundaries only date from 2003. It comprises a number of distinct areas to the South of Uppingham Road, in particular the council estate, the Green Lane Road/Coleman Road area, Crown Hills and the Green Lane Road area. The current boundary between Charnwood and Coleman Wards takes a fairly arbitrary and circuitous route right through the middle of an existing principally-Asian community living in old terraced housing, the sole purpose of that boundary being to ensure the requisite number of electors in each ward. My counter-proposal is that the boundary between Charnwood and Coleman Wards be made simpler and clearer and such as not to split a fairly large identifiable community. Drawing the boundary between the two along St. Barnabas Road and East Park Road will bring this community living to the West of that boundary together into one ward. The area to the East is quite different, the population itself being more ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse and the housing consisting mainly of newer mostly semi-detached houses. The electorates of the two wards can then be evened out through the transfer of the discrete Tailby council estate from Charnwood Ward to Coleman Ward. This then creates two more geographically compact wards and each with a greater degree of common interests. As stated earlier, I propose a minimal change to the current Evington Ward and no change whatsoever to that part of the Evington Ward which remains in the area in question. The Evington Ward has existed with its current boundaries only since 2003, but the change then was fairly minimal and much of that change disappears anyway with the loss of the 283 electors to Thurncourt Ward from the area to the South of Uppingham Road already envisaged in your draft

recommendations. Evington Ward has therefore been largely unchanged since 1983. It consists of two distinct areas; Evington village and the Goodwood council estate, whereas under your recommendation the whole of the Rowlatts Hill council estate and Crown Hills and much of the Green Lane Road/Coleman Road area would be added to Evington Ward. The geographical spread of the resultant ward is so great and so numerous are the completely different community interests comprised within it, that the proposal only makes sense on a map. You draw the boundary between your recommended Evington and Green Lane Wards along Coleman Road and Broad Avenue. This being a fairly major road, this seems to make sense on a map, but on the ground there is no division between the communities either side of this dividing line, let alone either side of the roads in question. That my counter-proposal is a considerable improvement on your recommendation is again clear not only from a cursory walk or drive through the affected area, but is also supported by latest census data, particularly the data relating to economic activity, tenure, household composition, country of birth, household language and religion. I refer you in particular to the maps at pages 31, 33, 53, 70, 78-80, 88, 91, 104, 106, 117, 124, 125, 138, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 171-173, 218 and 228. Further evidence is provided by the ONS map of multiple deprivation. I therefore propose that the combined area of your recommended Evington and Green Lane Wards be instead divided into three new wards, Charnwood, Coleman and Evington.

THE WEST OF THE CITY Your draft recommendations envisage the creation of two three-member wards, Abbey and Western and two two-member wards, Fosse and Westcotes in this area. I propose that the same area be divided into five two-member wards, Abbey, Fosse, , Westcotes and Western Park, with no knock-on effect elsewhere. Your recommendations in respect of and Braunstone & Rowley Fields are unaffected. The counter proposal is necessarily complex, but is better reflective of the communities living in the area either compared with the draft recommendations or the current boundaries. It envisages that the five current wards be retained, but with both Abbey and New Parks Wards now becoming two- member wards. New Parks Ward, having already lost most of it non-council house areas to the expanded Beaumont Leys Ward under your draft recommendations, would be confined to the New Parks council estate. Western Park Ward would be expanded, principally by the addition of the Park View estate from the current New Parks Ward. Westcotes Ward, having lost part of its area to the expanded Braunstone & Rowley Fields Ward under your draft recommendations, would expand northwards into the existing Fosse Ward so as to include the Tudor Road area (the entire current FSD polling district) which in terms of housing and community is identical to the Westcotes Ward. The Abbey Ward will lose areas around the “old” Stadium estate and the Cheltenham Road area but will retain the “new” Stadium estate. The Fosse Ward, having lost the Tudor Road area, will move northwards, gaining the “old” Stadium estate and the Cheltenham Road area, so re- uniting the community all around the Alderman Richard Hallam Primary School which was split by the last re-warding of the City.

