District Councillors’ Individual Submissions

Councillor Catherine Lomax, Barby & Ward

1. The Commission is asking us to prove a negative, which is impossible, while they, meanwhile, don't prove their positive, i.e. community ties, efficient gov. etc.

2. My experience of 34 years in my village -all of those years actively involved in the community - shows me that neither the general population nor an organised group is interested/involved in or concerned with the other villages. The same facilities are available in the larger and self-sufficient villages of Crick, Kilsby, Barby and , so there is minimal involvement by any community in other villages. Of the smaller villages, Welton looks to Daventry, Ashby, and Onley to Barby, Dunchurch and Braunston, for their services and facilities, so there is no common denominator. And no satisfactory road links, or public transport between them.

3. All of these communities have different issues and concerns, eg border villages with Rugby and DIRFT expansion, traffic, public transport. Welton with Daventry expansion and loss of public transport.

4. Different outlooks and issues can be accommodated in smaller wards, but the larger the ward, the more difficult and complex for the ward councillor/s to deal with diverse demands and needs.

5. Most councillors, particularly in rural wards, become councillors because they have a commitment to and passion for their community and want to see it improve. The larger the ward, the less likely it is that candidates will be motivated to stand (except perhaps for purely political reasons), the less they will identify with their ward and place, the less likely it will be that the residents will know and trust them, and the less likely that democracy will be served, as the electorate will cease to identify with their ward councillor

Councillor Alan Hills, Hill Ward (Daventry)

I write to you regarding the above, not only in the role of the Ward Councillor for Hill Ward, but also as Chairman of the Borough Hill Residents Association, we have corresponded with the commission regarding the Boundary Review, and agree the statement LOCAL PEOPLE KNOW BEST, we have a membership in the region of 200, and the major consensus of opinion was that these proposals were totally unnecessary to solve the problem of Abbey North. It was felt that the best solution was to increase the Council numbers to 39, and transfer some Abbey North electors to the Abbey South Ward ( which is adjacent to Abbey North ) and then make Abbey South a 3 member ward. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the feelings of most local people in the area, but seems to have been completely ignored. Why did the public feel this way ? Firstly cost we are trying to keep costs at all levels as low as possible, and it is felt that this was not only the easiest way but the most cost effective way that this should be carried out, the costs would be

Page 1 of 7 born by the taxpayer. It was also obvious talking to other areas and Parishes that to introduce 3 member wards throughout a large rural area was totally impractable and again costly to the taxpayer in times of economic restraint, to go to 3 member wards in some of these areas means members having to travel to maintain contact which not only increases costs but would make it far more difficult for Councillor's to make contact with their electorate, time and cost is an important factor in these proposals and what is also very concerning to the local electorate their views on this which have been echoed by the public and many Parish Council's have been ignored, the general feeling is that the Statement LOCAL PEOPLE KNOW BEST whilst correct has not been observed and this has certainly been reflected in my ward and association members very real concerns.

Alan Hills Hill Ward Councillor and Chairman Borough Hill Residents Association

Councillor Chris Millar, & Ward

I am writing in response to the LGBCE’s proposal to form you a three member ward as described above – currently sits on it’s own as a 2 member ward whilst West Haddon & Guilsborough sits as a single member ward.

I have conducted local research to establish the relationship between the three villages and have found very little. Each has it’s own primary school and preschool whilst Guilsborough Senior school has a very wide catchment area encompassing a whole range of villages – school buses tends to be the main form of transport. There are no real direct bus services between Guilsborough/West Haddon and Long Buckby and importantly Lon Buckby has a substantial doctors surgery which serves that village whilst Guilsborough has a major doctors surgery which covers a wide rural area with some 14000 patients on its books (incorporating ) and has many patients from West Haddon.

There is a natural relationship between West Haddon and Guilsborough some 2/3 miles apart both in terms of youth activities and type of village. Long Buckby to many is seen more as small town with its railway station (the only one in the whole District) and a population well in excess of both Guilsborough and West Haddon put together. There is a natural fear locally that should the proposed 3 member ward go ahead then Long Buckby will get more attention due to it’s size rather than a number of smaller villages which are more similar in scale.

