Porter, Johanna

From: Jennifer Als Sent: 30 November 2015 11:06 To: reviews Cc: 'Kevin Dixon' Subject: Ward Boundary Review for Attachments: Boundary review letter.doc; Copy of Rother Boundary Option (final).xls; Battle Parish (Central).pdf; Battle Parish (North).pdf; Battle Parish (South).pdf; Parish (Guestling Green).pdf; Guestling Parish ( Fringes).pdf; Guestling Parish (Three Oaks).pdf; (Robertsbridge).pdf; Robertsbridge Salehurst (Salehurst).pdf; Rye Parish (North).pdf; Rye Parish (South).pdf

Dear Sirs

Please find attached our letter and the proposals the Liberal Democrat Constituency Party for Bexhill and Battle wish to submit for the boundary review for Rother District, and other relevant documents.

Jennifer Als Secretary Bexhill and Battle Liberal Democrats.

1

BEXHILL & BATTLE LOCAL PARTY

Dear Sirs

This is the Bexhill & Battle Liberal Democrat submission to the Boundary Commission for the boundary review for Rother District – part of the East review.

While our councillors have been part of the submission, and indeed the Rother submission was based on a plan from our Cllr Kevin Dixon, it has been revised so many times to satisfy individual councillors that we feel it necessary to submit our original plan. With the large majority on the Council, the Rother District Council submission is in effect the Conservative Group's submission – with which we now do not agree.

Rother District is split into two distinct areas, the large expanding unparished town of Bexhill, and the parished rural area which includes the small towns of Rye and Battle. With the decision made to keep the number of councillors at 38, the mathematics dictate that Bexhill should remain with 18 councillors (avg 2,017) , with 20 councillors (avg 2,035) in the rural areas. Importantly this avoids wards mixing parished rural and urban unparished areas.

Rural areas We believe that like our neighbours Wealden DC, this is an opportunity to return to single member wards wherever possible. Single member wards create better accountability for communities, definable work for councillors, avoids difficulty when ward councillors are from different parties, avoids duplication and it is cheaper to run elections. It is possible to create single member wards in the rural area, bar one dual member ward. The attached spreadsheet lists our proposed ward structure, and the following comments should be read in conjunction with this sheet.

Icklesham Parish consists of four separate villages (, , and ) and are their own communities. Moving these into separate district wards does not affect their communities.

Rye Parish is too small for two district councillors, but far too big for one. The community to the north of the railway line is the correct size for a district ward, and adding Winchelsea to the south side of the railway line creates the numbers for the second. The links between Rye and Winchelsea date back to the time of the Cinque Ports. Two maps are attached of our suggestion for Rye Parish.

Camber Parish, Rye Harbour village and Winchelsea Beach village form the coastal strip around Rye and form a logical ward

Guestling Parish. The issues with the current Marsham ward is that it is short of electors, and the restrictions of Hastings Borough and the sea on two sides of the ward, means that there are limited options to solve the problem, without going too far over numbers. The only solution is to divide a parish, and Guestling is the ideal candidate. It has two distinct villages – Guestling Green and Three Oaks, as well as the part of the parish that is attached to Hastings (Ivyhouse Lane, Rye Rd and Rock Lane areas). By adding these parts to neighbouring parishes (Westfield, Fairlight and Icklesham & ) three equal district wards could be created. While not desirable , however the parishes are aligned, a parish in this corner of the district will have to be divided to keep numbers equal. Three maps are attached for our suggestion for Guestling Parish - current electorates are Hastings Fringes 345, Guestling Green 438, Three Oaks 370.

Northiam Parish. The large adjacent parishes of , and Beckley mean it is impossible to create single member wards in this area without dividing communities. Therefore we propose a two member ward for Northiam, Beckley Ewhurst and .

Ewhurst Parish and Bodiam Parish have strong community links and need to be reunited in a district ward.

Robertsbridge & Salehurst Parish consist of polling districts of Robertsbridge and Salehurst. However the settlement of Salehurst consisting of the community around Salehurst Church and Salehurst Halt pub are in Robertsbridge polling district. By warding the Parish into Robertsbridge ward and Salehurst ward and moving approx 100 electors in Salehurst village to Salehurst ward would result in Robertsbridge forming a single member ward. Two maps are attached of our proposal. Current electorate is Salehurst 141, Robertsbridge 1,952.

Ticehurst Parish consists of the separate villages of , Stonegate and . Putting these villages into different district wards will not affect their communities.

Burwash Parish consists of polling districts of and Burwash . While these could be warded and split into different district wards to maintain single member wards, there is a sense of community across the parish. Therefore Burwash Parish could be combined with , Stonegate, and Mountfield to form a two member ward.

Battle Parish is currently the worst served parish under the current ward set up, with five councillors representing parts of the parish. With the increase in numbers predicted it can be argued that it can support 3 councillors across the whole parish. To create three single member wards the existing four wards will need to be redrawn. The current ward boundaries do not reflect any community boundaries – Hastings Rd in Telham ward , and Netherfield Hill in Netherfield ward are both closer to Battle town centre. We query the projected electorate figure. The Blackfriars development proposed in Battle will fall into the current Marley Ward, but the projections indicate that Watch Oak Ward will have a large increase. We have based our numbers on our local knowledge. Three maps are attached of how the parish could be divided. Current electorates are South 1443, Central 1757, North 1669. Blackfriars development would fall into our proposed South Ward.

