LGBCE FOI 21605.Pdf

Hendry, Angela

From: Hendry, Angela Sent: 02 August 2019 14:44 To: Subject: Response to FOI request Attachments: FOI response pack.pdf

Dear FOI Ref: 21605/19 Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which we received on 08/07/2019. You requested:  In relation to The Rotherham (Electoral Changes) Order 2018, please provide copies of all correspondence, between yourselves and Rotherham MBC up until 31May 2019.  Also, please supply copies of all associated documentation, internal correspondence, etc. which were generated by LGBCE in relation to the above Order.

The information attached reproduces e-mails and letters sent between the Commission and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, together with the Council’s formal submissions relating to the review between July 2016 and July 2018. Items marked as attachments are documents attached to e-mails. Where there is more than one communication sent by either the Commission or the Council on one day, this is denoted by numbered brackets after the communication date.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me, quoting the reference number above in any correspondence.

If you wish to request a review of our decision, you should write to:

Lynn Ingram Director of Finance & Resources Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

Kind regards

Angela

Angela Hendry Office Manager and HR Lead 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL 1

0330 500 1264

_ _ How are we doing? Click here to give us your views.

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 04 July 2016 14:53 To: Moran, James Subject: RE: Electoral review of Rotherham

Hi James Thanks for your message First an update Tim is no longer with us. He has moved on to greener pastures I am taking on the Review Officer role for the Rotherham review. I’ll be doing the day‐to‐day stuff

…..and now…..

ArcMap shapefiles (polygons) would be perfect

Thanks

David

From: Moran, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 July 2016 14:10 To: Bowden, Tim Cc: Wardle, Claire ; Owen, David Subject: RE: Electoral review of Rotherham

Hi Tim,

I have asked our GIS team for mapping data, but they have asked us to specify what format is required. Could you let me know this please?

Many thanks

James Moran AEA (Cert). Senior Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance and Corporate Services Directorate Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Tel: 01709 823539 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

From: Bowden, Tim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 January 2016 13:49 To: Wardle, Claire Cc: Owen, David Subject: RE: Electoral review of Rotherham

Hi Claire

Thanks for your time on the phone yesterday. As discussed, I promised I would follow‐up with an email of information required and meetings to arrange.

Meetings

 All member briefing ‐ 1 hour is normally allocated for the briefing. This is normally made up of a 10 minute presentation with the rest of the time for Q&A. This gives the Commission the chance to explain the review to all members. Some authorities like holding these before a council meeting and some prefer keeping it completely separate.  Group Leaders briefing ‐ 45 minutes is normally allocated for this session. This gives the chance for the Lead Commissioner to meet and have a more informal conversation on the review with the Group Leaders. Ideally, it would be good to hold this on the same day as the member briefing ‐ beforehand is better.  Officer briefing ‐ can last anywhere from 1 to 2 hours. During this session I will run through the review is detail and answer any questions. I can do this on the same day as the member briefing or sooner if you wished.

We can have the meetings after the election, I would just suggest we get a date and time agreed.

Information This information is requested for any electoral review:

 Current and forecast electorate figures for 2022 ‐ broken down by polling district and collated using the following spreadsheet ‐ http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0012/10407/proforma‐for‐electoral‐ arrangements.xls  Details of electorate forecasting methodology ‐ we have produced some guidance on compiling electorate forecasts which can be found here ‐ http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/10394/electorate‐forecasts‐ guidance‐2012.pdf. As I mentioned yesterday on the phone we might be able to assist in pulling together a first cut of electorate forecasts, to do this we will need a copy of the electoral register.  Details of parishes and parish warding arrangements ‐ i.e. number of parish councillors elected to each parish council, the number from each parish ward etc.  Electronic copy of most recent electoral register in Microsoft Excel format.  A Geo‐coded copy of the electoral register ‐ this is a mapped copy of the register. I suggest establishing what GIS expertise you have at the Council  GIS mapping data for polling districts across the district.  Contact details for residents associations and community groups for consultation purposes, in Microsoft Excel format ‐ this is so we can write to these groups when we launch each consultation  Local press and media contacts

We will require some other information but this is a good start. We have some detailed guidance on reviews which can be found here ‐ http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/10410/technical‐guidance‐2014.pdf.

In terms of when we will want this information it will not be until August/September 2016, but it’s a good idea to get a head start.

As I mentioned yesterday, it's also worth doing so preparatory work on council size as the Commission will be asking the Council for a submission on what it thinks is an appropriate number of councillors for Rotherham. Page 41 of the

2 technical guidance lays out in some detail what you should think about on council size. We will also be asking for submissions on council size by August/September 2016.

