Parish and Town Council submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from parish and town councils

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

From: addington parish Sent: 12 July 2015 21:42 To: reviews Subject: New Electoral Arrangements for KCC

At the Parish Council meeting for Addington held on the 1 July 2015 Members asked me to object to the proposal to place Addington in the same electoral ward as Snodland.

Louise Goldsmith Clerk to Addington Parish Council

1

26 July 2015

By email to [email protected]

Dear Sirs,

New electoral arrangements for

We are writing to you on behalf of Badgers Mount Parish Council.

1. The new parish of Badgers Mount was created and came into existence on 1 April 2015, by virtue of the Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2014, dated 26 August 2014. The first elections to the newly formed Badgers Mount Parish Council were held in May 2015. We are a parish of 520 electors. Previously Badgers Mount had been a ward within the parish of Shoreham.

2. It appears that Badgers Mount Parish Council was omitted from the LGBCE’s consultation list in connection with the current review of electoral arrangements for Kent County Council. Presumably this was because our Parish Council did not exist at the time the original list of consultees was drawn up. We are grateful to you, therefore, for allowing us to submit our comments on the KCC electoral review at this late stage.

3. Our comments, which are explained further at paragraph 5 below, may be summarised quite simply as follows: we have a strong preference that the parish of Badgers Mount should remain, as it is at present, within the Darent Valley division.

4. We are aware that Sevenoaks District Council has submitted comments recommending that Badgers Mount should become, instead, part of the Sevenoaks West division. We do not support this recommendation from SDC. We comment further on this SDC recommendation at paragraph 6 below.

5. The reasons for our strong preference to remain within the Darent Valley division are as follows:

(a) Until April 2015, Badgers Mount was part of Shoreham parish, and despite our newly gained independence from Shoreham we retain many close links and continue to work closely together. There is a natural affinity between our two communities and we share many common interests.

(b) In particular, like Shoreham, the parish of Badgers Mount lies almost entirely within the Kent Downs AONB. The protected status afforded by the AONB is extremely important to the residents of Badgers Mount for many reasons, most notably the protection of our countryside and woodlands and the constraints it imposes on planning and development.

By contrast, the neighbouring village of Halstead to the west of Badgers Mount lies outside the AONB. For much of its length the boundary between the parishes of Badgers Mount and Halstead coincides precisely with the AONB boundary.

(c) Geographically, the village of Badgers Mount is situated at the gateway to the Darent Valley. The Parish Councils in the Darent Valley are members of a consortium – the Darent Valley Consortium – with the aim of co-operating on matters of common interest. Member Councils include Shoreham, Otford, Eynsford, Farningham, and Horton Kirby & South Darenth. Badgers Mount has a long history of successfully working together with these other communities. Matters of common interest include, for example, gypsy/traveller sites, minerals and waste sites, and neighbourhood planning. Badgers Mount used to be part of this consortium, prior to April 2015, by virtue of lying within Shoreham parish, and we are now in process of re-joining the consortium as an independent Parish Council in our own right. It would be bizarre for Badgers Mount to be a member of this Darent Valley consortium but not to be part of the Darent Valley division for KCC electoral purposes.

(d) Another matter which continues to link Badgers Mount with Shoreham is our joint interest in the eastern stretch of the M25 motorway, which cuts through both our parishes.

(e) For the past 10 years Badgers Mount has been well served – conspicuously well served - by the current Kent County Councillor for Darent Valley, Cllr Roger Gough. Cllr Gough has provided invaluable support to local residents and the local community over many issues, including planning, highways, education, and transport. He is assiduous in attending and speaking at local meetings, and in attending to local needs. He is highly regarded by the residents of Badgers Mount. Whilst there is of course no guarantee of his continuing to represent Darent Valley following the 2017 elections, local residents would be extremely dismayed to lose the services of such an excellent councillor solely as a result of boundary changes.

6. Turning to the Sevenoaks DC recommendation that Badgers Mount should become part of the Sevenoaks West division, we feel this may possibly be the product of some faulty electoral arithmetic. We believe SDC has suggested including Badgers Mount within Sevenoaks West solely to meet the requirements of electoral equality. We do of course understand the need to keep electoral variances to a minimum, below 10% if possible, but we think it possible that the size of the electorates in Dunton Green and Halstead (both lying within the SDC’s recommended Sevenoaks West division) projected for 2020 may be significantly understated, possibly by as much as 1000 – 1500, as a result of major housing developments. In Dunton Green a major housing development of 500 homes is already in progress, and is currently less than 50% completed; an increase in the electorate of at least 500-600 may be anticipated by 2020. In Halstead, the SDC Local Development Framework anticipates granting permission for residential development of up to 450 homes, and a planning application of just this size is currently awaiting determination by the District Council; an increase in the electorate of, say, 500-900 is therefore to be expected in due course. Taken together, these major increases in the projected electorate would

comprehensively obviate the need to include Badgers Mount in the Sevenoaks West division as suggested by SDC.

7. In conclusion, we would like to re-iterate that Badgers Mount Parish Council has a strong preference for the parish to remain within the Darent Valley division.

Yours truly,

Cllr Roy Blamey - Chairman, Badgers Mount Parish Council Cllr John Grint Cllr Tracey McCartney Cllr Gordon Plumb Cllr Noel Wills

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Andy Hudson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Bapchild Parish Council

Comment text:

Bapchild Parish Council would wholeheartedly like to support the recommended changes proposed changes in the . Geographically this makes significantly more sense than the present ward boundary arrangement which currently presents problems when trying to cover too wide an area with many competing and disparate concerns. To illustrate this point Bapchild Parish is about to facilitate the next phase of the urban expansion of Sittingbourne and obviously therefore our issues differ vastly from those parishes on the periphery of the borough. Obviously we do not wish to be integrated into central Sittingbourne and clearly whilst it is difficult to satisfy everyone, the suggested changes are probably about as good as we might have hoped for. It has been brought to our attention that some quarters are suggesting the formation of some super Swale East ward spanning three motorway junctions from the A249 corridor in the east to Dunkirk in the west. This would be totally unacceptable and should the Boundary Commission entertain such an idea we do hope that a further public consultation would take place to provide our residents an opportunity to make their own representations on any modifications borne out of this consultation. However on the basis of the consultation in front of us now, we fully endorse the recommended changes.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5630 06/07/2015

Dear Mr. Cooper,

Please find attached a letter setting out the views of Parish Council.

I am also informed that our current County Member, Cllr. Carole Waters, "endorses the submission in its entirety and considers that we do need to reduce the number of electors and have some parity but she does not wish 'to lose' any Romney Marsh villages as a consequence".

Yours sincerely,

John Rich Clerk to Burmarsh Parish Council.

1

2 of 3 poor levels of electoral equality. In these cases the Commission will use its discretion and the quality of the evidence presented to it to come to a conclusion”.

Burmarsh Parish Council respectfully submits that this is a case where the pursuit of maximum electoral equality has resulted in a draft recommendation that conflicts with and over-rides the other criteria of reflecting local identities and promoting effective local government.

The Parish Council requests the Commission to consider a revised proposal which would include the parishes of Newchurch, Burmarsh and the rural part of St. Mary in the Marsh in the proposed division of Romney Marsh.