Bexhill We have not produced any specific proposals for Bexhill, as it is difficult to know where the exact increases in population will occur, but as Bexhill is unparished, it is far easier to divide up. While 18 individual wards could easily be created, many would be geographically small and not represent a particular community. Therefore we would support either single or two member wards in Bexhill. However there is no reason for any large difference in numbers across the wards, providing the identifiable communities of Sidley, Little Common, Pebsham, Cooden Beach and Normans Bay are protected.

Jennifer Als Secretary Bexhill & Battle Liberal Democrats

Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:27 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:25 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:49 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:50 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:30 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:28 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:29 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:35 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:32 Real Mode - Print Map https://connect.libdems.org.uk/PrintMapMapbox.aspx?PrintOnly=1

1 of 1 29/11/15 23:34 Rural

Ward Suggested Ward Parish Var to Varian No of Parish (Ward / Polling District) Total Comments Name Electorate Ave ce % Cllrs Electorate

Peasmarsh 1015 Iden 409 Peasmarsh & 296 2030 3 0% 1 Forms a ward of eastern villages who are all dependent on the town of Rye Iden 244 66

Camber 945 Camber & Coast Icklesham (Rye Harbour) 345 2014 -13 -1% 1 Forms a ward from the eastern coastal strip of villages dependent on Rye Icklesham (Winchelsea Beach) 724

Rye North Rye 2014 2014 -13 -1% 1 Rye Parish – all voters north of the railway line (current electorate 1911)

Rye South & Rye 1597 Rye Parish – all voters south of the railway line (current electorate1541) & Parish 2006 -21 -1% 1 Winchelsea Icklesham (Winchelsea) 409 ward of Winchelsea (Icklesham parish)

Icklesham (Icklesham) 867 Due to the geography and population distribution in the southern parishes, there has Icklesham & Pett Guestling (Guestling Green) 455 2108 81 4% 1 to be a split parish to even up numbers in wards. While undesirable, Guestling is Pett 786 suitable due to its location and make up

Guestling (Three Oaks) 390 Westfield 2122 95 5% 1 Divide Guestling into 3 wards Westfield (Westfield) 1732

Fairlight 1591 Fairlight 1964 -63 -3% 1 Divide Guestling into 3 wards Guestling (Hastings fringes) 373

Brede 1659 Brede 1983 -44 -2% 1 324

Beckley 934 Northiam 1901 The geography only allows for a 2 member ward, unless the parish of Northiam is split Northiam & Ewhurst (Ewhurst) 290 4225 171 4% 2 – which would be undesirable. This ward also links the neighbouring villages of Beckley Ewhurst () 784 Ewhurst and Bodiam which are currently divided, but have a long historic connection. Bodiam 316

Robertsbridge R&S (Robertsbridge) 2084 2084 57 3% 1 Robertsbridge village (less 100 electors in Salehurst village)

Ticehurst Ticehurst (Ticehurst ward) 2047 2047 20 1% 1 Ticehurst village

Hurst Green 1224 Forms a ward along the north of the major trunk road A21. The village of Salehurst Hurst Green & Ticehurst (Flimwell ward) 630 2013 -14 -1% 1 (around the church and pub) should be added to the polling district of Salehurst Flimwell Robertsbridge & S (Salehurst PD) 159 adding approx 100 electors.

Westfield ( Street) 256 1256 Sedlescombe 2149 122 6% 1 Forms a ward along the major trunk road A21 282 Westfield (Westfield Lane) 355

Ashburnham 309 Penhurst 42 & Catsfield 719 2037 10 0% 1 Forms a large rural ward of western villages Crowhurst Crowhurst 700 Dallington 267

Ticehurst (Stonegate) 434 Burwash Weald Burwash (Burwash Weald) 793 Instead of splitting the two villages of Burwash and Burwash Weald, these 2 wards 1994 -33 -2% 1 & Mountfield Brightling 328 could be joined to form a 2 member ward Mountfield 439

Burwash & Etchingham 662 Instead of splitting the two villages of Burwash and Burwash Weald, these 2 wards 2179 152 7% 1 Etchingham Burwash (Burwash) 1517 could be joined to form a 2 member ward

Battle (Telham) Battle South 1914 -113 -6% 1 Amend the ward boundaries in Battle Parish to form 3 equal wards Battle (Marley) PART 1914

Battle (Marley) PART Battle Central 1914 -113 -6% 1 Amend the ward boundaries in Battle Parish to form 3 equal wards Battle (Watch Oak) PART 1914

Battle (Watch Oak) PART Battle North 1914 -113 -6% 1 Amend the ward boundaries in Battle Parish to form 3 equal wards Battle (Netherfield) 1914

TOTALS 40711 40711 171 0% 20

Page 1