Hope this is helpful. As I said yesterday we are regularly undertaking reviews and can provide advice throughout. I will be managing the review of Rotherham and the lead officer will be David Owen ‐ I have copied David into this email.

Kind regards Tim

Tim Bowden Review Manager Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London, SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0330 500 1270 www.lgbce.org.uk

It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you.

How are we doing? ‐ Click on this link to give us your views

The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it was addressed. 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 advise the sender by using the reply facility in your e-mail software, and then delete it from your system. Rotherham MBC may monitor the content of the e-mails sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the law and with RMBC policies. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author and not those of Rotherham MBC.The copyright in all documentation is the property of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and this email and any documentation must not be copied or used other than as strictly necessary for the purpose of this email, without prior written consent which may be subject to conditions.

3 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 06 July 2016 15:03 To: [email protected] Cc: Buck, Richard Subject: Rotherham Electoral Review

Dear Claire

As you probably know, we have been talking to Lesley Hatton about dates when the Lead Commissioner Dr Peter Knight, Richard Buck (review manager) and I (review officer) can come to talk to the Chief Executive, Group Leaders and Councillors about the review. We seem to be homing in on Friday 15 July, but that isn’t a dead certainty yet.

We also like to do a session with officers on the nuts and bolts of a review ‐ essentially the people that are actually going to be doing the work. This would be Richard and I. This doesn’t have to be on the same day, it can be sooner than 15th or later, although Lesley tells me that you are going on leave on 19th. Before you go would I think be good, so that those who might need to do things can be getting on with them. We’ll cover the review process, timetable and the information we will need from you including electorate forecasts. The list of information we need is included in our guidance at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/10410/technical‐guidance‐2014.pdf page 29. With us deciding on council size in October, we’ll need to get our information needs met before then.

Richard and I have pretty good capacity at the moment to come when it suits you, so perhaps you could give some thought to when it would be good for us to have a session, and which of your colleagues you would like to involve.

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected]

It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you.

How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views

1 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 12 July 2016 10:54 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Directions to Bailey House for Meeting on Thursday

Thanks Michelle

I shouldn’t get too lost or exhausted.

Grateful for your help

David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 July 2016 10:51 To: Owen, David Cc: Wardle, Claire Subject: Directions to Bailey House for Meeting on Thursday

Hi David,

As discussed please see attached directions to Bailey House from the Railway Station.

Kind regards

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

1 The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it was addressed. 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 advise the sender by using the reply facility in your e-mail software, and then delete it from your system. Rotherham MBC may monitor the content of the e-mails sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the law and with RMBC policies. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author and not those of Rotherham MBC.The copyright in all documentation is the property of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and this email and any documentation must not be copied or used other than as strictly necessary for the purpose of this email, without prior written consent which may be subject to conditions.

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 28 July 2016 16:08 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing - Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi Michelle

Thanks for your message. Looks OK for me, but let me run it by Richard Buck (my manager) tomorrow.

I’m grateful for your help on this.

Regards

David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 July 2016 15:55 To: Owen, David Subject: Parish councillor/clerk briefing ‐ Rotherham Electoral Review

HI David,

We are looking at Thursday 11 August at 3.30pm –is this date and time ok with you?

Regards

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 29 July 2016 15:37 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing - Rotherham Electoral Review Attachments: Rotherham-presentation-parishes-2015-08-14.ppt

Thanks Michelle

Could you arrange for a laptop and projector as we had last time and load the attached presentation? I’ll get the train over from home and will arrive in good time, but there’s no display panels or anything like that for me to set up.

Many thanks again

Regards

David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2016 11:53 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing ‐ Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi David,

Just to let you know that invitations have been sent to the parish councils regarding the briefing on the 11 August to commence at 3.30pm. Please note that the briefing will be held in the Council Chamber in the Town Hall (where the Councillors briefing was held a couple of weeks ago).

With regard to setting up you can set up from 3pm. Could you please what equipment you will need?

Thanks

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

1 Before printing, think about the environment.

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2016 10:11 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing - Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi Michelle

I did and we’re on. When I say we, I mean me, it’ll just be me coming over to talk to parishes on 11th. Of course, we have no worries if you or any of your colleagues want to sit in on the session and hear what might be worrying the parishes.

Regards David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2016 10:07 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing ‐ Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi David,

Did you manage to speak to your manager? Sorry to chase you but we could do with getting the invitations out today.

Regards

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 July 2016 16:08 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing - Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi Michelle

Thanks for your message. Looks OK for me, but let me run it by Richard Buck (my manager) tomorrow.