Electoral Equality

The Commission aims to avoid any of its proposed new divisions having an overall electoral variance of greater than 10% from the target averages of 13,490 in 2014 and 14,288 in 20202. The new divisions proposed by the commission achieve this very closely, with just 1% variance in Hythe West in 2020 and 2% in Romney Marsh. The Parish Council contends that this statistical objective has only been achieved by overlooking the community identity and effective local government issues.

Polling districts RM1, 5 & 6 (i.e. the parishes of Burmarsh and Newchurch and part of the parish of St. Mary in the Marsh) represent just 706 voters in 2014 and a forecast of 724 in 2020. If these were added to the proposed Romney Marsh division instead of Hythe West the new variance is calculated as 9% in 2014 and 7% in 2020; in the proposed Hythe West the variances become -2% and -4%. These figures are still within the Commission's target of 10% and are no different to the variances proposed in other parts of the county.

Transport Links

The review report states as a justification that the recommendation to combine marsh communities with the western part of Hythe is based on a proposal received during consultation and that there are good transport links and community ties.

The justification for linking with Hythe because of transport links is absolutely true. It lies on the A259 trunk road with a frequent bus service connection with Hythe and the main road is kept open by Highways throughout the winter weather.

The exact opposite is true for Burmarsh, Newchurch and St. Mary in the Marsh. What these communities have in common with other Romney Marsh villages is no daily bus services and minor country lanes which do not receive priority maintenance and are not on Highways' main gritting schedule.

Community Identity

It is difficult to overstate the sense of identity of Romney Marsh. People that live in these villages know clearly that their village is on Romney Marsh and that Hythe and are definitely not.

3 of 3

The Royal Mail recognises Romney Marsh as a “post town” for delivery purposes; the marsh has its own website, its own flag, its own newsletter and separate pages in the local paper. In all of these Burmarsh, Newchurch and St. Mary in the Marsh are recognised as an integral part of Romney Marsh.

As stated in our earlier submission, “residents of the village access local facilities such as smaller shops, GP surgeries, leisure facilities and organisations in Dymchurch and . They consider themselves to be part of the rural community rather than part of the urban areas of Hythe and ”

Effective and convenient local government

One of the initial consultation responses seeks to ensure that “the rural communities have common ground”. Another emphasises that “the Romney Marsh requires solid representation by councillors who care about a rural community”. Burmarsh Parish Council agrees that it will be most effectively represented by a Member who understands the issues of small isolated rural villages.

Another initial consultation response refers to “the previous problems faced by the single member for the old division of Romney Marsh who faced dealing with a vast number of communities and parish councils within a large geographical area”. The experience of Burmarsh Councillors is quite different, having worked effectively in the recent past with three different holders of the post who all lived on the marsh and understood the problems and how to work well with many small parishes over a large area. A representative whose main electorate is in the more urban area of Hythe would not be as effective.

There is a regular meeting of Romney Marsh Councillors with their County Member and to exclude Burmarsh, Newchurch and St. Mary in the Marsh from these forums for consideration of common issues would be very inconvenient.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the LGBCE proposal is the confusion which would be caused for the electors themselves leading to even further disengagement with local government. Burmarsh electors would question why they are asked to vote for representatives in Hythe and not the Romney Marsh.

Finally, the commission's own review proposals appear a little inconsistent – in their recent review of Shepway the ward which includes Newchurch, Burmarsh and St. Mary in the Marsh was given the name of Romney Marsh, but in this review of Kent, that name is moved south to another part of Romney Marsh. If local government is to be effective and convenient it needs to display clarity and consistency in its arrangements.

Thank you for your attention to our views.

Yours sincerely,

John Rich

From: Lori Ham Sent: 24 June 2015 09:52 To: reviews Subject: Comments from Cranbrook & Sissinghurst Parish Council

Good Morning With reference to your letter dated 12th May 2015, the content of which was discussed at a Full Council Meeting on 11th June 2015. Our response was agreed as follows:

It is proposed that in principle we should welcome the reduction in Councillors and the move towards equalising the constituencies, without prejudice to any individual case.

This motion was carried.

Kindest regards Lori Ham Deputy Clerk Cranbrook & Sissinghurst Parish Council

1

From: DYMCHURCH PARISH COUNCIL Sent: 09 June 2015 12:06 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Kent County Council: Draft Recommendations

Dear Sirs,

Dymchurch Parish Council met on 8th June, 2015, and discussed the draft recommendations for an electoral review of Kent County Council.

The council was unanimous in its view on the recommendations and I have been asked to forward these for your attention.

The district council has recently undergone a review by LGBC that recommended Burmarsh, Dymchurch, Newchurch and St. Mary in the Marsh become a new ward known as Romney Marsh, which has been implemented. The draft recommendation for an electoral review of Kent County Council recommends the same parishes now form a Hythe West division. This is totally confusing for the electorate and is unacceptable.

The parish council is of a view that one representative has successfully represented the Romney Marsh area in the past and a change to the current situation is unwelcome. Romney Marsh has unique issues and needs a representative from Romney Marsh to represent it at county level. The parish council is of a view that it would not be well represented by a councillor representing Hythe West. KCC Councillors have not complained that their area is too large and to change the structure for an administrative purpose is unwelcomed.

The draft recommendation suggests a neighbouring parish council (St. Mary in the Marsh) be divided for the purpose of electoral review and Dymchurch Parish Council strongly objects to any parish council being divided for administrative purposes.

The parish council objects strongly to the draft recommendations.

Yours truly,

Gillian H. Smith Clerk to Dymchurch Parish Council

1

From: EM&L Parish Council Sent: 03 July 2015 15:30 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Kent County Council Wards

To the Review Officer (Kent),

I refer to our letter dated the 8th June 2015 and the hard copy of your proposals.

This parish, East Malling & Larkfield, has for many years been joined with West Malling parish to form a single member ward for KCC purposes prior to that in the 1970’s it was linked to Ditton parish.

It notes the proposal that the area of the Ditton North Parish Ward be added to the existing Malling Central to create a better electoral balance. This parish council supports this proposal as the Ditton North Parish Ward abuts the Larkfield Wards and the “Larkfield Green” (or “Trees Estate”) as it is called locally is split between Ditton and Larkfield. Oak Drive serves as the sole connecting road through the estate with one part in Larkfield and the rest in Ditton North connecting through to Bell Lane and Fernleigh Rise, also in Ditton North.

Ditton North has its own polling station at Cobdown, Station Road and no doubt voters could continue to use it for all elections.

We understand that Ditton Parish Council have objected as they understandably would prefer the parish not to be split between two county councillors. This council understands the point but feel there is no other obvious proposal which would meet the Commissions remit of trying to achieve electoral balance across the Malling seats and recognise local ties.

It is understood the Borough Council has also objected in support of Ditton Parish Council.

We therefore support the proposals for the revised Malling Central Ward.

Yours sincerely

Syretta Hooker Assistant Clerk to East Malling & Larkfield Parish Council –

1

From: Richard & Gale Sent: 11 July 2015 16:44 To: reviews Cc: Heather James Subject: Kent

Egerton Parish Council wishes to comment on the proposed changes to the Kent County Council constituencies that is being undertaken to reduce the number of KCC members from 84 to 81.

