Public Document Pack
Agenda
Meeting: Council Date: 28 March 2013 Time: 7.00 pm Place: Council Chamber - Civic Centre Folkestone
To: All Members of the Council
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to attend an extraordinary meeting of the Council on the date and at the time and place shown above. The meeting will be open to the press and public.
Anyone who wishes to have information on any matter arising on the Agenda which is not fully covered in these papers is requested to give notice prior to the meeting to the Chairman or appropriate officer.
Chief Executive
1. Apologies for absence
2. Declarations of interest
Members of the council should declare any discloseable pecuniary interest or any other significant interests in any item/s on this agenda.
3. Local Government Boundary Commission for England (Pages 1 - 60)
Appended to report A/12/49 is a draft submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the future warding pattern of the district.
Queries about the agenda? Need a different format?
Contact Peter Savage – Tel: 01303 853310 Email: [email protected] or download from our website www.shepway.gov.uk
Date of Publication: Wednesday, 20 March 2013
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3
This report will be made
public on 20 March 2013
Report number: A/12/49
To: Council Date: 28 March 2013 Status: Non-executive decision Chief Executive: Alistair Stewart
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION TO LOCALGOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ON THE FUTURE WARDING PATTERN OF THE DISTRICT
SUMMARY: Appended to this report is a draft submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the future warding pattern of the district.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The council is asked to agree the recommendations in order to enable a submission on the future wards and their names to be made.
RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To receive and note report A/12/49. 2. To determine the submissions to be made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the future warding pattern for the district.
Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 As members will be aware the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is carrying out an electoral review of the district. LGBCE has finished its consultation on the size of the council and is minded to recommend a council size of 30.
1.2 LGBCE on 29 January 2013 the consultation for a pattern of wards for Shepway District Council. The consultation lasts until 8 April 2013, this report appends (1) the proposed submission to LGBCE. All councillors were invited to comment on the draft. The responses received are attached as appendix 2. In addition all the parish councils were sent a copy of the draft. The comments received from the parish councils are contained in appendix 3.
1.3 The General Purposes Committee at its meeting on 26 February 2013 resolved “To authorise the Chief Executive with the assistance of the Deputy Chief Executive and the Head of Administration to initiate work on a proposed warding pattern that takes into account the advice given by the LGBCE in their letter dated 29 January 2013 and incorporates the technical guidance advice given in separate documentation by the LGBCE in relation to warding patterns .” Minute 30
1.4 The submission was commissioned and is endorsed by all three officers.
2. THE SUBMISSION AND REVISIONS TO IT
2.1 The draft submission is contained in appendix 1. Maps of the proposed wards are appended to the submission.
2.2 The submission is based on The rules for consideration within the review, as set out in Schedule 2 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, namely:
• Delivering electoral equality for local; • Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities and; • Promoting effective and convenient local government.
2.3 As stated above comments from councillors and parish councillors are appended – appendices 2 and 3 respectively. Factual inaccuracies in the submission have, it is hoped, been addressed in the version appended to this report. Other comments relating to descriptions of areas have also been made in so far as time allowed. Aside from these corrections or minor adjustments the submission and maps have not been changed because of the impracticality of doing so before the dispatch of the papers.
Page 2 2.4 On the submissions made by councillors the following can be accommodated with little difficulty and it is the recommendation of officers that the submission be altered accordingly:
Name of the proposed ward of Lemanis . – this name does not seem to find favour, Hythe West or Hythe Rural have been suggested as an alternative. As the area consists of more than what is generally thought of as Hythe West, Hythe Rural is suggested.
Name of the proposed ward of Broadmead Village – the suggestion is that the name Park be retained.
Name of the proposed ward of Romney Marsh East . The suggestion has been made and it is recommended that this be changed to Romney Marsh.
Cheriton and Morehall – comments have been received about Cheriton and Morehall with the options of creating one 2 member ward (Cheriton) and a single member ward for Morehall or a combined 3 member ward.. The revised recommended proposal is to create a single three member Cheriton and Morehall ward. This would have an electorate figure of 8,690 electors with a variance of -2.41%.
This would mean a new smaller Folkestone West ward which would be a single member ward with 2,916 electors and a consequent variance of -1.76% and 1 councillor.
The new Folkestone West boundary would start at Beachborough Road; go along Shorncliffe Road and up Audley Road following the existing Folkestone Harvey West and Morehall boundary as at present. The remaining borders are as shown on the map showing new boundaries against the proposed ward of Folkestone Central to the east and Sandgate ward to the west.
The revised recommended proposals are therefore to create a three member Cheriton and Morehall ward and a single member Folkestone West ward with the boundaries described above. If accepted the description of the wards in the submission would have to be changed.
Plans showing the revised recommended proposals will be displayed prior to the council meeting.
2.5 The comments received are all set out in full; however other than the recommended changes set out above (and the correction of any factual inaccuracies) no further recommended changes are put forward.
2.6 The council is asked to consider the draft proposals (with the recommendations set out above) and submit it, with or without amendments to LGBCE.
Page 3 3. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE SUBMISSION IS MADE?
3.1 LGBCE will consider all the representations received and make draft recommendations on their warding proposals. These will be published in June 2013.
3.2 There will then be a further 12 week period for consultation on the LGBCE’s proposals at the end of which LGBCE will publish its final recommendations in January 2014.
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
No risks identified
5. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS
5.1 Legal officer’s comments (PJW)
No legal comments.
5.2 Finance officer’s comments (MF)
Any financial implications arising from a future change of ward pattern and number of ward members will need to be considered in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy and any subsequent report finalising this position.
5.3 Diversities and equalities implications
No diversity or equalities implications.
6. CONTACT OFFICER AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Councillors with any questions arising from this report should contact the following officers prior to the meeting:
Alistair Stewart, Chief Executive Telephone: 01303 853203 E-mail: [email protected]
Kathryn Beldon, Deputy Chief Executive Telephone: 01303 853263 E-mail: [email protected]
Peter Wignall, Head of Administration Telephone: 01303 853253 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 4 The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report:
None.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Draft submission Appendix 2: Comments from councillors Appendix 3 Comments from town or parish councils
Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 6 APPENDIX 1
Shepway District Council Council submission on proposed ward patterns for Further Electoral Review of Shepway to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Draft for council meeting 28 March 2013
Commissioned by Shepway District Council and prepared by Dyl an Jeffrey, March 201 3 Page 7 1. Table of Contents
1. Table of Contents ...... 2
2. Introduction and Background ...... 4
3. The Aim of the Review ...... 7
4 Electoral Equality ...... 8
4 Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities ...... 13
6 Promoting effective and convenient local government and reflecting electoral cycles ...... 14
7 Shepway District Council Proposal ...... 14
7.6 North Downs East ...... 16
7.7 North Downs West ...... 17
7.8 East Cliff ...... 17
7.9 Folkestone Town and Harbour ...... 18
7.10 Central Folkestone ...... 19
7.11 Foord ...... 20
7.12 Folkestone North ...... 20
7.13 Broadmead Village ...... 21
7.14 Cheriton ...... 22
7.15 Folkestone West ...... 23
7.16 Sandgate ...... 25
7.17 Hythe ...... 25
7.18 Lemanis ...... 26
7.19 New Romney Town ...... 27
7.20 New Romney Coast ...... 28
7.21 Romney Marsh East ...... 29
7.22 Walland and Denge Marsh ...... 30 2
Page 8 8. Parish Councils ...... 33
8.6 Hawkinge Town Council ...... 34
8.9 Hythe Parish Council ...... 35
8.10 Lyminge Parish Council ...... 35
8.11 New Romney Town Council ...... 36
8.12 Lydd Town Council ...... 36
8.13 St Mary in the Marsh Parish Council ...... 37
8.14 Sandgate Parish Council ...... 37
8.15 Folkestone Town Council ...... 38
8.16 All other Parish Council ...... 39
9 Conclusion ...... 39
3
Page 9 2. Introduction and Background 2.1 Shepway District Council is required to undergo a Further Electoral Review of the number of councillors and ward boundaries because the Council has reached at least one of the trigger points for starting a review as set out by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). Furthermore, in anticipation of a review being triggered, the Council sought to proactively debate the effect of any such review and submit a request to the LGBCE for such a review.
2.2 This submission sets out Shepway District Council’s response to the invitation from the LGBCE to put forward revised warding arrangements based on the draft recommendation of 30 Councillors following the first consultation phase by the LGBCE.
2.3 LGBCE is responsible for, amongst other things, reviewing the electoral arrangements of local authorities; the number of councillors, the names, number and boundaries of wards and the number of councillors to be elected to each.
2.4 The last full local government electoral review of Shepway, conducted by the LGBCE, took place in 2000 and was published on 8 May 2001. This formed part of a periodic electoral review cycle for Kent which occurred approximately every ten years.
2.5 The 2001 full electoral review, which covered the whole of Kent, recommended that the number of wards was reduced from 25 to 22 and the number of councillors was reduced from 56 to 46. In addition new boundaries were created and new parish wards and changes to the number of councillors were also introduced for some parish councils such as Lympne.
2.6 In 2004, the rules were amended and the periodic electoral review was abolished. However new criteria were introduced for requiring a full electoral review in circumstances where:
4
Page 10 • More than 30% of a council’s wards have an electoral imbalance of more than 10% from the average ratio (in Shepway 30% is 7 wards) and/or
• One or more wards have an electoral imbalance of more than 30% and
• The imbalance is unlikely to be corrected by foreseeable changes to the electorate with a reasonable period.
2.7 On 1 December 2011, the Electoral Registration Officer for Shepway, Alistair Stewart, published the revised register of electors following the annual canvass of electors. A Further Electoral Review would have been triggered in Shepway as one ward had an electoral imbalance of 30% and more than 7 wards had an imbalance of more than 10% from the average ratio but would take place at an unknown date in the future.
2.8 The Council considered a report from the Leader on 23 November 2011 which sought to pre-empt the work of the LGBCE and to look in more detail at the consequences of such a review. This included establishing an Electoral Review Working Group to look at the optimum number of councillors for Shepway and to assess how local government in Shepway could be made more effective and convenient.
2.9 The Electoral Review Working Group reported their findings to General Purposes Committee on 21 February 2012 and to Council on 21 March 2012.
2.10 Council agreed to support the submission of a proposal to the LGBCE incorporating proposed new arrangements which demonstrate how the Council would operate with 38 members that is predominately two member wards with the flexibility to have single member wards where necessary according to the current electorate size, future electorate projections and geographic considerations. A full submission was then made to the LGBCE requesting a Further Electoral Review for Shepway.