I’m grateful for your help on this.

Regards

David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 July 2016 15:55 To: Owen, David Subject: Parish councillor/clerk briefing ‐ Rotherham Electoral Review

HI David,

We are looking at Thursday 11 August at 3.30pm –is this date and time ok with you?

Regards

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

4 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 29 July 2016 10:11 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing - Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi Michelle

Regards David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2016 10:07 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing ‐ Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi David,

Did you manage to speak to your manager? Sorry to chase you but we could do with getting the invitations out today.

Regards

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 July 2016 16:08 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Parish councillor/clerk briefing - Rotherham Electoral Review

Hi Michelle

Thanks for your message. Looks OK for me, but let me run it by Richard Buck (my manager) tomorrow.

I’m grateful for your help on this.

Regards

David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 July 2016 15:55 To: Owen, David Subject: Parish councillor/clerk briefing ‐ Rotherham Electoral Review

HI David,

We are looking at Thursday 11 August at 3.30pm –is this date and time ok with you?

Regards

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

3 ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ROTHERHAM COUNCIL SIZE SUBMISSION BY THE COUNCIL

1. Introduction

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is undertaking a review of the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham’s electoral arrangements. The outcome of the review will be implemented for the May 2020 Council elections. The review will cover the entire borough.

The statutory criteria that the LGBCE will apply when making its proposals are:- • Electoral equality (a consistent number of electors per Councillor); • Community identity (strong ward boundaries that reflect communities); and • Effective and convenient local government (coherent wards with good internal transport links).

The review was initiated in July 2016 and the preliminary stage of the review will determine the future Council size. The provisional decision on Council size by the Boundary Commission will then inform the next stage of the review, which will consider size and numbers of wards, ward boundaries and the number of councillors to represent each ward.

The Commission will form its view about the right Council size for an authority by considering the three following areas: • The governance arrangements of the Council and how it takes decisions across the broad range of its responsibilities; • The Council’s scrutiny functions relating to its own decision making and the Council’s responsibilities to outside bodies; • The representational role of Councillors in the local community and how they engage with people, conduct casework and represent the Council on local partner organisations.

This submission presents evidence in relation to each of those criteria and its proposal to reduce the number of Councillors from the current number of 63 to 59. The Council is of the view that 59 elected Councillors in Rotherham will facilitate effective and convenient local government in 2020 and beyond.

2. Background information relating to the Borough and its electors

2.1 Current Council arrangements

The current Council size was determined by the previous review in 2003. The Council is currently comprised of 63 Councillors across 21 wards, with a uniform pattern of three-member wards across the borough. After a change to whole Council elections in 2016, all Councillors are now elected at the same time for a four year term.

2.2 Officer management structures

Over many years the Council has streamlined its officer arrangements in response to financial pressures due to reductions in support from government and a re-alignment of services. Government intervention through the appointment of Commissioners in 2015 has led to further changes in the officer management structure of the Council, which has established a streamlined model of leadership. The Council’s Senior Leadership Team is headed by the Chief Executive, with four Strategic Directors and an Assistant Chief Executive.

2.3 The Council’s operating model

In-house provision is the overwhelming model of service delivery for Rotherham MBC. Whilst there are a number of shared services with neighbouring authorities in South Yorkshire, the Council has retained autonomy in the delivery of the vast majority of its functions. It should be noted that the housing function was returned to the Council in 2010 from an arms-length management organisation.

Increasing financial pressures on the funding of local government would require a review of the operating model before the date of implementing the new Council size in May 2020.

2.4 Current Electoral Numbers

The table at Appendix 1 provides information about the borough’s wards and the number of electors within those wards as at July 2016. These figures are subject to change daily, because of the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration (IER) in June 2014 which has encouraged electors to register when they move home, or within or into, or out of the borough. Prior to the General Election on 7 May 2015 and the EU Referendum on 23 June 2016, there was a general increase in registration activity resulting in frequent additions and deletions to the Register. However, in general, the overall numbers of electors currently on the Register in Rotherham remains stable.

The current number of electors is 201,314 and the average number of electors per three member ward is 9,586. The biggest variations from the average are Wath with 10,740 (12% above the average), Rother Vale 10,271 (7% above the average), Wales 8,927 (7% below the average) and Maltby 8,939 (7% above the average). Significant new housing development at Manvers has increased the electorate of Wath, although there is less potential for future development post 2016. New housing at Waverley has increased the electorate of Rother Vale and this development is a long term project to build a significant new community. The number of electors has fallen in wards where there has not been significant new housing development.