In connection with the Ashord Rural West constituency, it is proposed that Smarden be moved to the Tenterden constituency. Egerton Parish Council believe it would make better sense to leave Smarden within Ashford Rural West as Smarden and Egerton share the same Borough councillor, and instead move High Halden to the Tenterden constituency. In our view High Halden has a far greater synergy with Tenterden than Smarden, with Smarden being closer and having more in common with the other villages in Ashford Rural West (Pluckley, Egerton etc.) than with Tenterden. High Halden, being much closer, naturally looks towards Tenterden and St, Michaels, it also has a regular bus service to Tenterden. Smarden has bus to Ashford ‐ through the rest of Ashord Rural West, but there is no bus from Smarden to Tenterden. The populations are similar ‐ High Halden is slightly higher with around 300 more residents.

Egerton's main interest, though is that Smarden and Egerton currently share the same Borough councillor and County Councillor, and we view this as a sensible arrangement which we would not wish to see change.

Smarden Parish Council share this view.

I also have personal experience of the Ashford Rural West County Constituency, as I was the County Councillor for this Constituency from 1997 to 2013.

Richard King Chairman Egerton Parish Council

1

This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Town Council. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify Faversham Town Council on telephone +44 (0)1795 594 443 or e-mail to [email protected]

2 From: Faversham Town Council To: Local Government Boundary Commission Date: 1 July 2015

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND: ELECTORAL REVIEW FOR KENT

1. Issue This paper is Faversham Town Council’s response to section of LGBCE’s draft recommendations for Kent County Council. It argues that the arrangements proposed for Faversham are unnecessary for LGBCE’s three statutory criteria or contrary to them.

This submission shows how the Commission has misinformed itself, and it seeks merely the retention of the existing division pattern around Faversham, rather than the big and unnecessary shake-up laid out in the Commission’s draft recommendations.

2. Consideration The Commission’s draft recommendations in relation to the existing Faversham division and existing Swale East division appear unnecessary for reasons of either electoral equality in any division or for “doughnut” considerations (once the situation on the ground is understood). The Commission’s recommendations appear at odds with the Commission’s three statutory criteria:

□ Equality of representation (proposed changes are not needed for this) □ Reflecting community interests and identities (proposals damage these significantly) □ Providing for convenient and effective local government (proposals are contrary to this)

Equality of Representation ► A Faversham division with variance of less than 6% above average can, as shown by Labour’s submission to the division pattern consultation, be kept as part of a largely maintained Swale mainland arrangement that nevertheless transfers relatively urban Murston Ward from its present rural Swale East division and into an urban Sittingbourne division, a transfer sought by the Commission in its August 2003 draft recommendations. Equally, the existing Faversham division can be retained under Conservative KCC’s preferred Swale arrangement, under which Murston would stay in the existing Swale East.

► Adverse effects of the scheme on which the Commission is consulting include the fact that the 42.4% of voters spread across rural parishes covering 98.4% of the area of the proposed new Mid Swale (which is more than 10 miles from end to end) risk being swamped by a Faversham element constituting 57.6 per cent of the new division’s electorate and concentrated at its eastern edge in a discrete Faversham urban block covering only 1.6% of the new division’s land area.

Reflecting community interests ► Many people in Faversham are astonished that there should be any consideration of chopping their town in two when it is so clearly a community of itself and when there is no electoral equality imperative from any division to alter it. The Commission seems to have taken this view in 2004 and nothing has changed to justify a different conclusion.

Providing for convenient and effective local government ► The proposal of the Local Government Boundary Commission to split the Faversham division and radically reshape certain other division arrangements for Swale appears to be based on the Commission misinforming itself about the geography and the electoral situation north of Faversham, which are very unusual if not unique, with a division boundary running through a sea channel.

► Faversham should stay a county division without addition or subtraction. It is coterminous with the Faversham Town Council area, which is very much a community, and an unaltered division would be well within the electorate variance stated as acceptable by the Local Government Boundary Commission in its draft recommendations.

3. Detailed consideration Equality of Representation A: Commission’s ‘doughnut’ worry not relevant here B: Risk of Faversham block outweighing a dispersed rural vote C: Other drawbacks of splitting Faversham (mix of equality of representation and effective local government)

Reflecting community interests and identities D: Faversham is a community and ought not to be split E: What makes Faversham a community F: Swale East identity

Effective local government G: Faversham works as a division that should be retained H: Watling Ward names (See also C: Other drawbacks of splitting Faversham (mix of equality of representation and effective local government))

Other I: Commission inconsistency

A Commission’s ‘doughnut’ worry not relevant here The Commission’s objection to doughnut-shape divisions, which it seeks to apply to the existing Swale East division encircling Faversham, is not relevant here because of the facts on the ground (and in the water).

The Commission states that its objection to doughnut divisions is based on the view that electors in a segment of an outer circle have more in common with electors in the adjoining segment of inner circle than they do with other people on the far side of the outer circle.

This consideration is, however, simply not applicable here because the part of the existing Swale East division north of Faversham is virtually uninhabited and uninhabitable.

Although Swale East looks like a classic doughnut situation on diagrammatic maps, the reality is very different on the ground north of Faversham, whose civil parish boundary goes as far north as Hollowshore, where Faversham Creek and Oare Creek meet.

The area of the existing Swale East division north of the Faversham boundary, which is the area that visually completes the supposed doughnut, consists of expanses of Faversham Creek and Oare Creek southward to their mid-way points, the south-to-north section of the merged creeks, the farmed Nagden Marshes, ’s wetland reserve, its South Swale reserve in parish and an expanse of the sea strait or channel known as The Swale to its midpoint between mainland Kent and the Isle of Sheppey.

Indeed, about half of the width of the supposed Swale East doughnut north of Faversham is this arm of sea between the Isle of Sheppey and the Kent mainland.

The land takes in the KWT South Swale reserve (designated Environmentally Sensitive Area, Local Nature Reserve, Ramsar, SSSI and Special Protection Area), and the KWT Oare Marshes reserve (designated Environmentally Sensitive Area, Local Nature Reserve, Ramsar, SSSI and SPA).

This slice of Swale East outer circle of tidal water, mudflats, marshland and farmland within the parish of Oare and the parish of Graveney with Goodnestone north of the Faversham boundary is not inhabited and nor, because of flood risk, protective designations and the boggy nature of most of the land, is it ever going to be. The Commission’s concern about doughnuts, if based on the relationships of communities as the Commission states, is simply not relevant here in the absence of residents.

In addition, if there were electors in this land south of the Swale tidal channel in the supposed northern doughnut section of the present Swale East division, they would have no community connection with the north of Faversham because this land is separated from Faversham by Oare Creek and Faversham Creek. In any case, the northern part of the Faversham division bounded by Oare Creek and Faversham Creek and running as far north as Hollowshore is, from about where Ham Road and Oare Road meet, largely quarry, lakes, farmland and Ham Marshes, bisected by waterways, heightening the character of this area as a huge uninhabited space that, looking at things on the landscape scale, extends across The Swale to the southeast of the Isle of Sheppey.

The pattern of virtually no habitation south of The Swale to a line of latitude running through the northern edge of the Faversham civil parish also applies eastwards and westwards, prevailing for the whole 5.5-mile stretch from the village of Conyer in the west to the Swale East division’s boundary with the proposed Whitstable West division on Graveney Marshes.

This absence of habitation can be seen from the Ordnance Survey map carrying the Commission’s proposed boundary lines that is presented as part of the Kent review on the Commission website. The absence of habitation can also be seen from Google Maps (either Map or Satellite setting) or, of course, from walking the territory, as hundreds of birdwatchers and serious leisure walkers do, drawn by the unspoilt sweeping flatlands of the and their atmosphere of remoteness.