5
Page 11 2.11 The LGBCE confirmed in late March 2011 that they were minded to timetable a Further Electoral Review of Shepway to commence in late 2012. This was then confirmed and the first formal preliminary meeting was held with the Chief Executive and officers on 22 May 2012.
2.12 On 11 July 2012, the LGBCE Chair and Commissioners Max Caller CBE and Sir Tony Redmond, accompanied by LGBCE officers, attended meetings with the Leader and the Opposition Leader to discuss the LGBCE approach to the review. A presentation was then given at the Council meeting that evening to outline the timetable and approach to the review.
2.13 As part of the preliminary council size consultation, a submission was made by Shepway District Council incorporating the work of the Electoral Review Working Group, the report and decision of Council and a supplementary report supporting Council recommendation for 38 members.
2.14 On 23 October 2012, the LGBCE formally started an electoral review of Shepway and invited proposals for the number of councillors who should represent Shepway District Council. The Commission considered in principle that 30 members was appropriate for Shepway District Council and sought views on this with a closing date of 3 December 2012.
2.15 On 29 January the LGBCE wrote to the Chief Executive announcing the commencement of the next stage of the review and a public consultation on proposals for a new pattern of wards for Shepway to include the district and individual parish councils. They indicated in their letter that they were not persuaded to change their original proposal for 30 members for Shepway District Council and that they had received some support for the reduction. Any proposed new warding patterns for Shepway District Council should therefore be based on a council size of 30 councillors.
2.16 The public consultation stage of the review on warding patterns will close on Monday 8 April 2013 and the LGBCE is aiming to recommend a pattern of wards that achieves good electoral equality, reflects community identities and interests and 6
Page 12 provides for effective and convenient local government. It also seeks to use strong, easily-identifiable boundaries.
2.17 Although the Council’s submission was for a council size of 38, however this submission on proposed warding patterns is therefore made based on the LGBCE’s decision for Shepway District Council to be represented by 30 Councillors.
3 The Aim of the Review 3.1 The aim of the Further Electoral Review, which is based on statutory criteria, is to provide for good, or improved, levels of electoral representation across the district. This means ensuring that, as nearly as possible, each councillor within a specific local authority ward represents the same number of electors as his or her colleagues. In addition where parishes require warding arrangements the same criteria is applied.
3.2 This aim is balanced with the need to reflect community identity and provide for convenient and effective local government.
3.3 The rules for consideration within the review, as set out in Schedule 2 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, are:
• Delivering electoral equality for local voters – The LGBCE advises that this means ensuring that each local authority councillor represents roughly the same number of people so that the value of a vote is the same regardless of where an elector lives in the local authority area.
• Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities – The LGBCE advises that this means establishing electoral arrangements which, as far as possible, maintain local ties and where boundaries are easily identifiable.
• Promoting effective and convenient local government – The LGBCE advises that this means ensuring that the new wards can be represented effectively by their
7
Page 13 elected representative(s) and that the new electoral arrangements as a whole allow the local authority to conduct its business effectively. 3.1 Delivering electoral equality is the only criterion which can be measured with precision and therefore is fundamental is the proposals for new warding patterns. The LGBCE does recognise that perfect electoral equality is unlikely to be exactly achieved; any variations will require evidence to justify it based on the other statutory criteria outlined in sections 5 an 6. The greater the variance the more persuasive the evidence will need to be and a full explanation as to why any such proposal reflects the interests and identities of local communities and/or how the arrangement would provide for effective and convenient local government.
4 Electoral Equality 4.1 One of the key aspects of any local government boundary review is to deliver electoral equality for local voters by ensuring that each councillor represents approximately the same number of people. This ensures that the value of the vote is the same regardless of where they might live in the district.
4.2 This submission has sought to achieve the identified optimum figure wherever possible and not to have any variances greater than 6.90% for district or parish councillors.
4.3 The Council has supplied the LGBCE with electorate forecasts based on extensive analysis on existing planning applications, population forecasts and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA). Units of four or more households were included within the forecasts along with a realistic approach to what would actually be built and occupied by December 2018 as opposed to what the planning proposals actually were.
4.4 The Council has confidence in the forecasts supplied as the current electorate is based on a high electoral canvass response of over 95% which is above the national average and which the Electoral Registration Officer now believes has captured the maximum number of households and local government electors possible.
8
Page 14
Figure 1: Electorate and Property Numbers
Figure 2: Electoral Register Annual Canvass Response
4.4 Based on this methodology, the estimated electorate based on existing Polling Districts, Wards and Parishes is set out below.
9
Page 15 December Polling Parish Ward (if Existing 2018 Parish Council Ward District applicable) Electorate Projected Electorate Dymchurch and DSB1 Dymchurch 2,545 2,545 St Marys Bay Dymchurch and DSB2 Dymchurch 557 557 St Marys Bay St Mary in the Dymchurch and DSB3 St Mary's Bay 2,214 2,375 Marsh St Marys Bay Elham and ESM1 Elham 1,291 1,291 Stelling Minnis Elham and ESM2 Stelling Minnis 505 505 Stelling Minnis Folkestone Folkestone FCH1 Folkestone 2,947 3,105 Cheriton Cheriton Folkestone Folkestone FCH2 Folkestone 2,156 2,156 Cheriton Cheriton Folkestone FE1 Folkestone Folkestone East 1,939 2,097 East Folkestone FE2 Folkestone Folkestone East 1,593 1,593 East Folkestone Folkestone FF1 Folkestone 1,658 1,684 Foord Foord Folkestone Folkestone FF2 Folkestone 1,718 1,767 Foord Foord Folkestone Folkestone FF3 Folkestone 677 840 Foord Foord Folkestone Folkestone FH1 Folkestone 1,031 1,053 Harbour Harbour Folkestone Folkestone FH2 Folkestone 1,452 1,497 Harbour Harbour Folkestone Folkestone FH3 Folkestone 1,732 1,732 Harbour Harbour Folkestone Folkestone FHC1 Folkestone 1,594 1,619 Harvey Central Harvey Central Folkestone Folkestone FHC2 Folkestone 2,234 2,432 Harvey Central Harvey Central Folkestone Folkestone FHC3 Folkestone 1,018 1,154 Harvey Central Harvey Central Folkestone Folkestone FHC4 Folkestone 257 603 Harvey Central Harvey Central Folkestone Folkestone FHW1 Folkestone 2,153 2,153 Harvey West Harvey West
10
Page 16 Folkestone Folkestone FHW2 Folkestone 1,544 1,968 Harvey West Harvey West Folkestone Folkestone FM1 Folkestone 2,798 2,857 Morehall Morehall Folkestone Folkestone FM2 Folkestone 554 572 Morehall Morehall Folkestone FP1 Folkestone Folkestone Park 1,355 1,595 Park Folkestone FP2 Folkestone Folkestone Park 773 773 Park Folkestone FP3 Folkestone Folkestone Park 1,075 1,085 Park Folkestone FP4 Folkestone Folkestone Park 1,054 1,054 Park Folkestone FP5 Folkestone Folkestone Park 741 886 Park Sandgate Folkestone FS1 Sandgate 959 1,081 Valley Sandgate Sandgate Folkestone FS2 Sandgate 2,005 2,800 Village Sandgate Sandgate Folkestone FS3 Sandgate 500 521 Village Sandgate HC1 Hythe Hythe North Hythe Central 2,597 2,632
HC2 Hythe Hythe South Hythe Central 2,359 2,467
HE1 Hythe Hythe East Hythe East 1,857 2,036
HE2 Hythe Hythe East Hythe East 1,593 1,713
HW1 Hythe Hythe West Hythe West 2,091 2,620
HW2 Hythe Hythe West Hythe West 1,421 1,421
LD1 Lydd Lydd 2,665 2,864
LD2 Lydd Lydd 1,172 1,172
LD3 Lydd Lydd 943 943 Lympne and LS1 Lympne 1,234 1,461 Stanford Lympne and LS2 Stanford 310 631 Stanford
11
Page 17 Lympne and LS3 Sellindge 36 36 Stanford New Romney New Romney NRC1 New Romney 2,895 2,978 Coast Coast New Romney New Romney NRT1 New Romney 2,785 3,173 Town Town North Downs NDE1 Hawkinge 3,264 3,443 East North Downs NDE2 Hawkinge 2,426 2,864 East North Downs NDE3 Paddlesworth 28 28 East North Downs NDE4 Swingfield 803 803 East North Downs NDE5 Swingfield 224 224 East North Downs NDE6 Acrise 124 124 East North Downs NDE7 Acrise 27 27 East North Downs NDW1 Lyminge Lyminge 1,760 1,775 West North Downs NDW2 Elmsted 135 135 West North Downs NDW3 Elmsted 112 112 West North Downs NDW4 Sellindge 1,274 1,496 West North Downs NDW5 Monks Horton 95 95 West North Downs NDW6 Stowting 188 188 West RM1 Burmarsh Romney Marsh 251 251
RM2 Brenzett Romney Marsh 281 302
RM3 Snargate Romney Marsh 103 103
RM4 Brookland Romney Marsh 367 395
RM5 Ivychurch Romney Marsh 214 214
RM6 Newchurch Romney Marsh 268 268
12
Page 18 RM7 Old Romney Romney Marsh 175 175 St Mary in the St Mary in the RM8 Romney Marsh 175 280 Marsh Marsh TF1 Saltwood Tolsford 670 670
TF2 Newington Tolsford 304 304
TF3 Postling Tolsford 173 173
TF4 Lyminge Etchinghill Tolsford 486 497
5. Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities
5.1 It is important that wards and boundaries proposed reflect, as far as possible, the interests and identities of the area’s communities. Although, unlike electoral equality, it is not possible to definitively measure levels of community identity, evidence where possible should indicate where a particular community exists. The LGBCE guidance does raise some issues which might be used to assess community interests and identity. These are:
a. Transport links – is there a form of public transport within the proposed ward? Is there any form of public transport? How easily can one travel between two different communities? b. Community groups – are there particular groups or local organisations that solely represent the area concerned? Could there be joint activities? c. Facilities – where do local people go for shopping or leisure? Are the public facilities a centre or focal point for the community? d. Identifiable boundaries – Are there natural features such as rivers or valleys? Are there constructions such as major roads or railways that form well known barriers between communities? e. Parishes – parish boundaries often represent the extent of any community. Can the parish area be used as a building block for a district ward?