2.5 Projections of Electoral Numbers

The Council has undertaken work to produce a projection of the number of electors in 2022. The methodology used to produce this projection is set out in Appendix 3. In summary, it is projected that the number of electors will rise by 2.5% across the borough as a whole to a figure of 206,348. Of the current wards, only Rother Vale is projected to increase in size by over 10% during the period of the projections. This ward is most affected by long term development at Waverley and is projected to have 11,661 electors by 2022. All housing sites of 5+ units have been taken into account when determining how growth in the Borough will relate to individual wards and polling districts. Growth is projected in most wards but a few are projected to have falling electorates due to low levels of new house building.

3. How the Council Works

This section considers the current Councillor arrangements in Rotherham and each of the key areas identified by the Commission, evidencing how the proposal to reduce the number of Councillors to 59 will result in better management of the Council.

Following the Government intervention and appointment of Commissioners in February 2015, a Governance Review was undertaken to establish the best model of decision making for the authority to support its journey of improvement. The decision was taken to retain the Leader and Cabinet model of executive, which is the system of executive governance that was in place at the time of the last review of ward boundaries in Rotherham. The Constitution Working Group, which was tasked to review the size of the Council, concluded that the Leader and Cabinet model of executive decision making would not be negatively affected by a reduction to 59 councillors.

Demands on Councillors by their representational role have been reduced due to the different role of the Council and the widespread use of ICT and other channels of communication, which has significantly increased since the last boundary review in 2003. The direct result of this has been that residents can directly communicate with the Council in respect of service queries or complaints, which may have previously been directed through a ward councillor.

A review of the time commitments of Councillors in undertaking their formal duties suggests that roles could be effectively discharged within 25 hours per week, excluding group and political business.

3.1 Governance arrangements of the Council

The Council operates a strong Leader and Cabinet model of governance in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. These arrangements were introduced in 2001 and the consequential impact on councillors were taken into account during the last review in 2002.

3.2 Executive Decision Making

The Government restored approximately one-third of the Council’s executive decision making powers in February 2016. It is anticipated that the Government’s intervention in Rotherham will conclude by 2019 subject to evidence of improvement and therefore, all executive decision making powers will have been returned by the time that the new Council size is implemented in May 2020. In 2016/17, the Cabinet consists of eight Councillors, including the Leader of the Council. This represents a reduction of two Cabinet Members compared to 2010/11.The statutory maximum number for Cabinet membership is ten.

In Rotherham, executive decisions are taken by Cabinet collectively or by individual Commissioners following consideration of reports on the matters concerned. There is presently no individual Cabinet Member decision making at present. However, it is anticipated there will be an increase in individual Cabinet Member decision making when more executive powers are returned ahead of the implementation of the review in 2020.

With regard to decisions reserved to Full Council (for example, budget setting), a proposed reduction in the number of Councillors to 59 will facilitate effective operation of the decision making process, using debates and reports submitted to Full Council. The Council’s Constitution will continue to provide (for example) for Petitions to be submitted to the Council, as well as public and Member questions to be considered.

3.3 Regulatory and Advisory Committees

Councillors sit on a number of regulatory and advisory committees. These committees, with the current number of Councillors and number of meetings from 2010/11 to 2015/16 are set out below:

Committee Number of Number of meetings Members in 2016-17 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Planning 15 18 17 17 18 16 16 Licensing Board* 21 12 12 12 13 14 N/A Licensing 15 16 16 13 11 6 N/A Committee* Audit 5 11 10 9 7 6 7 Standards & Ethics 8 7 8 4 4 5 6 Overview & 66 55 41 52 41 33 38 Scrutiny Committees/ Commissions Area Assemblies 14 2 4 5 5 3 3 Chairs TOTAL 121 108 112 99 83 70

Councillors also sit on a number of other bodies that are not Committees established under the Local Government Act 1972, but are required by statute, for example the Health and Wellbeing Board, Local Safeguarding Children Board, Corporate Parenting Panel and Rotherham Schools Forum.

It is clear from the information set out that the number of councillors required to fulfil regulatory and advisory roles has substantially reduced. A proportionate reduction in the number of Councillors overall would be therefore appropriate.

3.3.1 Regulatory Committees

Licensing Board and Licensing Committee

The licensing function is not currently discharged by councillors, with decision making reserved to Commissioners. Members of the Licensing Board and Licensing Committee are invited to attend the Commissioner’s Licensing Hearings under the 2003 Act in an advisory capacity. However, the inactive statutory and local constitutional provisions for the discharge of the licensing functions is set out in detail below.