B Risk of Faversham block outweighing a dispersed rural vote Faversham is a cohesive, market-town community with housing built to quite high density, much of it in Victorian terraces. Putting half of Faversham residents in a new division with a large number of small villages spread over a large area could mean that the Faversham element of the division effectively swamps the rest. The Faversham element of the proposed new Mid Swale division would be 57.6% (the proportion of electors from the Faversham wards of St Ann’s, Priory and the western half of Watling totalling 8,313 out of a Mid Swale 14,439 on the Commission’s 2020 figures).

The 57.6% of the proposed Mid Swale division’s electors who would be Faversham residents in a tight geographical area could easily vote on the basis of a particular issue that means nothing to the people in the proposed division’s swath of rural parishes stretching 10 miles to the west of Faversham and two miles west of Sittingbourne.

In the absence of any necessity to alter the Faversham division, it is not rational to split the town and create a grossly flawed Mid Swale division that has 57.6% of its electorate coming from a discrete urban area that amounts to only 1.6% of the division’s land area on its extreme eastern edge and which is intertwined as a community with the rest of its town of Faversham to its east.

This all leaves the proposed Mid Swale weighted towards a Faversham portion that looks east to the other half of Faversham and to Canterbury. If an issue arose in Faversham that caught people’s imaginations and perhaps led to a Faversham political grouping contesting county elections, the rural parishes could be effectively be excluded from meaningful involvement in an election decided in half of Faversham on Faversham issues.

Residents of Bredgar parish in the far west of the proposed Mid Swale seem to have a particularly poor deal. Not only are they on the edge of the Swale district with a rather untidy road-bisecting Swale/Maidstone boundary and Bredgar/Stockbury parish boundary, they are now proposed to be in a county division dominated by a concentration of Faversham electors 10 miles away, as the crow flies, at the other end of the division.

This bad mix of urban and rural is being created at a time when urban Murston Ward is proposed to be joined with urban Sittingbourne to end the urban/rural mismatch that it represents within rural Swale East and that it would represent with the rural villages of the proposed Mid Swale division.

On the one hand, the Commission envisages a change for Murston to tidy up one urban/rural mismatch, and on the other it seeks creation of two urban/rural mismatches with its proposal for a Mid Swale and a Swale East that each consist of rural parishes plus a half of Faversham town.

The Commission’s reshaped Swale East division, at present a logical community of only rural parishes (leaving aside Murston Ward), would be another awkward mix of urban and rural, consisting of a Faversham element of 50.9% of the electorate (2020 figures), with 49.1% of the electorate from a number of rural parishes.

As with the proposed Mid Swale, although to a lesser extent, Faversham electors from a relatively small area likely to be concerned about the same town issues would constitute the majority of the new-style Swale East division’s electorate against rural electors less likely to have issues in common across their various villages, apart from a general rural identity.

An urban hotspot containing 50.9% of electors in about 3% of the division’s area right on its north-western edge in Faversham and looking to the rest of Faversham for its community identity would make the proposed revamped Swale East a poor mix of town and country.

C Other drawbacks of splitting Faversham 1) The Faversham division, coterminous with Faversham town and wholly within the Faversham & Mid Kent parliamentary constituency, would be split into two approximate halves and combined with rural areas in the Sittingbourne & Sheppey parliamentary constituency. This would reduce the prospect of efficient and understandable representation at all levels. The number of Swale KCC divisions that include areas of both Faversham & Mid Kent and Sittingbourne & Sheppey would increase from one (the existing Swale East) to two (the new Mid Swale and the new Swale East).

2) The draft recommendation would unnecessarily split a town that works well numerically as a division and would create two essentially new divisions that are an illogical mix of urban and rural wards. This is the last thing that people living in these areas would propose and it would leave voters confused and feeling less engaged with the electoral process. As KCC has told the Commission, those Swale East parish councils that it has been possible to consult have been opposed to a merger with any part of urban Faversham.

Faversham would be split (and in a somewhat fiddly way in the Forbes Road/Kingsnorth Road/London Road area) and town neighbourhoods would be split in order for half to be put into a new Mid Swale division that extends west of the town of Sittingbourne. Thus, the western half of Faversham would be wrenched out of Faversham and joined not merely with parts of the existing Swale East rural division to the west of Faversham but also with a big slice of the existing Swale West rural division that lies beyond the existing Swale East. The Commission’s proposed new arrangement for west Faversham effectively leapfrogs the bulk of an existing county division and links Faversham with what is on the far side of that division.

In the absence of numerical need in respect of any of the divisions and with the doughnut issue not relevant, granted that the Swale East water and land north of Faversham are virtually uninhabited and uninhabitable, it seems neither rational nor in line with the statutory criteria to split compact Faversham and link half with a division of very different nature and extending to the other side of Sittingbourne.

Placing eastern Faversham (Abbey Ward and the east of Watling Ward) in the new-form Swale East also creates a bad urban/rural mismatch.

3) This treatment of Faversham is the opposite of what is being proposed in the Sittingbourne area, where it is proposed that urban Sittingbourne and the rural areas of Sittingbourne should be separate. This may be part of the reason that a split Faversham is proposed to be tied up to Sittingbourne area villages even as far as villages west of Sittingbourne. In fact, the statutory criteria of community and electoral equality can be better maintained by either adopting the Labour model of retaining the existing divisions, altered only by placing the urban Murston Ward into the Sittingbourne division with which it is contiguous and making other minor adjustments in Sittingbourne, or by following Conservative KCC’s model for retaining present patterns.

4) At present each of the four Faversham wards has coterminosity for Swale Council and Faversham Town Council. This has been maintained through all boundary revisions since wards were introduced in Faversham in 1967 and Swale was created in 1974. For the sake of the proposed unnecessary splitting of Faversham between two county divisions, the Commission is considering splitting the Swale/FTC ward of Watling into two town council wards of Watling Ospringe and Watling Preston. Since elections for Swale and the town council take place on the same day, this would be confusing for residents at election time as well as between elections.

5) The suggested town council ward names of ‘Watling Ospringe’ and ‘Watling Preston’ present problems. i) ‘Watling Ospringe’ may lead to confusion with the adjoining Ospringe Parish Council. Indeed, the Ospringe parish includes houses in Brogdale Road and Water Lane that were within Watling Ward and within the town council area before boundary changes in the 1980s. ii) ‘Watling Preston’ presents some scope for confusion since Priory Ward contains the large social housing development, from Barnfield Road to Upper Brents, known as the North Preston Estate (with the North Preston Allotments). Faversham also has a Preston Street, which is in the town-centre part of Abbey Ward, and is well-known because it is effectively Faversham’s high street.

6) The proposed split of Watling is untidy on the ground, pursuing a line all around the houses in the Forbes Road / Kingsnorth Road area. That line may suffice for polling districts within a district council ward but not for a boundary between county divisions. The line falls short of the “strong, clearly identifiable boundaries” that the Commission says it must try to recommend for divisions it puts forward. The line wiggling its way through Faversham north of Watling Ward is similarly inadequate for a county division boundary.

D Faversham is a community and ought not to be split The Commission’s draft proposal is to split Faversham and to put into the proposed new Swale East division the ward of Abbey and the eastern end of Watling Ward and to put into the proposed new Mid Swale division the wards of Priory and St Ann’s and the western end of Watling Ward.

Faversham is a real and cohesive community as a relatively compact, quite densely populated market town with a town council and a lively political culture. It makes a natural county division.