13
Page 19 f. Shared interests – urban, rural or suburban characteristics or local economic factors
6 Promoting effective and convenient local government and reflecting electoral cycles
6.1 There is a need to secure effective and convenient local government and ensure ward patterns reflect the electoral cycle. As the district and parish elections are held on an all out basis every four years, there is not any immediate consideration required as to the latter criterion other than the LGBCE is required to usually see a mixture of single, two and three member wards.
6.2 Ward names are often important to local people. In considering the most appropriate names these should be those that reflect communities and avoid confusion wherever possible. Finally consistency in the way wards have been named across the district should also be applied.
7 Shepway District Council Proposal
7.1 This submission for new warding patterns seeks to achieve the identified optimum figure for electoral equality wherever possible, to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to promote effective and convenient local government.
7.2 In Shepway the projected electorate for December 2018 is 89,043. Based on the initial consultation on Council size, the LGBCE recommended 30 councillors. This means each councillor should represent approximately 2,968 electors. 89,043 electorate 30 councillors
= 2,968 electors
7.3 The proposed warding pattern seeks to identify a mixed warding pattern of single member wards, two member wards and three member wards based on all of the statutory criteria.
14
Page 20 7.4 This section will demonstrate the Council’s proposed warding patterns for Shepway District Council and how each ward proposal meets the statutory criteria. The average variance from the optimum level is -1.02% which is due to other statutory criteria being taken into account for each individual ward proposal and this is addressed under each ward heading. The Shepway District Council proposed ward patterns are shown below in figure 3 and attached as a map at appendix 1.
7.5 Figure 3 – Proposed New Ward Patterns for Shepway District Council
Variance from Councillors to Proposed ward Electorate Optimum be elected Figure
North Downs East 9,108 3 2.29% North Downs West 5,643 2 -4.94% East Cliff 2,920 1 -1.62% Folkestone Town and 5,708 2 Harbour -3.84% Folkestone Central 5,909 2 -0.46% Foord 2,829 1 -4.69% Folkestone North 5,615 2 -5.41% Broadmead Village 3,004 1 1.21% Cheriton 5,962 2 0.43% Folkestone West 5,644 2 -4.92% Sandgate 3,086 1 3.97% Hythe 8,848 3 -0.63% Lemanis 6,172 2 3.97% New Romney Town 3,173 1 6.90% New Romney Coast 2,978 1 0.33% Walland and Denge 6,168 2 Marsh 3.90% Romney Marsh East 6,276 2 5.72%
Total Electorate 89,043 30 -1.02%
15
Page 21 7.6 North Downs East North Downs East is situated within the North Downs, a ridge of chalk hills which run from Farnham in Surrey to the white cliffs at Dover. The majority of the new ward of North Downs East incorporates the existing district ward of the same name. The new ward incorporates the Elham parish area and the village of Elham and the Newington parish area including Peene.
Elham is currently part of the existing Elham and Stelling Minnis ward but is very much a separate community. Elham Village hall hosts a variety of busy clubs and societies such as Mother & Baby Group, Yoga, Short Mat Bowls, Dog Training, Adult Education Classes and Elham Pre-School are based at the hall and there is a very active Sports Club which runs many activities. The Elham parish border adjoins the Acrise parish border to the east and the western boundary splits the northern part of Shepway around the middle point of the area covering the North Downs. It is therefore a natural geographical fit that Elham becomes part of the new North Downs East ward proposal.
In the south eastern area of the new North Downs East ward is the parish of Newington which borders Acrise parish and Paddlesworth parish. One of the key visitor attractions in Peene, within Newington parish, is the Elham Valley Line Trust Countryside Centre created in the 1980s, to capture the history of the Elham Valley Railway Line which ran through the picturesque Elham Valley between Canterbury and Folkestone, from 1884 to 1947. Access to the centre from the north is via Hawkinge, the biggest urban conurbation centre within the North Downs East ward.
North Downs East contains the communities of: Elham 1,291 Swingfield 911 Acrise 267 Paddlesworth 28 Newington 304 Hawkinge 6,307 16
Page 22 Total of 9,108 electors with 3 district councillors and a variance of 2.29% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.7 North Downs West North Downs West ward incorporates much of the existing North Downs West ward with the addition of the parishes of Sellindge, Stanford Stelling Minnis and Postling. All of these additional parishes are very rural in nature and naturally form part of the north western part of the North Down within the district of Shepway with the majority of the area to the north of the M20. North Downs West contains the communities of: Elmsted 247 Lyminge (including Etchinghill) 2,272 Monks Horton 95 Postling 173 Sellindge 1,532 Stanford 631 Stelling Minnis 505 Stowting 188
The North Downs West ward has a projected electorate of 5,643 with 2 district councillors and a variance of -4.94% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.8 East Cliff The East Cliff ward is a newly formed ward of the eastern part of the existing Folkestone East ward and the east part of the existing Folkestone Harbour Ward. The east cliff area was previously separated by the railway line, albeit unseen as it ran through a tunnel where the areas are joined north and south via Wear Bay Road.
The area is known locally for the East Cliff and Warren Country Park which features beautiful walks along the cliffs looking out over the English Channel and also has camping and caravan facilities at Little Switzerland camping
17
Page 23 area and the Folkestone Caravanning and Camping Club site at the Warren both of which are accessed via Wear Bay Road. The area is approached from the west via the B2011 which then follows a route of the Dover Road right down to the harbour. The new ward is split in Folkestone by the old railway line which used to regularly run trains to Folkestone Harbour when the area was a thriving port.
Bus number 72 runs though the western side of the residential part of the ward covering Hollands Avenue, Stanbury Crescent and Wear Bay Road, along Foreland Avenue and into Wear Bay Crescent to Tram Road. Bus numbers 101 and 102 go from Folkestone Town centre along Dover Road north to south on the eastern side of the ward before going along Dover Hill at the north of the ward. This new ward is therefore a natural community of two areas, the north of the east cliff and the southern end of the east cliff down to the harbour area.
The East Cliff ward has a projected electorate of 2,920 and is a single member ward with a variance of -1.62% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.9 Folkestone Town and Harbour Folkestone Town ward contains Folkestone Town shopping centre and bus station, the Creative Quarter, the harbour area and the immediate community surrounding all of these areas. It also contains the Folkestone Town Council Town Hall building and Folkestone’s only cinema. The ward is bordered by the railway line to the north and the coast to the south.
The harbour was created in 1907 following an Act of Parliament to create a harbour with a pier and this was subsequently designed by Thomas Telford. In 1843, the South Eastern Railway company extended the line from London to Folkestone Harbour station, originally called ‘Folkestone.” This led to Folkestone becoming the main entry/exit point for all goods transported to the Europe via rail. As freight ceased to be primarily transported by rail, trade began to be moved more to the road ports at Dover and Ramsgate. The last ferry link closed down in 2000 and the harbour and seafront area 18
Page 24 has been subject to negotiations for redevelopment. Folkestone Harbour Company recently commissioned architects Sir Terry Farrell and Partners to look at developing plans for the area.
The ward features an historical landmark with the Road of Remembrance. This road carried millions of soldiers who marched through Folkestone Town and down to the waiting boats on the harbour on their way to the Western Front to fight in World War I between 1914 and 1918. It is now being proposed that a giant memorial Arch be created at the top of the hill to remember those who left Britain, many of whom did not return and therefore this was their final leaving point from the country.
Given the historical context of the harbour and the central commercial activity of the town, the new ward is proposed to be Folkestone Town and Harbour ward.
The Folkestone Town and Harbour ward has a projected electorate of 5,708 with 2 district councillors and a variance of -3.84% from the optimum electoral figure with scope for further development to occur on the seafront after 2020.
7.10 Central Folkestone The new ward of central Folkestone has the railway station in the north of the ward, Shepway District Council Civic Centre, the Courts, police station and the Lower Leas Coastal Park, K College, Kingsnorth Gardens and Christchurch Gardens as key features. Many of the dwellings in the ward are of houses converted into flats and there is quite a transient community with a high number of rental properties. The ward does however have some active communities such as the Bradstone Road Community made up of all of the streets to the south of the viaduct around the area.
The Folkestone Central ward has a projected electorate of 5,909 with 2 district councillors and a variance of -0.46% from the optimum electoral figure. 19
Page 25
7.11 Foord The new Foord ward enables the retention of the majority of the existing district ward of the same name. One of the amazing sights within the ward is the railway Foord Viaduct designed by the architect, Sir William Cubitt crossing what was the Foord Valley historically created by the Pent Stream entering the English Channel.
The area, although geographically small is densely populated with a community based around the Black Bull Road and Foord Road South. Radnor Park Road separates the ward to the east and the railway line, Broadmead Road and the old gas works are the border to the south. To the north Mundella school grounds form the border and to the west Canterbury Road forms a definitive boundary.
The Foord ward has a projected electorate of 2,829 and is a single member ward with a variance of -4.69% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.12 Folkestone North The Folkestone North ward is made up of three distinct communities. In the north there is the Folkestone parish boundary and the enclosed community north of the A260. This community features a large area of social housing supported by bus route 127 up to Holywell Avenue and Pilgrim Spring. The north eastern part of the ward with roads such as George Gurr Crescent is supported by bus routes 16 and 16A up to Canterbury Road and route 71 which cuts through the ward along Canterbury Road, Hill Road, Dover Road and Joyes Road. The southern part of the ward is split down Canterbury Road with a large number of home owners on the west side with a natural boundary between Downs Road and Park Farm Road for which there is no vehicular access. On the eastern side there is a mix of home owners and rental properties and Castleview Community School. The area also features Wood Avenue
20
Page 26 Library and the large church of St Saviours. The western boundary is along Dover Road (A260), a main road out of central Folkestone.
Folkestone North contains the communities of: North of Joyes/Hill Road: 2,097 West of Canterbury Road 1,684 East of Canterbury Road 1,429 Total of 5,615 electors with 2 district councillors and a variance of -5.41% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.13 Broadmead Village Broadmead Village is an area often referred to by estate agents and the local residents who consider it to be a distinct community. During the 1960s and 1970s significant development took place in Lynwood and the streets leading off Coniston Road. This was further expanded during the 1980s. Broadmead village has a village green, pub and shop and the Grace Taylor community hall is situated at the heart of the new ward on Lucy Avenue. Many local children go to the three schools within the ward, the Harvey Grammar School, the Folkestone Senior Academy (accessed via Lucy Avenue and Kingsmead), the Primary Academy (accessed via Park Farm Road) and Stella Maris Catholic Primary School on Parkfield Road.