I believe that the existing Long Buckby ward, which includes Watford, which has a natural historic relationship with Long Buckby, should remain as a 2- member ward and that either:

Page 2 of 7 West Haddon & Guilsborough remains as it is now i.e. one member ward albeit with a positive population variance of 16% - if the numbers of councillors reduces to say 36 then presumably this variance will decrease

Or

Merge this ward with the current Ravensthorpe ward with a current negative population of –9% - this ward includes the villages of , and . All these villages are served by Guilsborough School and the Guilsborough Doctors surgery. Also geographically there is a closer arrangement with these villages with I know Ravensthorpe residents utilising the Guilsborough shop facilities and likewise East Haddon residents using those in West Haddon.

Councillor Daniel Cribbin, Moulton Ward

I would like to start by stating that I endorse the submissions already put forward by the District Council in relation to this review generally and would like to make some additional comment and submissions for my ward, Moulton, based on my local knowledge and experience of being a District Councillor for Moulton Ward since 2002. During my time as District Councillor I have held the position of Vice and Chairman of the Council and am currently the Portfolio Holder for the Environment.

I have lived in Moulton all my life and know the area well. Since becoming a District Councillor in 2002 I have got to know how the people of my ward like to live and how they view their area and how they access their services. The Local Government Boundary Commission’s proposals would create a District Council ward which mirrors the County Council Ward. This you might think would be fine until you realise that there will be three district councillors possibly from different parties representing the ward whereas with the County Council there is one councillor. This would result in confusion for the electorate. At present residents in the current Moulton Ward have two councillors who both live in the area and know the area well.

Moulton and Overstone villages share many facilities such as shops and a library. Villagers do not look to the villages of , , Hannington and Old for any services similarly the residents of Holcot etc look more to Brixworth if anything for their services rather than Moulton and Overstone. This proposed ward would divide the communities and disenfranchise the residents.

In a three tier area as Daventry is, District Councillors are expected to be more local than County Councillors. The issues that affect residents on a daily basis are taken up more often by District Councillors. District Councillors are also expected to attend parish council meetings on a monthly basis. With the adding of more villages to Moulton Ward this will make it virtually impossible for a councillor to be able to attend all the meetings and get to know his or her electorate.

Page 3 of 7 If there is good co-operation between councillors then a nominal presence could be maintained but there is a real risk of issues being passed between councillors like the proverbial “hot potato” and a real risk that no one councillor owns the problem who will resolve it to the satisfaction of the residents. This would be compounded if there were councillors from different parties representing the ward. This is not the way forward. It would be a retrograde step.

Three member wards can work well in urban areas but in villages single and two member wards are currently working well. Residents know their councillors and feel able to approach them with their problems. I would urge the Local Government Boundary Commission to reconsider the proposals for Moulton Ward and leave the Ward as it is. Local people do not want this change which is essence change for change sake.

Councillor John Shephard, Boughton and Ward

I wish to make certain specific comments about the published proposals made in respect of the review generally and in particular as I believe it would affect my constituents. I do so as an elected member who has served in most senior positions in the district council since first elected in 1984: Chairman of Personnel, Policy and Resources and Scrutiny Committees, Deputy Leader and Leader, Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Council. I am currently chairman of the Governance Committee.

I am concerned about three fundamental aspects of politics at the very grass roots: the relationship between constituent and member, the profile of the typical member and the scope for conflict of interest. I believe your draft proposals will have a dramatically damaging effect on these important issues.

Member/Constituent relationship

At best the member/constituent relationship is one where the constituent

 Knows his/her representative  Is confident the representative o is familiar with the geography of the constituent’s area and the issues facing that locality o has the time, inclination and energy to represent the constituent effectively  Can call the member to account for his failings  Has access to the member  Can see that the member is properly representing the views of the constituent and neighbours

In a single member ward these objectives can be achieved by an averagely conscientious member.

Page 4 of 7 In a rural multi member ward of the type that you propose to create throughout the district there are significant forces that act to prevent that happening:

 The member has 3 times the number of constituents – how can he expect to know 5000 people?  The member has to cover a territory at least 3 times the area – how can he be expected to know the issues facing residents of all villages in his area – of distant parishes in one of the new proposed wards such as and ?  No single member is accountable – enquiries can be passed like hot potatoes from one member to another

In a new rural 3 member ward you may suggest that as a matter of convenience the members could divide the ward into 3 so as to maintain the current number of electors per member. This is artificial and just does not work. The voter will seek out the most energetic member, or the one thought to be most sympathetic to his cause (or to his politics). A new, possibly inexperienced member could be swamped.