The Licensing Act 2003 requires each licensing authority to establish a licensing committee consisting of at least ten, but not more than fifteen, members of the authority. The Act prescribes that the role of this committee is the discharge of the authority’s licensing functions. The Act sets out that a licensing committee may establish one or more subcommittees consisting of three members of the committee. In Rotherham, the Licensing Committee consists of fifteen Councillors in 2016/17. However,.

The Licensing Sub Committee comprises any three members of the main Licensing Committee. The role of the Licensing Sub Committee is to hear and determine specific licence applications that are subject to representations or objections, together with applications which seek the review of an existing licence. The Sub Committee also sits to classify films and to serve counter notices in respect of opposed Temporary Event Notices.

There has been a small decline in the number of times the Sub Committee has met over last six municipal years, as highlighted in the preceding table.

The main Licensing Committee must, in law, comprise of at least ten Councillors. Historically it has been made up of fifteen Councillors but could be reduced to ten. Analysis carried by the Council indicates this reduction would enable Members to fulfil their roles and meet the statutory requirements.

Planning Board

Planning Board is the regulatory committee that meets most often, approximately sixteen times per year. In addition, a significant number of decisions are delegated to officers, which would have been referred to the Planning Board at the time of the last review.

It is clear from the previous paragraphs that the trend in relation to regulatory committees is for a lighter workload for elected Members, and that the regulatory function can be effectively and efficiently delivered by Councillors appointed from a reduced Council.

3.4 The Council’s Scrutiny arrangements

The Council’s current overview and scrutiny arrangements have been in place since May 2011. There is currently an Overview and Scrutiny Management Board with three select commissions, comprising eighteen members each, operating with the following remit:

• Health • Improving Lives • Improving Places

Each Select Commission meets approximately six times per year. With the introduction of pre-decision scrutiny as part of the reforms arising from the Governance Review, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board, comprising twelve members, is scheduled to meet 22 times in the current municipal year. The duration of such meetings ranges from ninety minutes to three hours depending on the business to be considered.

This increase in overview and scrutiny activity was an outcome from the Governance Review to support the Council’s improvement journey. The trend towards increased scrutiny is likely to be maintained for the foreseeable future in order to provide confidence that decision making and those making those decisions are more open to challenge.

Between Select Commission meetings, there is an expectation that Councillors will keep a “watching brief” on issues within the terms of reference of the commissions of which they are a member, so that they can use this experience to identify agenda items and contribute to debate at Committee. The Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen take a lead on this. Site visits also take place with varying frequency between meetings. Attendance at site visits and other activities is optional.

It is recognised that there may be a need to establish an additional Select Commission in the future to further strengthen scrutiny activity. Councillors have recognised that there is scope for such a change to the scrutiny arrangements will enhance its effectiveness whilst requiring fewer councillors to sit on each Select Commission. The Commissions or any task and finish groups established will also be able to co-opt representatives from organisations with specialist knowledge or expertise for specific topics.

Whilst there is a need for a robust scrutiny function, there is some recognition that this activity need not been undertaken by bodies comprising eighteen councillors each. Discussions have indicated that there may be a preference for the establishment of a further commission in the future, but there could be a reduction in the size of the select commissions which would complement a reduction in the size of the Council.

3.5 Delegation to officers

With the appointment of a new Chief Executive and Senior Leadership Team, the expectation is that the Chief Executive and senior officers of the Council will effectively implement the strategic decisions of the Council and run operational services effectively, making use of their professional expertise and experience. Councillors are not responsible for operational or administrative matters and their role is to provide strategic direction to the Council from the mandate given by the electorate.

3.6 The representational role of Councillors in the local community

3.6.1 Casework

Individual Councillors manage and progress their casework with advice and guidance from officers as appropriate. The Council does not hold accurate or definitive data about the volume or complexity of such casework across the whole membership of the authority, although such matters will sometimes result in direct enquiries to officers to clarify or provide information about the Council’s approach to a particular issue.

Councillors have, however, observed that the use of e mail and other media has allowed for faster, less time consuming communication with both residents and officers in relation to case work. Similarly, the availability of on line information, services and ways of reporting issues for residents and Councillors alike has had an impact on the time required to undertake casework.

3.6.2 Community/neighbourhood representation

The overwhelming majority of Councillors conduct surgeries in their wards, which vary in nature and frequency according to the individual Councillor’s assessment of need and demand. For example, some Councillors hold regular fortnightly meetings in such places as, for example, local community centres, whilst others prefer to make themselves available either through email, telephone conversations or by meetings with residents. Some Councillors find individual meetings a more personal and suitable way of engaging with people in their constituency than surgeries.

The Council does not hold any data about the time spent by Councillors on representation of individual electors.