The area also features the Folkestone Sports Centre featuring a nine hole golf course, ski and toboggan slopes along the Pent Stream and the well utilised municipal sports fields on Cornwallis Avenue affectionately known by locals as the Polo Ground. Broadmead Village was named after the manor of Bredmer but was usually known as Broadmead and was established in the reign of Edward II in the late 13 th century. A court baron remains for this manor.
The proposed ward is totally enclosed on two sides by key A roads, Cherry Garden Avenue (A20) and Churchill Avenue (A259) all of which offer few opportunities for crossing and are extremely dangerous and busy roads. On the east side there is Park Farm Road which runs through an industrial 21
Page 27 estate and retail park with no residential housing along the whole route except at the very southern point at Downside and Moat Farm Road. To the south is Cheriton Road (A2034) but given that the main southern boundary is the railway line a handful of properties along Cheriton Road and Beachborough Road have been included in the ward.
Bus route 127 passes through the heart of the new ward from Folkestone Town Centre to Broadmead Village. The route includes Radnor Park Road, Alder Road, Lynwood, Coniston Road, William Avenue and around the whole of Lucy Avenue before returning to the town centre. At the south of the ward, bus routes 17, 71,72, 73 and 160 all pass along Cheriton Road past Cornwallis Avenue but not actually going any further into the than along the boundary.
The nature of the geography of the ward, the size of the electorate in the area and the history make this an ideal scenario for a single member ward called Broadmead Village.
The Broadmead Village ward has a projected electorate of 3,004 and is a single member ward with a variance of 1.21% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.14 Cheriton Cheriton ward encompasses the two major areas of the current Cheriton ward and Morehall ward on the northern side of Cheriton Road.
The historical area of Cheriton, which included the Shorncliffe area to the north of the Cheriton Road, was originally a civil parish in its own right, and part of Elham Rural District from 1894 to 1898, when it became a separate urban district. The area continued to grow with the large army barracks being nearby and it gradually became indistinguishable from Folkestone. The parish was abolished in 1934 under a County Review Order, and divided between Folkestone and Hythe. Although historically Cheriton was a far larger area taking in parts of the area which is now referred to as Hythe, 22
Page 28 Sandgate and Folkestone West, the area is still popularly known as Cheriton today despite being part of the governance arrangements of Folkestone Town Council and Shepway District Council.
The new ward of Cheriton contains one of the key area landmarks, the Folkestone White Horse, which is carved into Cheriton Hill and overlooks the area. In the northern part of the ward the Channel Tunnel Terminal and the M20 pass through the area and would normally make a perfect geographical boundary however the Folkestone parish boundary, formerly the Cheriton parish boundary, passes further north of the M20 and contains only three electors and therefore for administrative purposes the area extends up to Peene and Crete Road West and along to junction 13. On the eastern side the border runs along Cherry Garden Avenue (A20) and to the north along the railway line with just three roads offering southerly access out of the ward.
Community features of the ward are the Morehall primary school, the first preference for many young children south of Cheriton Road, Harcourt Primary School and the Pent Valley Technology College. All Souls Church is within the new ward and was the second parish church of Cheriton. Originally created to cater for the Victorian development and westward enlargement of Folkestone in the 1880s, it now primarily serves the community to the south of the Cheriton Road with the original parish church at Horn Street serving the north of the old Cheriton parish.
The Cheriton ward has a projected electorate of 5,962 with 2 district councillors and a variance of 0.43% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.15 Folkestone West Folkestone West ward runs from the most westerly boundary of Folkestone parish south of the railway line and extends to the east to where central Folkestone begins just past Godwyn Road and Dixwell Road.
23
Page 29 This area has seen significant changes through the years with the western part of Folkestone extending to the Shorncliffe area of Cheriton during the Victorian period. The area takes in the southern part of Cheriton centred around the Risborough Barracks which is provisionally set for development in the 2020s and does not form part of the electorate growth forecasts. It also includes the northern part of Sandgate parish including Sandgate Primary School which is oversubscribed from outside the area and the well known Folkestone School for Girls, originally created in 1905 as the Folkestone County School for Girls and a selective school for pupils who pass the Kent test. Both schools are on Coolinge Lane. In the eastern part of the ward are St Martin’s Church Primary School on Horn Street and Cheriton Primary School on Church Road and both schools tend to have a pupil intake from south of Cheriton Road.
The ward has Folkestone’s other railway station, Folkestone West and residents in the ward will gravitate towards using this station as opposed to Folkestone Central even though there is very little distance between the two stations. Bus routes 77 and 78 are effectively the Folkestone West bus routes solely going through the ward along Shorncliffe Road, Audley Road, Romney Avenue, Fremantle Road, Oxenden Road, up Military Road and finishing at Royal Military Road and thus focus on this particular single community.
In the western area of the ward and northern part of Cheriton, many of the residents are of Nepalese descent due to the Ghurka Rifles based at the nearby barracks and a large amount of Ministry of Defence housing. As a consequence, many local businesses in this area are Nepalese owned to cater for the local community.
The Folkestone West ward has a projected electorate of 5,644 and is a two member ward with a variance of -4.92% from the optimum electoral figure although it is expected that future development will occur at the Risborough Barracks site sometime after 2020.
24
Page 30 7.16 Sandgate Sandgate ward is made up of the Seabrook area of Sandgate parish, the Sandgate village area up to the border with Folkestone parish and the new development of Enbrook Valley to the north. Sandgate parish was created in 2004 and comprises 4,402 electors thus denying it the possibility of solely having a district ward area. The parish is separated by three distinct areas with Coolinge in the north developed in the 1930s, Enbrook Valley which was developed in the 1960s and the traditional Sandgate coastal village community. The separation of the Coolinge community, given its size, shape and geographical location into Folkestone West enables the remaining Sandgate communities to be harmonised into a single member ward.
The Sandgate ward has a projected electorate of 3,086 and is a single member ward with a variance of 3.97% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.17 Hythe Hythe is a coastal community based near Romney Marsh which once possessed a busy harbour and was an important Cinque Port originally formed for military and commercial purposes and one of the first five created. The harbour diminished over the past few hundred years due to silting and now no longer exists.
The ward extends east to the Seabrook border with Sandgate and follows the external parish borders of Newington and Lympne. To the west the border is London Road (A261), across Scanlon’s Bridge and on past the green to the coast. The centre of the ward features the Hythe Town hall, a former Guildhall which now serves as the meeting place for Hythe Town Council and was built in 1794.
Bus route 16 passes through the ward along Seabrook Road, Prospect Road, Dymchurch Road finishing its route at Brockhill Road. Bus route 18 does a circular route through Hythe town centre before going up Tanners Hill and along Hillcrest Road, Tanners Hill and Hillcrest Road.
25
Page 31
The ward contains the Royal Military Canal, a popular visitor attraction and Hythe Pool, a municipal swimming pool serving the local area used by many local organisations.
The Hythe ward has a projected electorate of 8,848 with electors with district councillors and a variance of -0.63% from the optimum electoral figure and therefore does allow scope for the continuing development of areas such as Princes Parade in the future.
7.18 Lemanis The ward of Lemanis contains the parish areas of Lympne and Saltwood and the Palmarsh area of Hythe parish and home to three communities.
The name for the new ward comes from the ancient roman settlement and port ‘Portas lemanis’ from which Lympne derived its name and was first documented in the late 3 rd century and which directly linked the area to Canterbury via a road which today is Stone Street. The area was later defended by two castles, both of which are within the ward, at Saltwood and Lympne. These places have a significant historical interest and demonstrate how the communities have evolved around them. Saltwood Castle was built in around 488 and Lympne Castle was built in the 13th century on the site of the original Roman lookout towers over what was once the harbour. Both properties are grade one listed buildings of architectural or historical interest and remain in use today.
Saltwood is a thriving community with two primary schools, Saltwood CE Primary School and St Augustine’s RC Primary School and a secondary school, Brockhill Park Performing Arts College. The ward also contains Sandling mainline railway station, a key commuter station to Ashford and London.
26
Page 32 Lympne is a distinct community with a village shop, a hairdresser, village pub and local village sports teams and is home to a regional tourist attraction, the Port Lympne Wild Animal Park.
Palmarsh is a small coastal community separated from the main part of Hythe by the bridge over the Royal Military Canal and the Hythe Ranges which were opened in 1854. The area is in constant use by the armed forces as a training facility and the sound of guns firing is a regular feature of the area. A busy tourist attraction within the ward is the start of the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch steam railway at Scanlons Bridge Road which was opened in 1927 and is the smallest public railway in the world. The ward then extends west towards parish boundary borders of Burmarsh and Dymchurch parishes and becomes very rural in nature unlike the eastern border with the proposed Hythe district border. Bus route 160 goes from Hythe Town along the coast to Burmarsh Road and Grebe Crescent thus providing a vital public transport link for this community.
Bus route 10 and 10A links Saltwood and Lympne via public transport with start of the Palmarsh area.
Lemanis contains the communities of: Palmarsh: 4,041 Saltwood: 670 Lympne: 1,461 Total of 6,172 electors with 2 district councillors and a variance of 3.97% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.19 New Romney Town New Romney Town is a small town on the Romney Marsh that has been established for over 1,200 years and is part of the New Romney parish which is currently warded into two wards, New Romney Town and New Romney Coast. The main church was built in 1080 and the name of New Romney originally derived from the Anglo Saxon name ’Niwe Romm’ meaning ‘New Rams Island’. This is probably an indication of sheep having been farmed on 27
Page 33 the marsh since Anglo Saxon times and the settlement is mentioned in the Doomsday Book. The town’s borders are small and the electorate figure gives an ideal number for a single member ward.
The ward provides the headquarters for the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Steam Railway and has a popular shopping area with shops including a large Sainsbury’s supermarket, restaurants and public houses. It also features the Marsh Academy, a secondary school serving pupils from the surrounding area and the A259 is the main thoroughfare in and out of the ward. Bus routes 11 and 11A connect New Romney Town with a direct route to Ashford and Route 101 goes through the town to Lydd and Folkestone. Route 102 goes from New Romney Town to Littlestone, Greatstone and Lydd on Sea.
New Romney Town has a projected electorate of 3,173 and is therefore a perfect size for a single member ward with a variance of 6.9% although this does include several new developments yet to be built such as those at Church Lane and on the High Street.
