Parish and Town council submissions to the Borough Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 7 submissions from parish and Town councils.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Hinds, Alex

From: Jill Barlow Sent: 16 October 2012 10:27 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Rushcliffe

Dear Sris,

The East Bridgford Parish Council has considered the proposed changes for this area which will see the existing Oak Ward abolished and East Bridgford included with Shelford and Newton, loosing Kneeton, Screveton and Car Colston.

The view of the Parish Council is that Kneeton should remain in the same ward as East Bridgford as there are strong historic links between the two villages and , furthermore, it makes no sense to include it with villages on the other side of the A46.

Please can you acknowledge receipt of this message and confirm our comments will be taken into account.

Thank you

Jill Barlow Parish Clerk

-- Jill Barlow (Parish Clerk)

1 Joanne Cartmell

Hickling Parish Council Parish clerk

12/11/2012 12:53 "Hickling Parish Council wishes to make the following comments with regard to the proposed ward changes.

Hickling Parish Council does not support the proposals of bringing the parishes of Colston Bassett and Langar together with the existing Nevile Ward to make the new ward of Kinoulton and Langar. Council members feel that these proposals do not serve the interests of the members of the existing Nevile Ward. It is essential that the Borough Councillor understands the local communities, and their issues as they are one of the most important links between communities and the Borough Council. The larger area of the new ward and the different issues that arise in each of the communities would mean that successful engagement by a Borough Councillor with each parish would be extremely difficult; especially as there are few clear links between the current Nevile Ward and in particular, the parish of Langar. The proposals do not appear to fit in with the Government’s current principles regarding ‘Localism’ and it is important that these are taken into consideration when making this decision. The Parish Council is aware of the Local Government Boundary Commissions obligations to deliver electoral equality for voters and therefore wishes the LGBC to consider joining the existing Nevile Ward with Colston Bassett as this would be far more appropriate but feels that the inclusion of Langar, which has strong links with , is somewhat baffling. To have the parishes of Langar and Barnstone represented by different ward members when they are so closely linked, does not serve the interests of those two communities and fails to fulfil the second legal obligation which is that local community interests and identities are reflected.

Hickling parish council would also prefer that a name of the new ward be neutral, like Nevile Ward. Councillors feel that if it were to include any of the individual parish names, the name would not fairly represent all the parishes that collectively form the ward."

KINOULTON PARISH COUNCIL

Review Officer (Rushcliffe), LGBCE, Layden House, 7th November 2012 76-86 Tunmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG.

Dear Sir,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF RUSHCLIFFE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Thank you for your letter dated 18th September advising of the draft proposals for changes in the wards within Rushcliffe. As a Parish Council we have a particular interest on how this impacts on our local community and how the proposals reflect the Government’s emphasis on localism.

It is note that the review is undertaken in accordance with Schedule Two of Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 with the need to:

 provide for equality of representation;

 reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable and the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties;

 The need to secure effective and convenient local government.

What is not clear from the Act or the Boundary Commission Technical Guidance is how these different elements interact between each other and consequently what level of variance from the average number of electors per councillor is acceptable. The recent review of parliamentary constituencies reflected a ±5% set by Parliament and has been far more disruptive to the existing constituency map than had been anticipated. The potential impact of this is much less continuity, a failure to reflect local community connections and the undermining of the underpinning theory of British representative democracy, that Members of Parliament represent places with clear identities. This would emphasise that in trying to meet these competing requirements set out in the Act there needs to reflect a flexible approach to this matter. There does not appear to be an indication of what level of variations would be permissible and still meet the statutory requirements. However, it is noted that the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission in relation to other district council’s have seen wards with a variance in excess of 10% on the average figure.