It should not be split, and a split is not required by any of the Commission’s statutory criteria, which are best served by its retention. Indeed, splitting Faversham and creating the urban/rural divisions of the proposed Swale East and Mid Swale is completely at odds with the community criterion.

The Commission usually uses parishes as building blocks for county divisions. Here, the Faversham division is identical to the Faversham civil parish and yet the proposal is to split this community in two and indeed to split an existing Faversham Town Council ward.

The concerns of Faversham residents are likely to be different from those of residents of the rural area with which it is proposed to link the two halves of the unnecessarily split town.

When there are Labour and KCC schemes that would essentially preserve familiar county divisions and maintain good electoral equality and clearly identifiable, established boundaries, it appears strange that the Commission should be consulting on a scheme involving major restructuring with the splitting of Faversham and the creation of two new urban/rural wards that fail as communities.

E What makes Faversham a community A combination of plenty of social activity and the compactness of the built-up town mean that Faversham functions well as a community. Its compactness is indicated by the fact that one need walk for only 10 or 15 minutes from the town centre (Guildhall) in any direction to reach the edge of the built-up area.

Within this very walkable community, most everyday services and facilities can be found, in the form of shops, banks, junior and secondary schools, public library and registration of births and deaths, and a major railway station with HS1 services, as well as (and all run by various local charities) a swimming pool, a small theatre, a gym and a £3m community centre. Good bus services exist in Faversham, with useful circuits now provided within the town, but these are on routes to other towns, with links to the villages generally being poor. Taxis are well used in the town, with any trip within town being quite short and thus not too costly.

This all makes for a very self-sufficient community, and it benefits from having a wide range of social groups. The Faversham Society is one of the most active civic groups and local history societies in Britain, with more than 1,000 members, of whom more than a tenth are active volunteers.

There is a strong political culture in Faversham and, whereas the rural parish councils sometimes struggle to attract enough candidates to necessitate elections or even to form a council quorum, town council elections have always been contested since the town council succeeded Faversham Borough Council in 1974. In May 2015, town council seats were contested by Conservative, Labour, Green and independent candidates.

The western parts of Faversham proposed for the new Mid Swale division have a strong neighbourhood identity of their own, with a focal point in the West Faversham Community Centre (run by the West Faversham Community Association). The Brents Community Association was set up in 2013 by residents of the Brents area of west Faversham, including North Preston Estate, “to provide a voice for the local community and to promote continuous improvement of the area”.

Beyond their own western Faversham, the residents do not look to the villages of the proposed Mid Swale but look eastward to the rest of Faversham, which has the shopping streets, the swimming pool, the library etc. In so far as they need to look beyond their own town for things, Faversham people tend to go not to Sittingbourne but to Canterbury for shopping, education, entertainment and healthcare.

The eastern parts of Faversham proposed for the new Swale East are integral to the town, containing facilities such as the shopping streets, the library, the post office, the swimming pool and the railway station.

F Swale East identity The existing rural Swale East appears to work well as a division, sharing a countryside identity and with its parishes all being in the Swale Rural Forum, which Faversham is not.

The rural parishes of the existing Swale East have a long history of being together, having all been in the former Swale Rural District Council before 1974, as were villages in the proposed new Swale West and the proposed new Mid Swale.

The villages relate to each other far more than they do to Faversham or to Sittingbourne, a point that seems to be recognised by the Commission’s draft recommendations for the Sittingbourne area, but not with regard to Faversham.

G Faversham works as a division that should be retained Faversham should not be split and does not need to be split to achieve the average KCC electorate size nor to allow any other division to achieve the requisite electoral size. Nor is the split necessary for either Labour’s or Conservative KCC’s suggested treatments of Murston Ward and West Downs.

Faversham’s county councillor is the only directly elected person representing Faversham rather than representing only a part of it or something wider than it. This is valued by residents and makes for convenient and effective representation. The Faversham division is understood, as might be expected for a division that has existed with only minor tweaks since the creation of Kent County Council in 1889. It is part of the local political culture that the town is the same as the division, and this makes for understandability and encourages interest in county elections.

The present situation of Faversham having one county councillor who represents nothing more nor less than Faversham provides the greatest possible clarity for the public on who to contact on KCC issues. Under the Commission’s draft recommendations, a split Faversham would have two county councillors, neither of whom would have ‘Faversham’ in his or her division’s name, but instead Swale East or Mid Swale. Faversham people would be much less clear as to which division they were in and the rather complicated proposed boundary allows of no snappy phrase to inform them.

H Watling Ward names In the event that the Commission proceeds with its proposals relating to Faversham, it would be preferable that the names of the two town council wards formed out of Watling Ward should not be ‘Watling Preston’ and ‘Watling Ospringe’, but ‘Watling East’ and ‘Watling West’. This would avoid scope for confusion with Ospringe Parish Council (discussed above), and would make for briefer names.

“Watling” is already a geographical identifier, pointing to the area of the Roman Watling Street, and there is reasonable awareness of the area meant by Watling Ward, which has not changed greatly since wards were introduced in 1967.

Watling is also part of a Faversham set of Swale/town ward names, Watling, St Ann’s, Abbey and Priory, that each point to an area and a piece of history. Adding ‘East’ and ‘West’ to Watling would be less disruptive to the set.

I Commission inconsistency Back in 2003, the Commission accepted in draft recommendations the retention of the Faversham division without addition or subtraction, saying that it was “adopting the County Council’s proposed Faversham, Sheppey and Sittingbourne South divisions as we consider that they would provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity while reflecting community identities and interests”. The Commission was right then with regard to Faversham and is wrong now.

The Commission considered in 2003 that in western Swale, “better separation of the urban and rural areas could be provided, by combining Kemsley borough ward with Milton Regis and Murston borough wards to comprise a Sittingbourne North division”. This is achieved in the Commission’s present draft recommendations and there is no rationale for simultaneously and unnecessarily worsening separation of urban and rural areas to a far bigger extent by forming the proposed new Swale East and new Mid Swale.

The Commission’s final recommendation (2004) said: “We generally seek to avoid combining urban and rural areas, but we acknowledge that it is not always possible to avoid the creation of divisions which contain diverse communities. In this instance, on balance, we consider that the inclusion of Murston ward in the proposed Swale East division is justified.” This time round, the balance seems to have tilted against retaining an urban/rural combination through keeping Murston in Swale East, but a far worse urban/rural mismatch is created with urban Faversham being combined with villages in the rural areas around Sittingbourne and around Faversham.

The draft recommendations say that the proposed Mid Swale includes western Faversham wards “along with the rural parishes between Faversham and Sittingbourne either side of the A2”. This underplays the extent to which Mid Swale would run far south of the A2, going south of Sittingbourne, and, indeed, south of the M2, and would also stretch west of Sittingbourne.

The western end of the proposed Mid Swale would tend to access services and KCC services in Sittingbourne, whereas the eastern end would tend towards Faversham.

Jackie Westlake OBE Town Clerk, Faversham Town Council 1 July 2015

From: Georgina Wilson Sent: 08 July 2015 10:05 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Kent

Dear whom it may concern

The Folkestone Town Council Planning Committee have considered this proposal and please see below their comments:

The Committee broadly supports the individual Councillors comments attached but in particular the Committee is unhappy that the proposed ward for Cheriton, Sandgate and Hythe East is a m ixture of villages and districts with very little in common and should be changed. The Shorncliffe development and others will expand the area considerably by 2020. The Committee felt that the existing KCC ward boundaries are far more logical for Folkestone and should be revised as little as possible.