7.20 New Romney Coast New Romney Coast ward is made up of the communities of Littlestone and Greatstone (part within New Romney parish). The place names of Greatstone and Littlestone came about in the 19th century as a result of the headland at that time which has since eroded. These two communities, joined by the coast, are very different from new Romney Town with an older age profile and many residences being used as second homes or places for retirement. The Littlestone Golf Club, with membership from across the Romney Marsh area is used for sports and recreational facilities and accounts for much of the ward once the residential area of Littlestone stops.
Only one bus route serves the area, that of route 102 which runs from Lydd to Folkestone.
New Romney Coast has a projected electorate of 2,978 and is therefore a perfect size for a single member ward with a variance of just 0.33%. 28
Page 34
7.21 Romney Marsh East This new ward is made up of five distinct communities, those of Dymchurch, St Mary’s Bay, St Mary in the Marsh, Newchurch and Burmarsh.
Burmarsh, one of the most easterly communities on Romney Marsh has been established since the Anglo Saxon period. It’s name is derived from ‘Burnwargamerse’ meaning ‘fortress’ and today has a public house and a church.
Newchurch has its name derived from the Anglo Saxon ‘Niwe Circa’ meaning ‘new burial ground’ and is mentioned in the Doomsday Book. Bus route 11A links Newchurch to New Romney Town and Ashford.
St Mary in the Marsh was originally called ‘Siwold Circa’ derived from the Celtic meaning ‘burial ground’. It was probably renamed after the church was built in 1133 AD. The area is connected to Newchurch, Ashford and New Romney Town via bus route 11A and is expected to see some significant increase in the electorate with the development of the Romney Marsh Potato Farm at Cockreed Lane.
St Mary’s Bay is a relatively new development in the area which was created as a seaside village to cater for the 1920s boom in seaside holidays. The area had its heyday in the 1960s and today contains a number of static caravan and holiday parks as well as a number of second homes alongside permanent residences.
Dymchurch gets its name from the Anglo Saxon place ‘Deman Ciric’ meaning ‘Judges Burial ground’ and was probably a place of execution at that time. The sea wall was originally built by the Romans and the settlement is mentioned in the Doomsday Book. Today it is a popular holiday destination along with an extension of the urban communities of Folkestone and Hythe. Bus routes 101 and 102 pass through the area.
29
Page 35 Romney Marsh East contains the communities of: Burmarsh: 251 Newchurch 268 St Mary in the Marsh 280 St Mary’s Bay 2,375 Dymchurch 3,102 Total of 6,276 electors with 2 district councillors and a variance of 5.72% from the optimum electoral figure.
7.22 Walland and Denge Marsh The whole Romney Marsh area consists of several flat low-lying areas across Susses and Kent. The Walland Marsh is the area south of the line between New Romney and Appledore. The Denge Marsh is the area south east of Lydd up to and including Denge Beach and Dungeness. As this ward is a large geographical ward consisting of six parishes and seven communities, the name of Walland and Denge Marsh is proposed although it could also be referred to as Romney Marsh West within Shepway.
Snargate is a small parish community at the north west of the ward. The name is derived from ‘Snare gate’ which came about as a result of the 13 th century sluice gates erected to control a waterway to Romney Harbour. Snargate has a public house, the Red Lion and a church and the B2080 passes through the community and Appledore mainline station is nearby.
Brookland parish community gets its name from the Anglo Saxon place of ‘Broc Land’ meaning ‘Land of Illness’. The area suffered from extreme damp and outbreaks of malaria were common up until the 16 th century. The A259 passes through the heart of the community and there is a 15 th century public house, the Woolpack Inn.
Brenzett parish community gets the name from the Anglo Saxon place of ‘Brenning Set’ meaning ‘Crematorium’. It is referred to in the Doomsday book as ‘Brensete’ and the main church was built in 630 AD. It was also the rallying point for the Peasants Revolt in 1381. 30
Page 36
Most recently Brenzett was the site of RAF Brenzett, an advance airfield used in World War II. The airfield is now closed but a local attraction is the Brenzett Aeronautical Museum Trust which houses and exhibits the remains of many fighter aircraft lost during the war and excavated from the surrounding nearby marsh. Brenzett has a primary school, public house, petrol station, cafe and a post office.
Ivychurch parish community get the name from the Anglo Saxon place ‘Le Circa’ meaning ‘burial ground’. The parish is very large with a border going along the Kent ditch, the border between Sussex and Kent and extending eastwards along land that was steadily drained from the 12 th century. Ivychurch has a church which is often referred to as the ‘Cathedral of the Marsh’, an impressive building dating from the 14 th century which now also houses the Museum of Rural Life. The local public house, the Bell Inn, is the centre of village life with many local groups and musicians utilising the excellent facilities.
Old Romney parish community was the original settlement and port in the area as it was at the mouth of the River Rother estuary and was established in Roman times. Old Romney has one of the oldest churches in Kent, St Clements, which was built in the 12 th century although the site was originally used as early as the 8 th century. The A259 passes through the area.
Lydd Town community has been an established community from early medieval times when the name was ‘Hlyda’, which was a Saxon word for ‘shore’. It appears in a Saxon 8th century charter and is mentioned in the Doomsday Book. The area was extremely prosperous in the 13 th century when it was a corporate member of the Cinque Ports and was a key area for smuggling throughout the 18 th and 19 th century.
Lydd Town houses All Saints Church, which is the longest parish church in Kent, Lydd Town Museum and has a hotel, a number of public houses and shops. The local Guildhall is a grade II listed building built in the 18 th century 31
Page 37 and the headquarters of Lydd Town Council. The town is well served by bus routes 101 and 102 offering regular services to Hythe, Folkestone, New Romney, Hastings and Rye. The London Ashford (Lydd) Airport is located in the east of the area and is subject to a planning application currently with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to expand the services, an application already approved by Shepway District Council. Currently the airport offers services to private planes, flying instructors and a commercial service to northern France.
Lydd coastal community is made up of residents of Dungeness, Lydd-on-Sea and Greatstone. It has a unique landscape which attracts visitors on the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Steam railway which has Dungeness as a terminus. The area is also home to Dungeness Nuclear Power facility although this is scheduled to close sometime around 2018. As well as a power station there is also a nuclear waste store which will remain under supervision and contaminated until approximately 2130. The local area is also regarded as being of international conservation importance to plants and birdlife and has been designated as a national Nature Reserve and a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
The parish councils within Walland and Denge Marsh ward already work closely together through the Romney Marsh parish Councils network, often making joint representations to Shepway District Council of the County Council.
Walland and Denge Marsh contains the communities of:
Snargate 103 Brookland 395 Brenzett 302 Ivychurch 214 Old Romney 175 Lydd Town 2,864 Lydd Coastal 2,115 32
Page 38
Total of 6,168 electors with 2 district councillors and a variance of 3.9% from the optimum electoral figure.
8. Parish Councils 8.1 The current LGBCE Further Electoral Review of Shepway will also have an impact on the 29 parishes which currently exist in the district. Of the 29 parishes, 6 currently have warding arrangements which will need to be considered. In addition there are 2 parishes which will need to have warding patterns considered as a consequence of recent community governance reviews.
8.2 Six of the parishes are parish meetings and therefore do not have any councillors elected at the local level. The optimum electoral equality figures for the remaining 24 parishes with elections within Shepway are shown in Figure 4 at 8.3.
8.3 Figure 4 – Parish Councils, the number of councillors and the electorate.
Electoral Equality No. of Parish Electorate Figure per Cllrs Councillor
Acrise 151 Parish Meeting Brenzett 302 5 60 Brookland 395 5 79 Burmarsh 251 5 50 Dymchurch 3,102 9 345 Elham 1,291 9 143 Elmsted 247 7 35 Folkestone 36,275 18 2,015 Hawkinge 6,307 9 701 Hythe 12,889 16 806 Ivychurch 214 5 43 Lydd 4,979 16 311 Lyminge 2,272 13 227 Lympne 1,461 7 209 Monks Horton 95 Parish Meeting New Romney 6,151 16 384 Newchurch 268 5 54
33
Page 39 Newington 304 5 61 Old Romney 175 Parish Meeting Paddlesworth 28 Parish Meeting Postling 173 7 25 Saltwood 670 7 96 Sandgate 4,402 11 400 Sellindge 1,532 9 170 Snargate 103 Parish Meeting St Mary in the Marsh 2,655 7 379 Stanford 631 5 126 Stelling Minnis 505 7 72 Stowting 188 Parish Meeting Swingfield 1,027 9 114
8.4 Although primary consideration will need to be given to those parishes which already have or have requested warding arrangements, the review does offer the opportunity to explore whether any of the other no-warded parishes require warding arrangements to be proposed. Maps demonstrating the proposed warding arrangements for parishes are attached at Appendix 2.