3.6.3 Appointments to outside bodies

The number of outside bodies to which the Council nominates Councillors has reduced in recent years. Traditionally Councillors have been nominated by the authority to a wide range of outside organisations.

Councillors are also often appointed as Local Authority School Governors. The number of Local Authority Governors overall has decreased over recent years and as more schools become academies.

In each aspect of the representational role, the workload of Councillors has reduced so that residents can be fully and effectively represented by the smaller number of Councillors now proposed.

3.7 Other requirements of Councillors

Councillors receive induction training, covering key elements and essentials in undertaking the role of Councillor. Training is provided on regulatory matters such as planning and licensing, as well as key skills required for chairing meetings and the scrutiny process. Political Groups also provide ongoing development support to newer Councillors. Time required to be spent on training is limited. (Do you mean that relative to other activities, Councillors spend a manageably small amount of time in training, or that a decision has been made and processes in place to “cap” the amount of training hours?)

4. Future plans or developments affecting the Council

4.1 Challenges

Notwithstanding the improvement journey that Rotherham MBC has embarked on, balancing reductions in funding with the ever increasing demands on services continues to be a challenge. Councils have been challenged by Government to move away from service delivery functions and to adopt a more strategic commissioning role. This means stepping back from traditional service delivery by focussing on understanding the needs of our communities and leading activity to secure improved outcomes.

The period to 2020 will continue to be challenging and as a Council, we will need to continuously review the services we provide and the ways in which we provide them. It means being open to using the best way of securing service outcomes and thinking creatively about how to get the most from available resources.

4.2 Effective and Convenient Governance

As described above, the Council has streamlined its operational model since the time of the last review. The Cabinet is composed of eight Members, the Overview and Scrutiny programme is focused on pre-decision scrutiny and ensuring that appropriate challenge is made and the Council has reduced the number of formal Member appointments to Outside Bodies, in line with this strategic approach. Local authority appointed governors have also reduced in numbers due to legislation governing community schools and through the academy conversion process.

Moving from the traditional intermediary role, Councillors as leaders within their communities can help to broker discussions about making the most of assets to meet community needs. They can act as enablers and bring together Council, other statutory authorities, local voluntary and community groups, local businesses and other private landowners to build a constructive partnership.

The proposed Council size complements our leaner operational approach.

4.3 Neighbourhood Working

The Council is currently reviewing its approach to neighbourhood working to establish a more effective way of engaging with communities to encourage residents to get involved in improving their localities. This review will establish principles to guide neighbourhood working in the future on the part of the Council. This policy of building resilient communities to enable them to shape how services are delivered in their areas is exemplified by the examples provided below. The policy and process of capacity building within communities will positively change the way residents relate to the Council:

4.4 Residents views

The Council has in recent years consulted residents in the course of its budget preparation on options and priorities for expenditure. A consistent theme in responses has been that the cost and number of Councillors and administration should be reduced.

5. The proposal for Council size

The previous sections of this report have described how the way that the Council has changed since the last review and described that fewer Councillors have a formal role in the decision making of the Council, although there is greater workload for those committees scrutinising executive decisions, and fewer outside bodies on which the Council has representation. Officer arrangements too have changed with fewer senior managers and a focus of resources on delivering front-line services. The Council has sought to ensure that it is managed effectively with lean and efficient structures. It is considered appropriate that this approach should also apply to the number of Councillors.

Appendix 2 sets out similar information for comparator authorities. When compared to the nearest 15 statistical authorities, Rotherham was joint fifth highest with regard to its number of Councillors and had the ninth lowest number of electors per Councillor with a figure of 3,141. This compares to Doncaster with 3,833 and Wakefield with 4026. Rotherham strives to be amongst the most efficient and lean authorities amongst its peers, seeking innovative ways to serve and represent its residents and it is considered appropriate for the Council to adopt a Council size that reflects this aspiration.

Each of the political groups in Rotherham has concluded that a Council size of 59 would be appropriate to satisfy the criteria, having taken account of the three areas of consideration set out by the Boundary Commission.

Consideration has been given to how many Councillors are required to allow key roles to be properly and effectively undertaken. Analysis by the Council of Overview and Scrutiny Meetings and other formal time commitments for Councillors indicates there is capacity for Members to deliver their role effectively with reduced Council size of 59 Members. Councillors at the Constitution Working Group considered how a Council size in a range of between 55 and 60 might meet the requirements and concluded that a size of 59 would allow the Council to effectively discharge its obligations in relation to governance, scrutiny and representation, recognising the considerable changes that have occurred since the last review.