Proposed: Councillor Roger West Seconded: Councillor Sue Wallace Voting: F:9, Ag:0, Ab:0

The comments referred to where received from individual Councillors and are below:

I have looked at the proposals, but could not find any specific suggestions that would change the FTC ward set up ‐ have I missed it?

On the division suggestions for the KCC itself they are the only too familiar bodge job that the LGBCE seem to specialise in; for example in the suggested Cheriton, Sandgate and Division they are suggesting that communities like and Pedlinge are linkable with communities like the Golden Valley and Cheriton High Street.

As this is the final 'consultation' before they announce their final decision I do not see any real likelihood that they will take any notice anyway; unless there are other Parish/Town Councils that are going to challenge the LGBCE, that we can join.

Based on the last time, our own Council certainly does not seem to be interested in taking any action which would have any significant costs ‐ such as a judicial review.

Cheers,

Paul Marsh

Hi Cheriton seems they are going backwards we have just got the electorate to accept one ward now they want to revert to 2 wards Roger & Pat West

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Guy Foster

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Fordwich Town Counci

Comment text:

Fordwich Town Council wishes to object strongly to the proposal which would see Fordwich split from Sturry and Hersden. Our case is set out in the uploaded letter. Guy Foster Fordwich Town Clerk

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5517 03/07/2015

 History: for very many years, Fordwich has “looked towards” Sturry, as must be evident from the foregoing. The town of Fordwich and the village of Sturry are, to all intents and purposes, parts of the same place. In contrast, the current proposals would link Fordwich with villages with which it traditionally has had no links and with which it shares little of common interest.

With only 312 projected electors for Fordwich, moving the area back into the Herne (Village) and Sturry ward would make little difference to numbers, albeit increasing this ward’s total electoral roll close to, but not beyond, the limits of acceptability.

There is also the wider option of reinstating the eight historic ward divisions in the Canterbury area, which would mean leaving six of these almost unchanged.

Given the stated objectives of preserving the natural links between rural parishes, it surely can make no sense to split Fordwich from Sturry. Fordwich Town Council urges you not to introduce such a split but to maintain the important and historic community links between Fordwich and Sturry.

Yours faithfully,

Guy Foster Fordwich Town Clerk

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Janet Larkinson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Harbledown and Rough Common Parish Council

Comment text:

I write on behalf of Harbledown and Rough Common Parish Council,Canterbury. We are in agreement with the proposed boundaries,and wish to remain as a whole parish in Canterbury North. We understand that there are some views expressed which would split our parish as has recently occurred in the new Canterbury City Council ward boundaries. Janet Larkinson, Harbledown and Rough Common Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5564 06/07/2015

From: JAN KINZETT Sent: 06 July 2015 12:42 To: reviews; Subject: Electorial Review of Kent ‐ Draft Recommendations

I have looked at the recommendations for boundary changes. Given that Maidstone East Rural (33 on the proposed plan) is exactly the same as the current set up Headcorn Parish Council does not want you to consider any changes. I understand that this means we will still have one KCC councillor who will represent us.

Kind Regards

Councillor Jan Kinzett

1

From: Higham Parish Council Sent: 06 July 2015 03:47 To: reviews Subject: Ellectoral Review of Kent

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the Parishioners of Higham in the Gravesham Constituency in Kent I wish to object to Higham being placed in zone 28 (Gravesend North) in your draft recommendations. Higham is one of the six Gravesham Rural Parishes, the remainder of which will still be classed as Gravesham Rural by virtue of the fact that they lie on the other side of the A226 which has clearly been used as the marker for this zone.

By placing Higham in zone 28 you will do it an injustice as it is a rural area leading down to the Higham Marshes so loved by Charles Dickens who was a resident of the village. To pair it with the urban fringe of Gravesend (Chalk) is a complete mismatch and would certainly not reflect local community interests and identities.

Higham should be left in Gravesham Rural as at present as it has its own Parish Council. whereas Chalk is part of urban Gravesend and administered by Gravesham Borough Council.

Kind regards,

Linda Carnall Clerk to Higham Parish Council.

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Pamela Gow

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Hildenborough Parish Council

Comment text:

Hildenborough Parish Council would like to reiterate its previous comments that they would prefer to stay in the same area as at present (Malling West) for the following reasons: 1. The area is of a similar rural nature throughout. 2. The needs of the area are very different to those of the local large towns (Tonbridge and Sevenoaks) and consequently the Parish Council would not want to be included with either of these areas. 3. The councillor of a rural location will have very different demands on their time and resources to those of a large urban area with the needs of villages being overlooked. 4. Town councillors do not have an understanding of the importance of protecting the rural environment, keeping village schools, providing suitable road systems and public transport, public services as well as encouraging suitable rural housing and business development.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5433 25/06/2015

From: Sent: 26 May 2015 20:16 To: reviews Cc: RodneyChartres Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW

Dear Laura

Thank you for the information about the draft proposals. Ightham Parish Council would like the electoral arrangements to stay as they are.

Kind Regards Sarah Hüseyin Parish Clerk, Ightham Parish Council

1

From: Peter Andrews Sent: 22 July 2015 11:56

Subject: DRAFT RECOMMEDATIONS ON THE NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR KENT COUNTY COUNCIL

On behalf of the Luddenham Parish Meeting, I am writing to oppose your suggestion that the existing Swale East County Division be abolished.

My understanding of your proposal is that the villages which comprise Boughton & Courtenay and East Downs Borough Wards will join the Eastern half of Faversham Town to form a new Swale East Division. Those villages currently within Teynham & Lynsted Ward will join the villages of West Downs and the rest of Faversham Town to form a new Division to be known as Mid Swale. Faversham will therefore be split in two, as will the communities which surround the town. My Parish finds this unacceptable.

Your proposals contravene the criteria for good governance that you set out in your summary document. In particular, the town of Faversham is the focal point of the local community. It is the centre where local people, from both the town and the surrounding area, go for shops, medical services, leisure facilities and schools. The proposal would also cut across other local government boundaries namely Faversham Town Council. Moreover, there are a number of issues which are common to a number of adjoining parishes, for example severe traffic congestion caused by parents delivering and collecting their children to and from local schools, which can be better resolved within the existing structure.