Member Profile

The profiles of district councillors nationwide is depressingly similar – middle class and at least middle aged. Candidates have to have time and resources to give to service on a district council. All parties face increasing challenges in finding candidates. At present in my ward I can say to a successor:

 Your time commitment is reasonably limited: say half a day a week committee work and possibly another 2/3 hours constituent work and 2 parish council meetings (12 per year)  Your travel commitment is limited to 2 villages, 2 miles apart  Living in one of those villages, you already know the issues facing that village; only have to get to know the issues facing the other  You have 1500 constituents, you probably know 200/300 already – it won’t be long before you know most of them and they know you  You have a single election every 4 years: your time commitment to canvass is easily identifiable (2/3 days to get round 600 houses every 4 years)  Your financial commitment to run an election for 1500 voters is finite: say £300  You will be the single voice representing your patch without interference from others

It is proposed that from 2012 the new Boughton and Pitsford ward will comprise a number of villages and have a total from 2016 of 5663 electors, with 3 members. I then have to say to a potential successor:

Page 5 of 7

 You will make yourself familiar with the villages of , Boughton, , , Coton, East Haddon, , , Holdenby, Hollowell, , Pitsford, Ravensthorpe, and  The parish councils of these 15 villages will expect to see you regularly  There are district council elections in your patch 3 years out of four  You will have to pay for the election expenses necessary to promote yourself to the voters in these 15 villages and arrange delivery of your election material to c2000 households  I cannot say whether you will have any help or not – it entirely depends on the co-operation of your co-members  Were you to contemplate ever actually canvassing your constituents, allow three weeks to do it  Your voice representing any one of your constituents will be one of three; there is every opportunity for your co-members to say that you do not properly do so

Against that background, the proposals will increase difficulty in recruiting new members – particularly young and diverse.

You may argue that we have not failed to bring candidates to elections so far and we have already some multi member wards. But:

 We do not have multi member wards covering large geographical areas  The average age of DDC members is depressingly high (although probably typical of districts)  We have dealt with the problem by having no less than six husband/wife couples on the council. This is unhelpful for obvious reasons.

Conflict of interest

Throughout the district there is pressure on development. Villages closer to such as Boughton are under the most pressure. There is a planning application with the district council now (coming to committee on 20 July) for permission to build 1050 houses in Boughton village. My constituents to a man wish to resist that development, as do those, in Pitsford, affected by traffic impact. Voters elsewhere in the enlarged Boughton ward would prefer to see the development in Boughton, reducing pressure on their villages. Immediately there is a geographically larger ward there is conflict of interest between communities, proposed to be represented by the same members. Such conflict does not exist now, where a single member can speak for single community.

Page 6 of 7

Further, how do the other two members for Boughton react to a Boughton planning application? That may depend on the accident of their residence. If they lived in a village under similar pressure they will be urged to support the development for the same reason. That would result in members for the same ward arguing opposite points at Council. Who is representative?

Summary

Multi member wards may have their place in urban environments where issues are similar and members can physically access their patch reasonably efficiently. They have no place in the rural parish environment.

I accept that these comments address the central issue of multi rather than single member wards and that you are encouraged to use the concept of three member wards in the Daventry review as a starting point. However, there is no statutory obligation to impose three member wards as a matter of principle. You are quite properly carrying out a consultation. In that consultation I suggest that you will find no support for an increase in the number of multi member wards; indeed I understand that there is widespread opposition which I am sure you will consider in this exercise.

You have stated that you value evidence from local sources. I suggest that I have given cogent evidence on the three points I address specifically. I suggest that you will receive very little if any evidence to the contrary. Single member wards in DDC should be left as they are today.

Decision making process

Finally may I say something about the decision making process. It is the expressed view of many members of the Council that, despite what is said, the Commission has closed its mind to any outcome other than 12 x 3 member wards. There is very considerable concern that there are strong indicators that the process is Wednesbury unreasonable. I can envisage strong member pressure to consider the JR process if 3 member wards are imposed upon DDC in the face of very substantial evidence being put to you in the course of the consultation period that it is simply fraught with impediments and, frankly, a backward step in local democracy.

Page 7 of 7