The substantial changes that have taken place since 1999 in the way that the Council and its Councillors undertake their responsibilities support a small reduction (6%) in the size of the Council. Such a reduction is also appropriate taking into account the future challenges and anticipated contraction that the Council will undergo to meet its financial challenges.

6. Financial impact of Council size proposal

The budget allocated for Members’ Allowances for 2016/17 is £1,041m. In addition, a small budget of £12k is provided for any training, attendance at conferences and travel and subsistence, although in reality, this is claimed only rarely by Councillors.

The major part of the £1,041m budget is allocated for the Basic Allowance, which is currently paid at £11,605 per Councillor, plus the Special Responsibility Allowances paid to Councillors who either hold leadership roles or as Chairmen and Vice- Chairmen of the Council’s committees. The total expenditure for Members’ Allowances for the last financial year, 2015/16, was £923,784.

Assuming that the level of allowances paid to individual Councillors remained the same going forward, any reduction in total spend would relate to £11,605 (Basic Allowance) for each Member and any Special Responsibility Allowances that were either reduced, or cancelled. A reduction in the number of Councillors to 59 would result in a potential saving of around £46k per municipal year for the Basic Allowance. Any potential savings of Special Responsibility Allowances would be made through, either a reduction in the number of committees, or the removal of an allowance from a Member.

In addition to the direct costs of payments to Councillors, support is provided by a Secretariat and for formal decision making and scrutiny by the Committee Services and Scrutiny Teams. It is envisaged that any reduction in the number of Councillors may also result in modest savings in these areas.

7. Next steps

The Boundary Commission will undertake its own consultation via its website and will contact local organisations to invite their views, as well as undertaking visits to the borough.

All Councillors have had an opportunity to attend a briefing by the Boundary Commission on 15 July 2016 which explained the process and timetable, and made clear that the Boundary Commission will accept representations and views from any resident or organisation, including political parties in respect of any issue within the scope of the review.

On 13 July 2016 the Council agreed that the Constitution Working Group would undertake the detailed work in relation to the review. All parties attended, including the Leader of each political group. This Group has concluded that a Council size of 59 will allow the Council to function effectively in terms of its governance, scrutiny and representational role.

8. Summary

This report has described the significant changes in Rotherham MBC since the last review of electoral arrangements in 2003. It proposes a reduction in the size of the Council from 63 to 59. This reduction and submission on size has the unanimous support of the two political groups represented on the Council.

Contact Officer: James McLaughlin, Democratic Services Manager, Accountable Officer(s): Sharon Kemp, Chief Executive Dermot Pearson, Assistant Director of Legal Services

Appendix 1 – Current Elector per Councillor Breakdown in Rotherham

Number of cllrs per Electorate Variance Name of ward ward 2016 2016

Anston and Woodsetts 3 9,070 -5% Boston Castle 3 9,498 -1% Brinsworth and Catcliffe 3 9,727 1% Dinnington 3 10,023 5% Hellaby 3 9,628 0% Holderness 3 9,802 2% Hoober 3 10,124 6% Keppel 3 9,420 -2% Maltby 3 8,939 -7% Rawmarsh 3 9,780 2% Rother Vale 3 10,271 7% Rotherham East 3 9,125 -5% Rotherham West 3 9,581 0% Silverwood 3 9,696 1% Sitwell 3 9,572 0% Swinton 3 9,307 -3% Valley 3 9,646 1% Wales 3 8,927 -7% Wath 3 10,740 12% Wickersley 3 9,372 -2% Wingfield 3 9,066 -5%

Appendix 2 Electoral arrangements in comparator authorities

CIPFA electoral ratio at Borough Difference Councillors Electorate 1/12/2014 1 Doncaster 0.005 55 210815 3,833 2 Barnsley 0.006 63 178920 2,840 3 Wakefield 0.018 63 253638 4,026 4 St Helens 0.019 48 135216 2,817 5 Calderdale 0.036 51 144789 2,839 6 Gateshead 0.04 66 142362 2,157 7 Kirklees 0.043 69 300495 4,355 8 Wigan 0.057 75 234225 3,123 9 Knowsley 0.06 45 111060 2,468 10 Dudley 0.07 72 239256 3,323 11 Walsall 0.071 60 196140 3,269 12 Rochdale 0.076 60 160440 2,674 13 Tameside 0.078 57 169233 2,969 14 Bolton 0.085 60 199140 3,319 15 Bury 0.086 51 142698 2,798 Average 60 186200 3121

Rotherham 63 197883 3,141

Appendix 3: Summary of Methodology for 2022 Electorate Forecast

Rotherham MBC has some experience in the area of electoral forecasting which has proved fairly accurate in the past. Electoral change in Rotherham at the local level is driven mainly by new housing development or lack of new housing. The amount of new housing has been the main factor causing ward electorate to rise or fall and the same will be the case for the period 2016 and 2022. The projection of population growth in the Borough by 2021 indicates a small overall rise but growth will be concentrated in those parts of the Borough that will see major new housing developments being completed and occupied by 2022.