The electoral make up with variances from the City average would be as follows: 2012 2019 Abbey 8,857 -1% 9,014 +1% Fosse 8,974 +5% 8,516 +5% New Parks 9,280 +6% 9,445 +7% Westcotes 8,952 +2% 8,524 -3% Western Park 8,724 0% 9,097 +3%

Abbey Ward has been in existence for over 100 years, but its boundaries have altered considerably over time. Though its core has remained the same, in 2003 it gained the Mowmacre and Stocking Farm council estates. As well as this, it includes the Stadium area around Parker Drive and housing along Abbey Lane. It then sweeps into the City Centre, but thereby adds few further electors. Your recommendations involve expanding the ward to create a new boundary along Anstey Lane, this area to be removed from Fosse Ward. Fosse Ward was only created in 2003 by the last electoral review. It includes a number of quite distinct areas, including the Tudor Road area, and Woodgate, all of which, those separate, consist mainly of long-established private terraced housing, the Buckminster Road/ Anstey Lane area and the area to the north of Alderman Richard Hallam School, all private housing, and Minster Grange, again all private housing. Your recommendations would transfer the area to the north of Anstey Lane to Abbey Ward with minor amendments elsewhere. New Parks Ward has only been in existence since 1983, though it previously existed for 50 years as Newton Ward. Its current boundaries date only from 2003. It comprises principally the New Parks council estate with the addition of the private housing between that estate and Road. Since 2003 it has also included the Park View estate. Your draft recommendations already envisage the loss of the private housing between to the South of Groby Road to the Beaumont Leys Ward. Westcotes Ward too has existed for over 100 years, though its current boundaries were only established in 1983 when it was divided in order to create the new Western Park Ward, with a minor change thereafter in 2003. It consists almost entirely of long-established private terraced housing. You recommend that the part of the ward that is South of the railway line transfers to Braunstone & Rowley Fields Ward and the extension of the ward to incorporate part of Western Park Ward. Western Park Ward was created in 1983 principally through the division of the then Westcotes Ward. There were minor boundary changes in 2003 whereby the Park View area transferred to New Parks Ward. It consists almost entirely of long-established private housing along Hinckley Road and Glenfield Road. You recommend that this ward is dissolved and is split between New Parks Ward and Westcotes Ward. It is perhaps worth starting with an observation similar to one I made in a different context earlier. You draw the boundaries in this area along what appear to be a major road, Anstey Lane. This again seems to make sense on a map, but on the ground there is no division between the communities living either side of Anstey Lane, let alone either side of the road itself. The whole area from Groby Road, across Buckminster Road, right through to Heacham Drive and Somerset Avenue is very much one community. The area is very stable in terms of population and consists

mainly of long-established private housing. A single primary school and a single secondary school serve the area. I have already mentioned Western Park and how your proposals effectively split a community. Fosse Road has long been a natural boundary between the more transient, student-dominated terraced area to the East which is in Westcotes Ward and the stable, privately-occupied non- terraced housing to the West which is in Western Park Ward. You propose an arbitrary division of the Western Park Ward putting half of it in New Park Ward with which it has nothing in common and the other half in Westcotes Ward with which it has next to nothing in common. Western Park is very much a single community with, at its hub, the park itself and the Hinckley Road shops, another example of a major road establishing a community, not denoting its boundary. My counter-proposals are a significant improvement on both your own recommendations and on the warding arrangements as they stand today. Abbey Ward would lose the Heacham Drive area and the “old” Stadium estate. That is the long- established estate built around the old Leicester Stadium, whilst retaining the new estate built on its ruins. This would not break up any of the communities currently within the ward, but it would allow that part of the community around Heacham Drive and the “old” Stadium estate to again link up with the rest of the community around the Buckminster Road/Anstey Lane area. Fosse Ward would lose the fairly distinct Tudor Road community to Westcotes Ward, but would gain the areas described above from Abbey Ward as well as a small area from New Parks Ward. It will therefore have a clearer community identity, now focussed on just three areas; Newfoundpool, Woodgate and the Anstey Lane/Stadium areas. New Parks Ward would become a single-community ward, encompassing solely the New Parks council estate. Westcotes Ward would effectively shift northwards, losing areas in the South to Braunstone & Rowley Fields, but gaining the Tudor Road area from Fosse Ward in the North. If anything, both changes will make the ward even more homogeneous than it already is. Western Park Ward is to be retained with the addition of the Park View area, so not only retaining the Western Park community identity within a single ward, but strengthening it by again adding the Park View area which, just like the rest of Western Park, had little in common with New Parks. That my counter-proposal is a considerable improvement on your recommendation is again clear not only from a cursory walk or drive through the affected area, but is also supported by latest census data, particularly the data relating to economic activity, tenure and household composition. I refer you in particular to the maps at pages 31, 33, 50, 53, 117, 124, 125,138, 141, 171-173, 178, 179, 181, 183, 203, 214, 218 and 228. Further evidence is provided by the ONS map of multiple deprivation. I therefore propose that the combined area of your recommended Abbey, Fosse, Westcotes and Western be instead divided into five new wards, Abbey, Fosse, New Parks, Westcotes and Western Park.

In conclusion I hope that you will take up my invitation to revisit your recommendations as a whole in the light of my comments, but, if not, that you will recognise that the three counter-proposals represent a considerable improvement on those recommended by you.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Whelband Chairman City of Leicester Conservative Association