8.5 At Council on 20 March 2012, the Community Governance Review of Hawkinge was completed and the recommendations approved by Council. Following this decision an amendment is required to the figures shown at Figure 4 in 8.3. This is as follows:
Electoral Equality No. of Parish Electorate Figure per Cllrs Councillor
Acrise 267 Parish Meeting Swingfield 911 9 101 Hawkinge 6,307 13 485
8.6 Hawkinge Town Council
8.7 Following a recent Community Governance Review it is proposed that Hawkinge Town Council has a ward pattern of three wards covering Fernfield, Uphill and Churchill. This can be achieved by drawing a line down Canterbury Road and having Ward 1 (Fernfield) all roads to the East, Ward 2 (Uphill) the area between 34
Page 40 Canterbury Road and Spitfire Way extending down White Horse Hill and along Alkham Valley Road, Ward 3 (Churchill all roads to the West of Spitfire Way). The breakdown for Hawkinge ward pattern based on December 2018 electorate figures is:
Variance from Councillors to Proposed ward Electorate Optimum be elected Figure
Fernfield 1,907 4 -1.73% Uphill 1,536 3 5.53% Churchill 2,864 6 -1.61%
8.9 Hythe Parish Council
The existing Hythe Town Council ward boundaries will remain unchanged as they do adequately represent the Hythe communities. Currently all four wards in Hythe elect 4 parish councillors, however due to projected electorate figures for December 2018, the number of councillors to be elected does require amending. Although the variance for Hythe North is high, the continual development of the other areas will gradually see this figure reduced further in future years. It is therefore proposed that Hythe Town Council adopts the following ward pattern:
Current Variance Number of Councillors from Proposed Councillors to be Optimum ward Electorate to be elected elected Figure Hythe East 3,749 4 5 -6.92% Hythe South 2,467 4 3 2.08% Hythe North 2,632 4 3 8.91% Hythe West 4,041 4 5 0.33%
8.10 Lyminge Parish Council
The existing Lyminge parish ward boundaries will remain unchanged as they do adequately represent the two communities. Currently Lyminge ward elects 7 parish 35
Page 41 councillors and Etchinghill elects 3 parish councillors. Due to projected electorate figures for December 2018, the number of councillors to be elected does require amending. It is therefore proposed that the following ward patterns are recommended for Lyminge Parish Council:
Current Variance Number of Councillors from Proposed Councillors to be Optimum ward Electorate to be elected elected Figure Lyminge 1,775 10 10 1.56% Etchinghill 497 3 3 -5.21%
8.11 New Romney Town Council
The existing New Romney Town Council ward boundaries adequately represent the two communities and do not require any amendments to be made to the number of parish councillors to be elected. It is therefore proposed that the following ward patterns are recommended for New Romney Town Council:
Current Variance Number of Councillors from Proposed Councillors to be Optimum ward Electorate to be elected elected Figure New Romney Town 3,173 8 8 3.17% New Romney Coast 2,978 8 8 -3.17%
8.12 Lydd Town Council
Following a Community Governance review which concluded in November 2010, Shepway District Council was requested to make a recommendation for a new warding pattern for Lydd Town Council establishing a ward recognising the Lydd coastal community and Lydd Town. The new ward boundary will utilise the existing polling districts operational in Lydd. It is therefore proposed that the following ward patterns are recommended for Lydd Town Council:
36
Page 42 Variance Councillors from Proposed to be Optimum ward Electorate elected Figure Lydd Town 2,864 9 2.26% Lydd Coast 2,115 7 -2.91%
8.13 St Mary in the Marsh Parish Council
The existing St Mary in the Marsh Parish Council ward boundaries adequately represent the two communities and do not require any amendments to be made to the number of parish councillors to be elected. It is therefore proposed that the following ward patterns are recommended for St Mary in the Marsh Parish Council:
Current Variance Number of Councillors from Proposed Councillors to be Optimum ward Electorate to be elected elected Figure St Mary’s Bay 2,375 6 6 4.36% St Mary in the Marsh 280 1 1 -26.18%
8.14 Sandgate Parish Council
Sandgate Parish Council is currently warded into Sandgate Village and Sandgate Valley. It is proposed to amend the boundaries of these wards to greater reflect the two communities in Sandgate. The existing boundary will be amended from Enbrook Valley to the Shorncliffe Barracks and North Road newly proposed district seat of Sandgate boundary. It will then follow North Road down Military Road to the junction of Enbrook Road and cut across behind the Saga complex. Many of the properties affected are a distinct community in recently completed dwellings or residences that have been built in the past two decades. Sandgate Village will remain along the coastal part and old town of Sandgate building It is therefore proposed that the following ward patterns are recommended for Sandgate Parish Council: 37
Page 43
Current Variance Number of Councillors from Proposed Councillors to be Optimum ward Electorate to be elected elected Figure Sandgate Village 2,565 8 6 6.83% Sandgate Valley 1,837 3 5 -8.19%
8.15 Folkestone Town Council
Folkestone Town Council currently has coterminous ward boundaries with the existing district ward boundaries. As the number of district councillors is being reduced to 30 the optimum number of electors for each district councillor is 2,968.
Folkestone parish has a projected electorate of 36,275 by December 2018 and 18 parish councillors. The optimum number of electors for each Folkestone Town councillor would therefore be 2,015 which means that the new district boundaries are unable to follow the current pattern of being mapped exactly against the new district wards.
To ensure that there is a broad degree of understanding and working relationships between the Folkestone parish councillors and the district councillors, it is proposed to adopt a model utilising the new district wards by amalgamating their areas wherever possible into larger parish council wards or in the case of Cheriton, adopting the district ward pattern. The Folkestone Town Council wards would therefore be split into Folkestone North-East, Folkestone North-West, Folkestone South East and Folkestone South West.
It is therefore proposed that the following ward patterns are recommended for Folkestone Town Council:
38
Page 44 Councillors Variance from to be Optimum Proposed ward Electorate elected Figure
Folkestone North West (Cheriton district ward) 5,962 3 -1.39%
Folkestone North East (Broadmead Village, Folkestone North, Foord and 12,636 6 4.5% north of the railway line in the East Cliff district wards)
Folkestone South East (Folkestone Town and Harbour and south of the 7,440 4 -7.71% railway line in the East Cliff district wards)
Folkestone South West (Folkestone West and 10,237 5 1.59% Folkestone Central district wards)
8.16 All other Parish Council
There are no further recommendations for the introduction of warding patterns for the remaining parish councils within the district of Shepway.
9 Conclusion
In conclusion, the ward pattern proposed for the district council and for the parish councils is intended to fulfil the criteria as laid down in statute. All wards are to meet the criterion of electoral equality and where there are separate communities in the same ward, they have been put together to create a harmonious district ward pattern. Shepway District Council commends this proposal to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. 39
Page 45
Approved by Shepway District Council at its meeting on XXXX, minute XX
40
Page 46 North Downs East North Downs West
Folk Cheriton
Broadmead V
Folkestone West Folkes Folkestone Sandgate Hythe
Lemanis
Romney Marsh East
New Romney Town New Romney Coast
Walland & Denge Marsh
Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 North Downs East
Folkestone North
Cheriton East Cliff
Broadmead Village Page 49
Foord
Folkestone West Folkestone Town & Harbour
Folkestone Central
Sandgate This page is intentionally left blank
Page 50 Elmsted
Elham
S
Stowting Acrise Lyminge
Monks Horton Lyminge Etchinghill Paddlesworth Haw Hawkinge U Hawkinge Churchill
Postling Newington Sellindge
Stanford Folkestone North West Folke
Saltwood Folkestone So Sandgate Valley Hythe East Lyminge Sandgate Village Hythe North
Hythe South
Hythe West
Burmarsh
Newchurch
Dymchurch
Brenzett
te St Marys Bay St Mary in the Marsh
Ivychurch New Romney Town New Romney Coast
Old Romney
Lydd On Sea Lydd Town
Page 51 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 52
Appendix 2 – comments from councillors
Councillor Comment Cllr Lynne Myself and a few colleagues have been looking at this for a few Beaumont, weeks now. Surprisingly, most of our views are reflected in the Park Ward council’s own suggested submission. There are one or two points we would see differently, and these will be in our submission to the boundary commission prior to the 8 th April
Key one is that the "Lemanis" ward includes Saltwood parish. Saltwood would be more logically a part of Hythe. Simply moving Saltwood Parish into the Hythe ward looks like it keeps both wards within acceptable tolerances (of voter numbers - Lemansis 5502, Hythe & Saltwood 9518) and more logically places Saltwood within the District ward it "looks to" for services: Hythe.
In New Romney, there is the chance to realign the ward boundary along the railway line, which would only affect a few voters but give a much simpler boundary between the two wards and clarify the boundary for each community.
The Romney Marsh East ward could easily be broken into 2 single member wards, both within tolerances - Dymchurch & Burmarsh (3,353), and St Mary's and Newchurch (2,913). Each would reflect its own community rather better than one larger ward. If we could do the same with the Walland & Denge Marsh ward we should, but there seems to be no way to do so without turning Lydd Town into a ward of itself, which creates a "polo" ward around it, which is I believe unacceptable. Reluctantly therefore, there seems to be little we can do about that.
I think the Folkestone Town Council wards are too big, our preference would be for smaller wards, but I can't see a logical way of doing so as it’s such a numbers game.
I hope this is helpful. Please can you confirm receipt of this email, so as I can confirm to people that our submission is with you. Cllr Mrs. • There should be Hythe and Lemanis should be called Hythe Belcourt rural • Hythe parish should stay Hythe East, Hythe North, Hythe South and Hythe West without border changes
Cllr. Mrs. I wish to change the name on the revue from Broadmead Village to Ann Berry Park Ward. Broad Mead village is a very confined and defined Folkestone circular area and would not take in the rest of the the ward such as Park Ward Lynwood and Radnor park areas. These areas would feel excluded and it would certainly cause confusion.
Page 53 Cllr Bunting Both cllrs have strong objections and Cllr Love • Harvey West/new Folkestone West ward - thinks this is Folkestone incredible. They have different communities. One is Cheriton Harvey and one is Fst town centre. West Ward • Wants to raise objections and will write to the boundary commission - it's not a good merger. • To them Harvey West should merge with part of Fst Central. They work together better than including great swathes of cheriton. • They have strong objections to the recommendations.
Cllr Alan Further to the draft submission can I please get a clarification and Clifton – suggest a change. Holt Romney Firstly the clarification, section 7.18 Lemanis; in the first paragraph Marsh Ward it talks about Burmarsh as one of the wards involved. I assume this was an error and should be Saltwood as Burmarsh Parish is mentioned in 7.21
Secondly the change, section 7.21 Romney Marsh East; Can this simply be referred to as Romney Marsh as that this is the area it is covering, you quite rightly highlight Walland and Dengue Marshes as the other other areas Cllr John I wish to make some observations relating to the proposed Collier boundary changes and ward names. Morehall Ward In the knowledge that importance is attached to wards, wherever possible, being representative of geographical communities I believe that Cheriton and Morehall should retain their own identity. This could easily be achieved by moving sufficient of the voters in the Morehall ward into Cheriton ward (a few roads already an integral part of Cheriton rather than Morehall). This would then give Cheriton two councillors and Morehall one.
As a less attractive alternative I would suggest that Cheriton and Morehall wards be combined as a three seater ward.
The proposed makeup of Folkestone West appears inappropriate in that roads to the west of Risborough Lane have always been a part of Cheriton and bear no relation to the west end of Folkestone. Furthermore, the County Division is Folkestone West which would undoubtedly cause confusion. Cllr Alan • There should be Hythe and Lemanis should be called Hythe Ewart- rural James • Hythe parish should stay Hythe East, Hythe North, Hythe Hythe South and Hythe West without border changes Central
Page 54 Ward Cllr. Peter Reference the boundary review I would like to make the following Gane. comments. Folkestone Cheriton The current Cheriton Ward is the largest in Folkestone and Ward contains a community along with the neighbouring ward of Morehall. The area is served by a joint benefice of St. Martins and All Souls, Doctors surgery, Dentist and high street. My view is Cheriton ward should be expanded into part of Morehall and be a two seater Cheriton Ward. The remaining part of Morehall could be amalgamated part of Golden valley to make up a new one seater ward of Morehall and Golden Valley while the remaining part of Sandgate made into a single seater ward. The advantage of amalgamating Morehall and Golden Valley would be the joint voting station in Audley Road would become a single ward voting place.
