Sherwood Conservative Association

Response to Draft Proposals for District Council Boundaries

Overview

After conducting a widespread internal consultation with our members and local representatives we would like to formally lodge our opposition in part to the Commissions draft recommendations. We believe that whilst we understand the Commission’s need to provide electoral equality or “fairness,” we believe that the Commission has in some cases prioritised this over respecting local community ties and giving effective local representation to parishes. We accept that, although the original Newark and Sherwood Council proposals didn’t pay enough attention to providing electoral equality, they did nonetheless provide a better balance in respecting local ties and providing effective local representation. We would like to submit, therefore, that the Commission reassesses its position and seek s to improve on the Council’s original proposals to a greater degree than they have done so, which much better reflect local needs and wishes. As an indication as to how this could be done, we have outlined below some amendments to the draft proposals that endeavour to improve electoral equality between wards, whilst respecting local ties and needs. These proposals relate only to those areas within the Sherwood Parliamentary Constituency.

1. Southwell

The Commission’s draft proposals place the Sherwood parishes of Edingley, Halam and Kirklington into a three member Southwell Ward. Whilst we understand that the Commission cannot avoid (or indeed take into account) current Parliamentary boundaries, consultation with our members in these parishes indicate a concern that they would lose out to Southwell Town Council in terms of representation. They also believe it is a lost opportunity not to provide single member wards that provide clearer and more effective lines of representation from councillors. We also note that, with 7% fewer voters by 2019, the Commission’s proposal for this area will only just be within the accepted level of variance from the quota. We believe the submission made by Southwell Town Council at stage one, whilst supporting the Commission’s proposals, nonetheless illustrates the desire of parishes to retain direct links with their councillors. A united Southwell would be the dominate parish in the ward and the smaller parishes fear that their needs would potentially be subsumed by those of Southwell. So whilst it could be argued that Southwell would potentially benefit under these proposals, the parishes fear they would not. There is a danger if a three member Southwell is retained then it would generate unnecessary conflict between Southwell and its smaller rural neighbours. We would like to submit that the Commission creates three single member wards within the boundaries of their proposed Southwell Ward. We believe that the work done by local councillors in this area best represent the needs of the local communities and would like to endorse their submission: • A renamed Southwell South ward including Halloughton

• A renamed Southwell West ward including Halam and Edingley

• A renamed Southwell North ward including Hockerton, Kirklington and Winkburn

2. Doverbeck

Our members in Oxton support the creation of the Doverbeck Ward, uniting them with neighbouring communities to the south which they have a strong affinity with.

3.

Farnsfield is a distinct community with an electorate close to the district average and, therefore, our members are strongly in support of the creation of a single member Farnsfield Ward.

4. Edwinstowe and

Our members were strongly opposed to the uniting of the Edwinstowe and Clipstone parishes in a single three member ward. Our members had a preference for the original Council’s proposal for three separate wards for this area. Edwinstowe has strong community links with Budy‐cum‐Perlethorpe, with links between the local Churches and the Thoresby Estate. Our members in the latter have little affinity with . The Parish of King’s Cliptone has always seen itself separate from the mining village of Clipstone and campaigned for separate parish status. King’s Clipstone is a tourist village with links to the Robin Hood legend and the Sherwood Pines Country Park. It thus has stronger links with Edwinstowe than it does with the mining village of Clipstone. We, however, recognise that if keeping to the plus or minus of 10% variance is to be adhered to, then it is difficult to have separate single member wards. Nonetheless, if the mining village of Clipstone (NNNN1) is separated from the Commission’s proposed three member Edwinstowe and Clipstone Ward and become a single member ward, it would only have a variance of 14% by 2019. This would leave Edwinstowe, King’s Clipstone and Cavendish Park to form a two member ward. As the Commission has already accepted an electoral variance outside the range for this area, then we believe the independence of the Edwinstowe and Clipstone communities warrant a further degree of flexibility. 5. Ollerton and Boughton

Ollerton

Our members preferred the Council’s original proposals for this area, which recognised the rural nature of the parishes to the north and south of Ollerton, whist uniting in one ward the areas that make up Ollerton and Boughton Town Council. Again we recognise the problems that this causes as regards the need for providing electoral fairness – although, like the Commission’s proposed Edwinstowe and Clipstone Ward, it would also have had a variance of only 1% outside the accepted range. However, it is the proposal to include the parish of Wellow with Ollerton that has provided the most hostility to the Commission’s proposals. Although there is a road connection, there are no community or cultural links and residents fear their interests would not be represented adequately in a three member Ollerton Ward. We, therefore, propose that Wellow be removed from the Commision’s proposed Ollerton Ward, which would mean that the new Ollerton Ward would have 3% fewer electors than the district average (well within the accepted range). We strongly urge the Commission to accept this amendment, as local opposition in Wellow is very strong. We propose that Wellow should be united with other Rufford estate villages in a Rufford and North Ward.

Boughton

We accept that as the Commission has only slightly altered the proposed Boughton Ward, then this is the best option given the Commission’s rejection of the Council’s proposed rural ward for this area.

Ollerton Parish Review

We believe that this historic Ollerton Village (PPP2) should form its own parish ward with 3 representatives. The village is an original village and has retained a separate character and sense of community. The rest of the current Ollerton grew up around the colliery and thus has a strong mining heritage separate to the historic village. Locally PPP2 is referred to as “Ollerton Village” in order to distinguish it from its more modern neighbours.