Your final proposal should recognise that Faversham and its environs have a common identity. Faversham should be separately identified and the communities surrounding it should be within the same local government boundary, as is the present case. To use a term, which you apparently dislike,

1 Faversham and its environs represent a classic example of a “doughnut” structure.

Best wishes

Peter Andrews Clerk, Luddenham Parish Meeting

2

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: LENA JORDAN

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: MILSTEAD PARISH COUNCIL and RODMERSHAM PARISH COUNCIL

Comment text:

The two Parish councils of Milstead and Rodmersham are united in their views/suggestions for these KCC ward boundaries proposed changes. The proposed new boundaries from the Boundary Commission for the Swale area are logical--in this proposal we would be part of a new Mid Swale ward. Both Villages would still be part of the logical geographic area, we would still be with Sittingbourne but although we would now be joined by Teynham and Ospringe we would not feel "swamped "by these bigger areas. The alternative proposal to attach us to the existing Swale East Ward would create an enormous ward with very different interests and conflicting priorities to each other.--this would be a democratically backward step and certainly would not allow these small Parishes a voice. We therefore would like the Boundary Commission to remain with the current proposals of a new Mid Swale .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5628 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Alison Prentice

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Newchurch Parish Council

Comment text:

Newchurch Parish Council should remain in the Romney Marsh Division. We are a small rural parish which is best served by local Romney Marsh councillors. We have common interests with other Romney marsh parishes, , , Brookland etc. To distance us from these parishes in addition to Burmarsh Dymchurch and St Marys in the Marsh and St Marys Bay would not serve our constituency. We would be swallowed up by Hythe Ward. Hythe is a more densely populated area and has nothing in common with small rural communities with regards to transport, work and socially deprived areas such a Newchurch. We strongly urge you not to permit this division to be undertaken. We have strong community links with other Romney Marsh rural parishes. We are a farming community - Hythe Ward is an urban area. There is no commonality with issues. Current KCC and local representatives have a wealth of personal knowledge about small rural communities and issues and serve them with real passion and understanding. Moving our parish council to come under the jurisdiction of Hythe Ward will disadvantage our community and put Hythe Ward councillors in a very difficult situation on which community to serve as there are no common issues, and with the greatest respect, no personal knowledge on such issues - rural vers urban? We are not an urban area and do not wish to be the forgotten relative when issues are debated.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5455 29/06/2015

From: Town Clerk Sent: 12 June 2015 15:11 To: reviews Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF KENT: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

From: Town Clerk Sent: 12 June 2015 14:53 To: 'Egan, Helen' Subject: RE: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF KENT: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Ms Egan,

New Romney Town Council wishes to re‐iterate its previous response to this consultation, which is as follows:

‘New Romney Town Council considers that the proposals are based on inaccurate projected figures for Shepway and, in particular, the Romney Marsh area. Shepway District Council Local Planned Housing Allocation shows the provision of 8,000 additional homes, of which, 300+ are to be provided in New Romney.

Therefore, New Romney Town Council is not in a position to comment at this time on either the Councillor numbers proposed by Kent County Council or those proposed by the Boundary Commission. The Town Council respectfully requests, therefore, that proposals be re‐examined on this basis.’

Kind regards,

Catherine Newcombe

Mrs Catherine Newcombe

Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Isabelle Corbeel

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Riverhead Parish Council

Comment text:

Riverhead Parish Coucnil is currently in Sevenoaks Central and is going to part of Sevenoaks West. The Parish Council is very unhappy with the proposal as it means a lesser service from the District Council and less access to grant. We are very happy with our County Councillor. We have no doubt that any elected Councillor will not be able to find the time to support us as our Councillor is currently. Moreover, the grant allocated by our County Councillor has helped us greatly over the years to achieve many projects. If implemented, this innocent-looking proposal will have a direct effect on our Parish Council as less money will be available to us. It is obvious that the current measure has for exclusive aim to reduce costs for KCC but its efficiency will certainly suffer. The main victims of such a silent measure will definitely be Town/Parish Council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5449 29/06/2015

-----Original Message----- From: Hugh D'Alton Sent: 22 June 2015 17:25 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Kent County Council Draft recs - Sevenoaks Town Council Response

Good Afternoon

Sevenoaks Town Council objected to the proposals as drafted due to the splitting of the Town between two electoral divisions. This split would unfairly disadvantage Sevenoaks and obfuscate dialogue between the largest town in the District and the County Council at a time when ties between tiers of local government should be strengthened. It was noted that other towns, smaller than Sevenoaks, had been preserved as their own electoral ward e.g. Swanley. The Town Council requests that the boundary commission revisit their proposals and seek to achieve its desired aims while retaining a single electoral ward covering the Town of Sevenoaks.

Kind regards

Hugh D'Alton Assistant Town Clerk Sevenoaks Town Council

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Mary Shaw

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Sholden Parish Council

Comment text:

We agree with Sholden being included in Deal Town as per our document sent requesting this for the initial consultation

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5469 30/06/2015

From: Robin Theobald Sent: 06 July 2015 10:30 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Electoral Review for Kent ‐ Draft Recommendations

Dear Sir/Madam

Amended Letter Attached

Please find attached the Shorne Parish Council's representations in response to the Boundary Commission's draft recommendations for Kent. The letter has been amended from that sent at 09.55 hours. The letter sent at 09.55 hours is withdrawn. Please substitute the letter attached to this e‐mail. A hard copy will be placed in the post today.

Yours sincerely

Robin Theobald Chairman Shorne Parish Council

1

Shorne Parish Council both county m embers would need to attend parish council m eetings. Tw o m embers simultaneously dealing with parish matters is likely to result in confusion.

The Parish Council wishes to reta in the status quo which has se rved the parish well for m any years.

Appended to this letter is a m ore detailed analysis of the draf t recommendations. The Council would welcome an opportunity to have direct discussions with the Commission.

Yours faithfully

Mrs T Martin Clerk to Shorne Parish Council

Appendix A

The Parish Council would lik e to m ake the fo llowing addition al po ints in relation to th e Boundary Review and the proposed changes generally.

1 Population Growth

1.1 The 2020 projected population figures assum e that the average growth for Kent applies to Gravesham uniformly but the Council would subm it that growth will be below average in the Rural division due to the availability of previously developed land in the urban areas of the Borough.

2. The General Principles of the Review

2.1 In addition to the three statut ory criteria which are intended to achieve best balance, the guidance also states that Divisions must have strong, clearly identifiable boundaries. The East-West orientated A226 Gravesend-Rochester road is not a strong boundary but m erely a topographical and logistical fe ature. Its historical func tion was to facilitate through traffic. In the repo rt it is suggested that because villagers are able to travel along the road into Gravesend (Commission ta ble Page 18-19, second line), this eq uates with strong community links but there is no evidence to support this statem ent, which appears to be an attempt to justify the recommendation rather than having any basis in fact.

2.2 The comm unity links between Lower Shorne , Shorne and Shorne Ridgeway (together being the Shorne Village W ard) are very stro ng, all usin g the sam e Church, Doctor’s Surgery, local shops, Village Hall an d Village societies, and these local ties should no t be disregarded in the review. W atling Street (the A2) is of R oman origin and its function is to convey London-Dover through traffic rather than for historical local traffic (it was a toll road). In Gravesham the principal orientation of main roads and village layouts is South to North, as seen in all the other main roads within the borough, hence the most effective way of dividing Gravesham is as at present, w ith lines running South- North along these m ain roads. This has resulted in zoning E ast, Central and West. The introduction of North and South divisions is alien and completely contrary to local understanding of the Borough.

2.3 Within Gra vesend the proposal becom es even harder to justify – in contradiction to Commission Clause 21, rather than follow the strong boundaries of m ain roads, in several locations it m eanders through areas al most random ly, dividing neighbourhoods on different sides of road s. Areas which are clearly urban have unn ecessarily been moved into the rural ward while areas which are h ighly rural are moved into a com bined ward. Splitting Riverview Ward and moving part of it into the Rural Division seems particularly illogical. T he proposed North ward stretch es right across the bo rough from the border with on the East and to the border with Northfleet on the West. The mem ber who serves this area would have an undeliverable, excessive workload as he or she will be expected to deal with iss ues ranging from: Rural conservation with Ra msar sites, sites of special scientific inte rest (SSSI’s) and Green Belt (all highly protected and low housing

1 density); Firing range and Police training college (high security); an urban population which is ethnically very diverse; redevelopm ent areas with the environment and tran sport issues in central Gravesend; Industrial Estate s and m ajor issues relating to the adjacent Urban Development Corporation. The deliverabili ty of the workload to be undertaken by the Councillor should also be taken into consider ation as this is likely to i mpact adversely on the tim e that he or s he can devote to ru ral issues, which will becom e submerged, and reduce member accessibility to the Parish Council and their constituents

2.4 Contrary to the Commission statement in Clause 22, the Council consider that there is no natural affinity or overlap of issues be tween the urban Graves end and the widely separated, rural comm unities. W hereas the Gr avesham Rural zone m ay be perceived to have too many voters, the issues to be addressed by the Councillor will have commonality.