This would keep the two wards within the Folkestone West boundary
------
My first general comment is don’t name a ward after a county seat i.e. Folkestone West and North. This will really confuse the electorate. I.e. rename Cheriton as Cheriton north and Folkestone west as Cheriton south and valley.
My comment on the Cheriton Ward would be as my previous email said just further enhance the current ward and at the remaining Morehall and Golden Valley together. As a governor I can tell you children come from both sides of the ward attend the school.
------
Over the weekend I had a detailed look at the proposals for Cheriton and would like to point out the following errors in the report to start with
1. St Martins Primary School is on Horn Street and not Valebrook Close
2. The children at St. Martins are roughly 15% from Seabrook, 33% from FCH1 and the rest FCH2. So if you take Cheriton children as whole not far off 50-50
3 In FCH2 there is one gurkha business namely Ghurkha Hill. Most of the Ghurkha business is in Cheriton High Street/Road
Page 55 4 You quote that children to both St. Martins and Cheriton Primary come from south of Cheriton Road which finishes at the White House Surgery
5 On the map showing schools you have missed All Souls and Harcourt.
Proposals
I would like to see FCH1 AND FCH2 kept together as this is community share a joint parish serving the whole community of St. Martins and All Souls. St Martins runs a youth club and until recently has had a youth worker but not sure where that has gone. You can extend the ward into Morehall and then make Morehall a one seater ward. This means you could combine golden valley with harvey west into a single member ward.
another alternative would be simply combine Cheriton and Morehall into a three seater ward. There is plenty of evidence to show that they have community facilities, church and Schools. This would still make a combined Harvey West and Golden Valley a single seater ward.
------Cheriton Primary provided with me the information that 40% of pupils come from the other side of the railway track.
On the case of Folkestone Town Council I would rename the Fokestone North West ward to Cheriton this is the same area as district. Also if the proposal of the three member district seat is accepted then the number of Parish Councillors would increase to keep the Parish Ward the same
Also in your report please mention Harcourt School and on the map show Harcourt, All Souls and Pent Valley Cllr Jan With regards proposed changes to the local government Holben boundaries. Folkestone Sandgate I feel quite strongly that Sandgate should retain its existing Ward boundary lines because the two Sandgate wards (Village and Valley wards) due to social/historical/architectural/etc demographics barely acknowledge the existence of the other now and this change will make it worse.
Folk in Village ward especially tend to only talk about 'Sandgate the Village' (the village as an entity, rather than Village ward) as if the Valley ward is not part of Sandgate the village. You may recall a few years ago what a furore there was when Cllr Boot attempted
Page 56 to change Sandgate Parish Council into a Town Council!!
Splitting part of Valley ward into Morehall/Folkestone West will exacerbate this divide as the Valley ward becomes smaller (and less significant).
I realise that this does not change the fact that it is only a 1 district councillor ward - but with total voting population of 3350 which is at the top end it is still viable.
I hope you will take my concerns into account when putting the draft report together. Many thanks Cllr Rory I wish to object to the proposals for the warding arrangements for Love Folkestone's residential west-end. Folkestone Harvey The proposal divides Folkestone's residential west-end between West Ward two wards (Folkestone Central and Folkestone West) at an arbitrary boundary of Grindstone Avenue and Dixwell Road. I recognise that many boundaries may appear arbitrary, but this division of a community not only fails to add any value to the new warding arrangements, but indeed it contributes to the creation of at least one ward which lacks any sense of community. The new Folkestone West brings together residents with no common purpose or sense of community. There is a case to be made that the Folkestone Central proposal also merges two distinct communities, although the degree to which this is done is less than with Folkestone West.
I believe there is a strong case to preserve a ward based on the residential west end of Folkestone.
Folkestone's residential west-end is centred on the current Harvey West ward. There is certainly scope at the edges to make variations. At the western end, I would suggest that residents as far north west as Coolinge Lane share a sense of community with the current ward in as much as they look towards Folkestone for shopping, traveling, etc. Those further west look towards Cheriton.
At the eastern edge of the current Harvey West ward, there is a case for including the whole of Castle Hill Avenue, and possibly Kingsnorth Gardens, as was the case pre-2003. There may be a case for describing areas eastwards as far as Manor Road as "residential west-end", but any further east than that, and we move into a commercial area with a very different feel.
Although there are variations possible around the edges, I would urge that the sense of community centred on the residential west
Page 57 end of Folkestone (not Cheriton) is preserved in the new arrangements. If that is easier to achieve with more single- member wards, then so be it.
I certainly cannot support an arrangement that brings communities as diverse as Horn Street and Godwyn Road into the same ward.
On a minor issue related to your full report, I notice that in the text at para. 7.15 (though not in the table at para. 7.5), Folkestone West is described as a single member ward. This is clearly an error. Cllr Michael Many thanks for the hard copy of the above. Lyons. Hythe My main concern is Hythe Central. Saltwood historically, has been Central part of Hythe. If there has to be a change in the boundary Ward structure, would it not be more practical to absorb Saltwood into the Hythe Arena.
Hythe Town Council has always been, as you are well aware, split into four areas, North, South, East and West, but lumping Hythe West in with Lymph and Saltwood, which is as different as chalk and cheese, regarding population and the geographical placement. (Page 28)
My thoughts are A. Hythe has Four District Councillors, one each for each ward already listed. B. Saltwood becomes part of Hythe North. C. Lympne, becomes part of North Downs West.
Lympne is noted in the report as an area in its own right but is lumped in with Hythe West and Saltwood, I cannot understand the logic of this argument.
The idea of have 5 Hythe Town Councillors for West Ward, yet the District Councillor is separated form Hythe to become a Latin named ward, I find quiet extraordinary.
Hythe's, Town Clerks paper to you, sums up the feeling of the Towns people and the Council in general.
I do think that a reappraisal needs to be addressed re these changes.
The rearranging of the structure re the Hythe Town Council's Councillors again needs, in my opinion, to be rethought, due to increased population in Hythe North and South's wards over the next ten years.
Page 58 Cllr Terry Cllr Terry Mullard Mullard OK, So now the fight begins as far as I am concerned. I have Dymchurch added my comment to the boundary commission website. and St. Mary’s Bay Speaking as a Dymchurch & St Mary's Bay Councillor, I now find that not only will we be expected to represent 6276 electors with just 2 Councillors (3138 per Councillor) as against the present situation where 3 District Councillors represent 5316 electors (1772 each Councillor), an increase in electors of 77% per Councillor, but that the geographical area of the new Romney Marsh East ward (and also that of Walland & Denge Marsh), is huge. How on earth does the commission think that we can operate the new proposals effectively?
The proposals are ill thought out and just plain DAFT! Cllr David Many thanks for this and herewith my response. This is of course a Owen very difficult task to undertake and I congratulate Officers in getting Hythe East some proposals on the table. In prefacing my remarks I have noted Ward particularly the fundamental points that a) each Councillor should represent the same number of electors, b) community identity should be maintained, c) as set out in para 3.3 inter alia ”should reflect the interests and identities of local communities". Regrettably and particularly with the proposals for "Lemanis" Ward I do not think that this has currently been achieved.
I am limiting my remarks to the Hythe area as this is the Town I represent and have lived in for the past 35 years.
Let me say at the outset that I have no problem with the plan for Hythe to be represented by 3 Councillors. How ever the main parts of Lemanis do not share any common facilities and there is no identifiable “community identity".Saltwood is part of the urban development of Hythe and should be linked to Hythe. Saltwood residents do their local shopping in Hythe, many attend churches in Hythe, use Hythe facilities e.g. Doctors, Dentists. Post Office, Fire service. There is a clearly delineated boundary to the north namely M20 motorway. May I also point out that in Para 7.17 the route of Bus Route 16 finishing in Brockhill Road (not Bartholomew Lane!) supports my argument that Saltwood is a part of Hythe. The route of Bus Route 18 further reinforces that by serving Sandling Railway Station - the Rail station for Hythe.
Similarly Palmarsh (not forgetting Reachfields and Pennypot - not mentioned!) is again part of the Hythe urban development being directly linked by the A259 road. As such this community identifies closely with Hythe with exactly the same reasons as Saltwood. It is not "separated" by the Royal Military Canal but "linked" by A259.It is also linked by Bus Routes 101 and 102 (not mentioned in the
Page 59 report).
Lympne is a completely separate community from Hythe and in this instance is "separated" from Hythe by the RMC. As a Community it is more closely identified with Sellindge and the surrounding villages.
In reviewing the information used in the report I note that the estimated population of the existing Hythe West ward is estimated in 2018 to be 4041 being an additional 500 over the current figures. I assume this has been arrived at by including an element for the Martello Lakes development. None of us know what will happen in the next 5 years but the figure will increase by either 2000 (1000 homes X 2 electors per home) or nil if no development takes place. Therefore the inclusion of 500 can only be a speculation.
The use of the name Lemanis while undoubtedly of interest to local history buffs will mean very little with the vast majority of electors in the area. They won’t understand the name and will certainly not identify with it. The link with 2 medieval castles is tenuous in the extreme! Notwithstanding my other points and if you persist, I strongly urge, at least, a more appropriate name for this area e.g. Hythe West or Hythe Rural??
In conclusion and in order to come to an appropriate decision on this matter for the good of the community of Hythe and Saltwood, I suggest amendments be made to the existing Wards to achieve the necessary Hythe share of the SDC cake. With kind regards Cllr Paul I have read the submission from David Owen and broadly concur Peacock with all that he has said. The residents of West Hythe that I have Hythe West already spoken to are utterly appalled at this ridiculous name and Ward boundary. Hythe West or Hythe rural are far more appropriate. Unlike David I would like to see Hythe represented by an additional councillor but my main concern is that the identified boundary of the proposed Lemanis Ward shows no coercion between the areas and would be a very unworkable area. Therefore please register my strong objection. Cllr Susan Having looked at the proposed Boundary Changes to Harbour Wallace Ward and East Ward I would like to make a few points concerning Folkestone these changes. Harbour Ward I have spoken with the ward councillors for East and they have given me the views written above, perhaps it would be better to leaves these wards as they are or to make a two councillor ward of Harbour taking in Wear Bay Road up to the junction with Dover Road thus adding to the number of voters in Harbour enabling it to
Page 60 retain its name and uniqueness with the natural division of the main Dover Road and the railway.