6. Rainworth and

There has been very strong opposition to the creation of a three member ward that includes the communities of Rainworth, , Rufford and Eakring. We believe that the Commission’s Rainworth North and Bilsthorpe is an un‐natural ward that unnecessarily links together more communities than it needs to. It seems odd that, given that the parish of Bilsthorpe has sufficient voters to have a single councillor, that the Commission rejected this as a proposal. Bilsthorpe is a strong independent community with no links with Rainworth. We believe that Bilsthorpe should form a ward by itself and that the parishes of Rufford, Wellow and Eakring should join with the MMM1 polling district from Rainworth to form another separate single member ward. This would effectively re‐establish the old Rufford ward (with the addition of Eakring and Wellow) that existed prior to the last review. There are strong community links between Eakring, Rufford and Wellow (all being part of the Rufford Country Park Estate). A Rufford and Rainworth North ward would only have a variance of plus 2% and a Bislthorpe ward would have a minus 2% variance. These changes would better reflect local ties whilst not differing in electoral variance from the Commission’s proposal.

Although we accept there is a need to split Rainworth and place part of it with Blidworth, we believe there is a better way than that proposed by the Commission, whose creation of a two member Rainworth South and Blidworth Ward would have a variance of minus 7% by 2019. We submit for consideration the possibility of placing MMMM2 and 3 from Rainworth with the Blidworth polling districts of LLLL1,2, and 2a in a Blidworth and Rainworth South Ward, which would have three members and an electoral variance of only minus 1% by 2019.

As noted above, there is some concern about joining the communities of Rainworth and Blidworth. This largely comes from residents in Blidworth, which is a historic Sherwood Forest village with a strong local identity. We acknowledge that it is not possible to keep the parish of Blidworth together in its own ward. However, another possibility would be to separate the historic Blidworth village (LLLL2 and 2a) and place them with the parish of (LLLL3) to form a single member Blidworth South Ward. This would have an electorate of 2,234 by 2019 (8% fewer electors than the average). This would then leave the colliery community in Blidworth (LLLL1) to be joined to similar communities in Rainworth(MMMM2 and 3), forming a Rainworth South and Blidworth North Ward. This would have two councillors and an electorate of 4,974 by 2019 (3% more electors than the average).

Summary

We appreciate the Commission’s desire to have electoral fairness and accept that there was some need to adapt the original Newark and Sherwood Council’s proposals. However, we don’t accept that all of the Commission’s amendments offer the best solution for the District, as they don’t adequately respect local ties and needs. We believe that the suggestions we have made and are supporting build on what the Commission have produced, but better reflect local wishes. We, therefore, strongly urge the Commission to take these amendments into account.

Appendix A

Polling Parish Parish ward Existing District ward Proposed New District Ward district KKKK1 Bilsthorpe Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Bilsthorpe KKKK2 Bilsthorpe Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Bilsthorpe KKKK3 Eakring Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Rufford and Rainworth North KKKK4 Edingley Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Southwell West KKKK5 Farnsfield Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Farnsfield KKKK6 Halam Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Southwell West KKKK7 Kirklington Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Southwell North KKKK8 Oxton Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Dover Beck LLLL1 Blidworth North Blidworth Blidworth and Rainworth South* LLLL2 Blidworth South Blidworth Blidworth and Rainworth South* LLLL2A Blidworth South Blidworth Blidworth and Rainworth South* LLLL3 Lindhurst (Meeting) Blidworth Blidworth and Rainworth South* MMMM1 Rainworth North Rainworth Rufford and Rainworth North MMMM2 Rainworth South Rainworth Blidworth and Rainworth South* MMMM3 Rainworth South Rainworth Blidworth and Rainworth South* MMMM4 Rufford Rainworth Rufford and Rainworth North NNNN1 Clipstone Clipstone Village Clipstone Clipstone NNNN2 Clipstone Cavendish Clipstone Edwinstowe and King’s Clipstone NNNN3 Kings Clipstone Clipstone Edwinstowe and King’s Clipstone OOOO1 Edwinstowe Edwinstowe Edwinstowe and King’s Clipstone OOOO2 Edwinstowe Edwinstowe Edwinstowe and King’s Clipstone OOOO3 Edwinstowe Edwinstowe Edwinstowe and King’s Clipstone PPPP1 Ollerton & Boughton Town Ollerton North Ollerton Ollerton PPPP2 Ollerton & Boughton Town Ollerton South Ollerton Ollerton PPPP3 Ollerton & Boughton Town Ollerton South Ollerton Ollerton PPPP4 Ollerton & Boughton Town Ollerton South Ollerton Ollerton PPPP5 Perlethorpe-cum-Budby Ollerton Ollerton QQQQ1 Ollerton & Boughton Town Boughton Boughton Ollerton QQQQ1A Ollerton & Boughton Town Boughton Boughton Ollerton/Boughton part QQQQ2 Kirton Boughton Boughton QQQQ3 Walesby Boughton Boughton RRRR10 Wellow Caunton Rufford and Rainworth North

*Possibility of splitting this 3 member ward into a Blidworth South Ward (LLLL2 and 2a and LLLL3) with 1 councillor; and a 2 member Blidworth North and Rainworth South Ward (MMMM2 and 3 and LLLL1)

Appendix B

Number of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Name of District ward cllrs per 16/10/2012 2013 2019 2019 ward Farnsfield 1 2,185 -1% 2,419 0% Dover Beck 1 2,380 7% 2,458 2% Boughton 1 2,377 7% 2,439 1% Ollerton 3 6,706 1% 7,027 -3% Clipstone 1 2,581 17% 2,760 14% Edwinstowe and King's 2 5,110 15% 5,320 10% Clipstone Rufford and Rainworth North 1 2,280 3% 2,458 2% Blidworth and Rainworth South 3 6,705 1% 7,208 -1% Bilsthorpe 1 2,431 10% 2,383 -2%

With Blidworth and Rainworth South as two separate wards

Blidworth South 1 1,955 -12% 2,234 -8% Blidworth North and Rainworth 2 4,750 7% 4,974 3% South