Number of Councillors for Rushcliffe

It was noted from the evidence base on the Local Government Boundary Commission website that the spreadsheet identified electoral number for Rushcliffe as follows:

forecast Dec-11 2018 50 45 86,772 93,496 1,735 2,078

Therefore, it was somewhat of a surprise that this does not reflect the proposals in the draft report. The Report identifies that the number of councillors has been refined to 44 in order to provide for a warding pattern for the borough which results in a better balance between the statutory criteria. This results in the average number of electors per councillor under the draft recommendations rising to 1,972 in 2011 and 2,125 by 2018. The draft recommendations sets out that as a result, none of the proposed 25 wards will have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the average for the borough by 2018. While Appendix B of the Report sets out the draft proposals for Rushcliffe Borough Council based on 44 councillors, it does not identify the implications of taking forward 45 councillors. To enable people to fully understand the implication, should not the alternatives be set out within the appendix to the report in order for people to consider the alternatives?

Impact on the Parish of Kinoulton

The draft report identifies that the current population of the Neville Ward is 1,552 and it is not anticipated that there will be any housing growth in the villages in question to 2018.

The proposal set out in the draft report is that the current villages comprising the Neville Ward are integrated with the Parish of Colston Bassett and the Parish Ward of Langer. The implications for Kinoulton as part of the Kinoulton and Langer ward are set out below:

As was set out in our previous response, there are clear links between the four parishes of Kinoulton, Hickling, Owthorpe and Upper Broughton. Other than the geographic element, that Colston Bassett is adjacent to Kinoulton and Owthorpe, and Colston Bassett is adjacent to Langer, there are no obvious links between Colston Bassett and Langer and the Neville Ward. Further, while the Parish Council is not particularly familiar with Langer cum Barnstone our perceptions is that these two settlements have had strong links with each other. The proposal to split them between different wards, presumably based purely on numbers, would appear to be unsatisfactory and fail to reflect the emphasis in the Act on reflect the identities and interests of local communities and not break any local ties;

While appreciating the Commission’s concern to achieve improved electoral representation across a local authority area this has to be balance against the other aspects set out in the Act. The Government has put a substantial emphasis on localism which needs to be reflected in any decision making on ward boundaries. Rushcliffe Borough Council has a good record when it comes to the performance of the Council, in engagement with parish councils and the local community. This reflects effective governance and policy making and increasing civic engagement. Consequently, it is important in any review that this is not compromised. Borough councillors need to understand their local communities, their issues and problems. They need to provide a link between the Borough Council and local communities to develop policies to tackle problems in their areas. This becomes increasing difficulty where there are no clear links between communities within a ward. It also needs to be recognised that population density is an important factor to consider as increased demands can be placed on councillors representing areas where the population is widely spread out. Councillors representing rural areas face a number of issues from the proposals including:

a) Understanding the issues and problems of different community; b) A total reliance on the car as a means of transport (which may prevent people standing for election); c) Additional travel time between settlements; d) Additional pressure on their time, for example by attending parish council and other community meetings in the additional settlements.

Potentially, the consequence of these demands is a poorer service to the rural ward member’s residents reflecting these additional pressures on the local councillor. Consequently, it is considered by the Parish Council that there is a justifiable case for more remote rural wards to reflect a variance which is below the average.

Conclusions

Under these circumstances, the Parish Council considers that: a) The report fails to set out the implication of taking forward 45 councillors rather than 44 councillors it proposes. From the information available, 45 councillors was the number of councillors considered by respondents to the initial consultation as the minimum number necessary to provide effective representation. No explanation has been set out to justify an approach that reduces the number of councillors to 44 as part of this report. Therefore, in the context of the absence of this information, the Parish Council would be supportive of 45 councillors, even if this results in a wider variation from the average. b) The Parish Council accepts that, based purely on the numbers, it is unlikely that the Neville Ward will not have to reflect some changes in terms of an increase in the number of residents per councillor. However, as we have set out, there is a justifiable case for rural wards to have a higher variation below the average number of electors per councillor for the borough. Consequently, the Parish Council considers that the Parish of Colston Bassett should be included with the four parishes which currently make up the Neville Ward. c) The proposals for Langer and Barnstone need to be revisited to reflect the identities and interests of this community in terms of representation by the same ward member and in relation to Langer cum Barnstone’s relationships with adjacent communities. d) It is unclear from the report whether it is proposed that the name of the ward is “Kinoulton and Langer”? If this is the case it does not reflect the common identity in the current Neville Ward and subsumes the identity of the other villages forming part of the proposed ward.