This would now make more voters in Harbour and give East Ward 3000 voters which would make a one seat ward, the ward of Harvey Central could also be a one seat ward as the number of voters would also have decreased There has always been a division of these two different areas formed by the railway tracks that run through the other wards then up through the East Cliff and onto Dover, this division has given both East Cliff and East Ward two entirely different types of communities.
The Stade and Harbour are unique to Harbour Ward due to the community which has built up over many years and generations many people feel that if they are placed within the proposed new boundaries they will lose the special identity within the area they are a separate community which has always been based around fishing if they are now made part of the town as a whole then all the generations will be lost to them.
As we travel up the East Cliff there are also another set of people that are also connected with the harbour (the Durlock, St peter’s school and Fisherman’s Church) It would not be of benefit to people living in the area to find that they are now part of the town. The natural division set up by the railway has been there for many years and although the line to the harbour may be closed at present we do not know what will happen in the future, and as some of the arches in this area are listed they cannot be removed without permission of English Heritage. This area is very important to the people who live and work there and it is a point of interest to the first war taken away from the Harbour would be tragic.
The Coast line of this area is unique to this part of Kent with the natural areas of the Warren and the lower East Cliff at the junction with the Durlocks. It is also seen from here that the natural divide between the wards is the Railway line which passes through harbour ward via the Skew Arches another division of wards then on to Dover via the tunnel on the East Cliff.
It also seems that this has been the natural division between East and Harbour Ward for many years. The community of East Ward is very different to Harbour and the two councillors Alan North and Anthony Dunning have put a lot of work into bring various areas in their ward to a much more acceptable state by taking some of this ward away may prove detrimental to the communities that are now being established. As the Harbour Ward is in place more affluent than East Ward it would not help with those who might see this as
Page 61 a move to try and make them change their ways I am afraid this would not work and people might be resentful towards the council Cllr Roger Hi Peter. This sounds good to me. (Comment on Councllor Peter West Gane’s observations). Folkestone Cheriton Ward
Appendix 3 - Comments from parish / town councils
Town or Comments parish council Hythe Town I will be unable to let you have the views of the Town Council by Council 19 th March. There is a Council meeting on 21 st March and this matter is due for discussion then and I will respond following it.
Having scanned the document I have a couple of points for clarification.
Could I please have a larger scale plan showing the exact boundaries between the proposed Hythe Ward and the proposed Ward of Lemanis. I would also point out that in Figure 3 these Wards are referred to as Hythe and Hythe West. Is the latter the same as at Paragraph 7.18, described as Lemanis? I assume that it is but I would like confirmation.
As far as the parish electoral arrangements are concerned, at the briefing which I attended at Shepway on the 21 st February, Parish Ward arrangements (i.e. numbers of Parish Councillors) were not included as forming part of the present consulting round. I attach a copy of that briefing for your information.
------
Thanks. My point about the number of Town Councillors and their disposition is that this is not a matter for the Boundary Commission but for the District Lydd Town Many thanks for this documentation which we have circulated to Council Lydd Town Councillors for comment. May I ask you to clarify the figures used on page 39 for the wards of Lydd Town and Lydd Coast as when comparing these with New Romney on page 38 the figures are exactly the same. We will send further comments tomorrow but it would be helpful if you would respond by return to this question as it may well affect our comments.
------
Page 62
Further to your email with attachments – this was forwarded to councillors for individual comments as received below:
I think Shepway's response as far as the marsh is concerned is viable but the only concern that I have is that the coastal community could be missing out. New Romney coast has their own councillor but the other half of Greatstone, Lydd-on-sea, Lade and Dungeness do not. As a coastal community they have little in common with the marsh inland. The 'Marsh Coast' is a distinct area as the recommendation to ward Lydd Parish suggests. I also consider with the reduction of the District Council from 46 to 30 we could consider a reduction at parish level from 16 to 12 to help improve democracy.
I do not disagree with the proposals set out for Lydd but the Town Council may have slight differences in their comments which will be sent to the LGBR
The above are comments of 2 councillors only and the Town Council will be meeting shortly and make their submission to the Boundary Commission. Lyminge Thank you for sight of your draft report. Makes interesting reading! Parish Council I believe that there are incorrect facts relating to Lyminge Parish as follows:
1 Para 8.3 (Figure 4) on page 35 – Lyminge Parish currently elects 13 Parish Councillors – not 10 as stated. Therefore the figure in the last column should be 175 – not 227. 2 Para 8.10 on pages 37/38 – The numbers should be amended to show that Lyminge ward currently elects 10 Parish Councillors and Etchinghill ward currently elects 3 Parish Councillors. I am not sure what changes this will make to the table at the end of para 8.10.
Please double check these figures with SDC records! New I have been reading over the attached document before putting it Romney before the New Romney Town Council this evening and have a Town concern in regard to figures presented on page 38 section 8.11 Council New Romney Town Council, as follows:
The Town Council currently has 16 Councillors 8 per ward. This table on page 38 shows current Councillors to be 10 (7 for Town Ward and 3 for Coast Ward). It then states that the proposal is to adjust this to 8 Members for the Town Ward and 2 for the Coast Ward.
Page 63 Your table on page 35 clearly states that there are currently 16 seats for elected Members of NRTC.
Please can you correct this information or explain these figures to me today in order that I can pass on your explanation to the Council this evening.
Thank you for your urgent assistance
Please see below New Romney Town Council’s initial response to the Electoral Review of Shepway. A full and final response will follow in due course.
1) The Shepway District Council (SDC) document is factually flawed as presented. For example: page 38-39 figures incorrect et al. The document needs to be re-written with the incorrect figures and other discrepancies amended and re-issued for consultation. 2) The time-scale provided by Shepway District Council to comment on its document was unreasonable; there was not sufficient time for New Romney Town Councillors to fully evaluate the information presented in the 44 page document as Members were not given three clear days notice of the response deadline, let alone allowing for three clear days notice in order to convene a meeting to discuss the matter prior to responding. The SDC document was only received at approximately 14:00 hours on Friday 15 th March, with a response deadline of Tuesday 19 th March, giving only one clear day’s notice. Fortunately, a Town Council Meeting had already been convened for Monday 18 th March 2013 with an agenda item to allow consideration of a response to the Electoral Review of Shepway consultation, however, due to the constraints of the postal service, additional information provided by SDC would not have arrived before Monday and due to ICT technical issues, it was not possible to put this information before Members until immediately prior to the meeting. Had the required three clear days notice been provided this issue could have been overcome. 3) Councillors felt that the Boundary Commission’s statutory criteria had not been under-written or correctly applied in the SDC proposals, contrary to the Boundary Commission’s dictat. For instance, the requirement that strong boundaries be established – the Potato Factory Development in Cockreed Lane, New Romney, should be part of the New Romney electoral ward, extending as it does from the Town, if a strong boundary had been considered. 4) The Boundary Commission also states that community identity is a required criteria but Councillors felt that grouping of small,
Page 64 remote villages and hamlets with a large town such as Lydd does not make for a strong and cohesive boundary with strong community identity. Furthermore, Members felt that as New Romney is the declared hub and service centre for the area, consideration should be given to apportioning it with additional representation, especially when housing development is taking place within a road’s width of New Romney Town Ward’s current boundary. Nevertheless, it was the general consensus of Councillors that they would be content with the proposed SDC representation of two District Councillors. However, it was strongly felt that the parish of New Romney should not be reduced in any way – they are content with the current Town Ward boundary as it is (perhaps with consideration to including the Potato Factory Development – see above), but felt that consideration should be given to extending the New Romney Coastal Ward to include Greatstone (Taylor Road). This would then match the TN28 postal code area which covers New Romney parish. 5) Whilst it was noted that there are no proposals to reduce the number of Town Councillors for New Romney, Members are, anyway, strongly opposed to any reduction in the number of New Romney Town Councillors, which currently number 16.
Please be reminded that the above comments are the initial response only of New Romney Town Council to the Electoral Review of Shepway Consultation, due to the extremely short deadline provided by SDC in which to respond to its own document, and that further and full comments will follow in due course and by the Boundaries Commission deadline of 8 th April 2013. Stelling North Downs Ward West Minnis We have been considering the Council’s draft proposals which are Parish to be considered by the cabinet this week. Council As a parish we would have preferred to remain in partnership with Elham. However we understand your reasoning in coming up with the proposal for a new North Downs Ward West based on arithmetic designed to satisfy the Boundary Commission. However there is one aspect of the proposal which we would ask you to consider revising, particularly as it should not affect your overall conclusions.
As a parish we have a strong preference to be part of a ward with a single councillor.
Our reasons are: We believe that this gives a better definition of the relationship between 3 parishes and their councillor, rather than the more
Page 65 uncertain relationship which almost inevitably will result from an ad-hoc arrangement between the two councillors who will represent the larger ward.
It will enable the district councillor to become more familiar with local issues affecting a smaller finite area, especially in planning matters, rather than needing to be fully aware of all the issues across a much larger ward.
In practice, given the geography of the North Downs, the relationships between the many small communities, could be described at times as tenuous. These communities are very diverse, many have very little contact with each other, and they do not always share common interests.
We would ask you to amend your proposals to produce two single member wards as follows:
North Downs Central consisting of 3 parishes Stelling Minnis 505 Lyminge (including Etchinghill) 2272 Postling 173 Total electorate 2950 almost spot on your target of 2968 for one member
North Downs Ward West consisting of 3 parishes and 2 parish meetings Sellindge 1532 Stanford 631 Elmsted 247 Stowting 188 Monks Horton 95 Total electorate 2693 This is a bit under your target but given the potential housing developments at Sellindge and the inclusion of the two parish meetings ought to be acceptable.
In passing could we add a small point. We wondered why in section.7 of your report you omitted any reference to the addition of Stelling Minnis to the revised ward. There are interesting features, perhaps worthy of comment, such as one of the largest commons in Kent and a carefully restored windmill which is a popular visitors' attraction. Also, at the end of the section on this ward you omitted to list all the parishes and the anticipated electorate in 2018.
We hope that this small amendment will be acceptable
Page 66