2.5 The creation through this review of a m isalignment of electoral boundaries and councillor representation is likely to cause confusion for electors (and the Parish Council) and duplication of effort for both of the councillors representing different parts of the Parish. It will in troduce an im pediment to effectiv e and convenient local govern ment rather than enhancing it.

3 The Review Process

3.1 Although the earliest part of the process was called a consultation, it actually just asked for suggestions for change. No suggestions were made by Gravesham, or Shorne or any other parts of the rural division, from which it can be inferred that they saw no cause for change and perceived the present arrangements to be broadly satisfactory. Suggestions were made by Kent County Council and separately by th e KCC Labour Group (signifying internal disagreement) but neither of th ese groups had the c ourtesy to discuss their proposals prior to submission, apparently not with Gravesham and certainly not with Shorne, despite the fact that they were suggesting changes to our area. As a result, the first time we have seen their suggestions, and the underlying figures, is through the Boundary review website.

4 County Councillor and elector numbers

4.1 Although Kent was considered overall to ha ve too m any councillors, the problem is actually that Gravesham has too few. If the Kent elector average in 2014 is 13490 then Gravesham should cu rrently have 5.5 councillors. If th e number is held at 5, then each Gravesham councillor must serve a higher than average num ber of electors. This automatically means that Gravesham Rural has to be bigger than the K ent average, both currently and in 2020. Growth in Gravesha m will be largely in the Urban areas so over time the Gravesham numbers will even out, hence we do not see a need f or significant change at this date.

4.2 Lower Shorne (termed North) comprises about 143 dwellings with elec tors 303 and is not a signif icant. Separa ting Lower Shorne f rom the Villag e m akes very little num erical difference. While we understand the aim s of th e review, and the desire for all Divisions

2 nationally to be 15,000 +/- 10%, m aybe it just has to be accepted that Gravesham Rural is one of the Divisions nationally for which that cannot be achieved through the 2015 review, and so it h as to r emain large r th an averag e f or the tim e being in accordance with the principle of allowing a degree of flexibility (Commission clause 8).

4.3 The figures indicate that th e percentage above the m ean of elector numbers in Gravesham Rural will reduce naturally over tim e. 2014 elector num bers in the current Gravesham Rural division are 14.67% above the Gravesham average. By 2020 the theoretically excess will reduce to 11.59%. Based on the location of ne w housing the Council believe this trend is likely to continue on after 2020, and there is no need for intervention.

5 Parish Council Wards

5.1 The Council can find no justification for am algamating the Parish' s S horne W est ward with Shorne Village, and then creating a separate ward of Lower Shorne, particularly with an allocatio n of two Parish Councillo rs, which seem s excessive. A relatively sm all number of people live north of the Gravesend Road and this area is not a separate entity to Shorne Village. Shorn e W est has distin ct identity and f aces dif ferent issues du e to its more urban character as a result of development taking place in the Parish.

In the Parish Council' s view, the Comm ission's proposals are not onl y impractical, their effect would be divisive rather than promoting community cohesion.

Shorne Parish Council July 2015

3

From: Peter Stanley Sent: 10 June 2015 22:44 To: reviews Subject: Smarden Parish Council

Dear Sirs

RE: Electoral Review of Kent

I am the Clerk to Smarden Parish Council and have been asked by the Councillors to advise you that they strongly object to any proposal to alter the boundary. Smarden wishes to stay within Ashford Weald West rather than be moved to within KCC’s Tenterden constituency . the Parish Councillors believe that it would be better to instead move High Halden into Tenterden. They consider that High Halden has a far greater synergy with Tenterden than Smarden, with Smarden being closer and having more in common with the other villages in Ashford Rural West (Pluckley, Egerton etc.) than with Tenterden (High Halden, being much closer, naturally looks towards Tenterden, it also has a regular bus service to Tenterden. Smarden has bus to Ashford ‐ through the rest of Ashford Rural West, but not to Tenterden etc. etc.) The populations are similar ‐ High Halden is slightly higher with around 300 more residents. Smarden and Egerton currently share the same Borough councillor and County Councillor, and we view this as a sensible arrangement which we would not wish to see change.

I should be obliged if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.

Yours faithfully

Catherine Stanley

Clerk to Smarden Parish Council

1

From: Parish Council Sent: 05 June 2015 12:29 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Kent. Draft Recommendations

Dear Sir/Madam,

At St. Mary in the Marsh Parish Council meeting on 4th June, 2015 the above review was discussed.

Please be advised the parish council strongly objects to your proposal that the parish council be divided in two. Part into Hythe West and Part into Romney Marsh.

The parish council strongly objects to being divided and requests that it be included as a whole in either Romney Marsh or Hythe West.

Kind regards

Gillian Smith Clerk to the Parish Council

1

From: Geoff Mills Sent: 11 June 2015 16:54 To: reviews Cc: Julie Pilbeam Subject: Local Government Boundary Review

For the attention of Mr Cooper

In response to the Commissions draft recommendations in respect of the electoral review of Kent, I am writing on behalf of Swanley Town Council to advise you that the Town Council supports these proposals as summarised in your letter and attachments dated 12 May 2015.

Yours sincerely

Geoff Mills

For Chief Executive Swanley Town Council

Geoff Mills Democratic Services Officer Swanley Town Council

www.swanleytowncouncil.gov.uk www.swanley.org.uk

This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding and any views, opinions or advice in it, unless otherwise stated, are personal to the author and not those of Swanley Town Council.

1

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

2

From: Louise Goldsmith Sent: 14 July 2015 19:47 To: reviews Subject: New Electoral Arrangements for KCC

At the Parish Council meeting for Trottiscliffe held on the 2 July 2015 Members asked me to object to the proposal to place Trottiscliffe in the same electoral ward as Snodland.

Louise Goldsmith Clerk to Trottiscliffe Parish Council

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Kent County

Personal Details:

Name: Kirsty Holroyd

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Walmer Parish Council

Comment text:

Members of Walmer Parish Council note that the boundaries of the division currently known as Deal are not due to alter but that the proposed new name for the division is Deal Town. Since the division pattern is under review we would like to take the opportunity to point out that Walmer is a separate parish with a population of nearly 8000, four wards and a council of 15 councillors. We would like this to be reflected in the name of the division and propose that it be renamed Deal and Walmer.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5374 15/06/2015

From: CAROLE D'SILVA Sent: 27 May 2015 18:40 To: reviews Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF KENT: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Sir the members of West Malling Parish Council wish to express their support for the recommendations as referred to in your letter dates 12 May 2015

Carole D'Silva Clerk to West Malling Parish Council www.westmallingpc.kentparishes.gov.uk

Kent Rural Community of the Year 2012

1