I trust the Parish Council comments will be taken into account and reflected in the Boundary Commission’s final report.

Yours faithfully

N.A.Oxby Treasure & Responsible Finance Officer On behalf of Kinoulton Parish Council

Langar cum Barnstone Parish Council

Clerk: Mrs Claire Pegg 6 Park Road Barnstone NG13 9JG

Tel: 01949 860123 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.theparishcouncil.org Mr W Morrison Review Officer (Rushcliffe) LGBC for Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

3 October 2012

Dear Mr Morrison

Electoral Review of Rushcliffe: Draft Recommendations

At its last meeting the Parish Council resolved to object strongly to the Commission’s recommendations in respect of Langar and Barnstone for the following reasons:

1 Divisive nature of recommendations The parish had been striving for many years to unite the two villages of Langar & Barnstone into one community The Boundary Commission’s recommendations would have a divisive and detrimental effect on this community.

2 Parish council membership The proposals recommend a parish council of 9 members consisting of 5 members from Langar and 4 members from Barnstone. As there are already 5 parish councillors resident in Langar, this rule would prevent other Langar residents applying to become members of the parish council in the future. Councillors are drawn from, and representative of, the community as a whole and not of an individual village.

3 Geographical The recommendations place Langar in the Kinoulton/Langar Ward with villages as far away as Upper Broughton, with whom Langar has little or no connection. Barnstone is similarly placed in the Thoroton Ward with villages as far away as Flawborough and Flintham, again with little or no connection. The Parish Council disagrees with the statement that the Thoroton Ward ‘provides a good balance between the criteria as it provides for good electoral equality and has complete internal communication links’, as the A52 is a physical barrier dividing Granby and Barnstone from the remaining villages in the Ward.

4 Historical connections with local villages Langar and Barnstone have enjoyed long established affiliations with local villages, particularly Cropwell Bishop, Colston Bassett and Granby. Langar and Barnstone have historically been linked with Cropwell Bishop in several joint ventures, including Speedwatch and Police LAG meetings.

The Parish Council feels that its links with Cropwell Bishop in particular, far outweigh any advantages that might be gained by the increase in the level of electoral equality in the proposed new Wards.

Yours sincerely

Claire Pegg Parish Clerk Hinds, Alex

From: Jenny Faulks Sent: 08 October 2012 16:14 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Jenny Faulks' Subject: Electoral Reviews of Rushcliffe

Dear Sirs

Normanton on Soar Parish Council having carefully reviewed the proposed changes to the Electoral division of Rushcliffe would like to strongly object..

Our options would be:

1) No change

2) Normanton on Soar to merge with Sutton Bonington

Regards Jenny Faulks Clerk to the Council

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Hinds, Alex Sent: 04 October 2012 13:44 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: ELectoral Review of Rushcliffe

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Alex Hinds Review Assistant Local Government Boundary Commission for England 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Tel: 020 7664 8534 | Fax: 020 7296 6227 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lgbce.org.uk  Think of the environment...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

-----Original Message----- From: Jenny Faulks Sent: 04 October 2012 09:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: ELectoral Review of Rushcliffe

Dear Sirs

Sutton Bonington Parish Council having carefully reviewed the proposed changes to the Electoral division of Rushcliffe would like to strongly object. The figures that you are using are distorted by the fact that you have taken into account the student population who are not council tax payers and very few of the students vote - at the last election out of the entire student population only 17 students voted.

We would ask that the figures are adjusted and take into account only residents of the villages.

Our options would be:

1) No change

2) Sutton Bonington join with Normanton on Soar

3) Sutton Bonington, Normanton on Soar, Kingston and Ratcliffe on Soar

Regards Jenny Faulks Clerk to the Council

1