The projected electorate is mainly controlled to the ONS 2014-based population projection for residents aged 18+ and the current proportion of these who are registered electors. The current registered electorate (July 2016) of 201,314 compares with a projected 18+ population for mid-2016 of 204,995, according to the ONS. This represents a registration rate of 98.2% which will be taken into account when calculating electoral growth. The increase in electorate based on the ONS population projection alone is estimated to be 3,583. In addition, a further allowance has been made for the increasing electorate living in the new settlement being developed on the edge of the Borough at Waverley, which is entirely new housing and is drawing most of its new residents from outside Rotherham.

The number of electors per dwelling in new housing is notably higher than average and this has been taken into account using a ratio derived from those polling districts with a high proportion of new housing built in recent years. Reducing average household size means that the electorate living in the existing housing stock is gradually falling. The electorate living in homes already built in 2016 is projected to reduce by 4,799 by 2022 as people move out into new housing. New housing at Waverley is projected to accommodate 1,451 electors and other new housing a further 8,382 electors.

Overall we forecast that the electorate of Rotherham will increase by 5,034 between 2016 to 2022, a 2.5% increase on the current registered electorate of 201,314 to 206,348.

Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 31 August 2016 09:00 To: McLaughlin, James Cc: Buck, Richard Subject: RE: Draft Council Size Submission - Rotherham MBC Attachments: Rotherham_MBC_Draft_Council_Size_Submission_v2 sk(DGO).docx

Dear James

Thank you for your message and for sight of your draft submission.

I would be happy to base a report to the Commission on your draft as it stands, but a couple of things might be worth an extra paragraph or two. It might be useful to say why a substantially greater reduction wouldn’t work – a sort of reverse‐approach reinforcement of the arguments in the draft submission.

I think Commissioners also would appreciate a comment or two on how any moves to sub‐regional devolution might have an impact on the way the council does its governance – for example, will some strategy‐making be done outside of the council but require additional scrutiny activity?

Again, I’d stress a paragraph or two rather than a chapter on these things, (but adding something or not is up to you).

I’m attaching a marked‐up copy of your draft to illustrate some typos (I’ve not done a fine‐tooth comb job on typos) and to indicate where a little clearer wording on training might help.

Aside from the Council Size argument, I don’t think we will fall out over your electoral forecast, but I’d just remind you that we want the forecasts broken down to polling districts and it’ll be really helpful at ward boundaries time if you could identify (better still, map) the significant new housing sites.

I hope this helps, good luck on 7th.

Regards David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 August 2016 19:56 To: Owen, David Subject: Draft Council Size Submission ‐ Rotherham MBC

Dear David,

Please find attached the draft Council Size Submission in respect of Rotherham MBC, which you were expecting today.

The Council will meet on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 to formally consider the submission, so if you were able to forward any comments or observations then it would be opportune to get them to me at your earliest convenience.

If you should have any queries in respect of the draft submission, please contact me in the first instance.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Directorate Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 19 September 2016 16:21 To: Rathe, Marie Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC - Notice of Alteration - September 2016

Hi Marie

In recent weeks you sent us the message below and one relating to the electoral register. But we couldn’t open them because of a compatability issue at our end. It looks like our problems have been fixed, so could you please upload data and activate the links at your end again. If it needs a different password, please let me know.

Sorry to be bothering you again, but thanks for your help

Regards David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views

David

From: Rathe, Marie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 September 2016 15:58 To: Owen, David Subject: Rotherham MBC ‐ Notice of Alteration ‐ September 2016

Your copy of the notice of alteration published on 1 September 2016 is now available for you to download from our secure portal.

Please click on the link below which will take you directly to the portal. https://rmbcelections.sharepoint.com/

1 I will remove the notice from the portal on 9 September 2016. Please ensure you have retrieved your file(s) by this date. If you have any problems gaining access to your file(s) please let me know as soon as possible.

Please note that you are responsible for downloading your copy of the Electoral Register before the date it is due for removal (given above) and for securely storing it.

Your username for the portal is:‐ [email protected] Please use the password previously supplied to you.

Please find attached a document detailing how you can download your file(s) from the portal and a letter that sets out what uses you can make of your copy of the Electoral Register.

If you have any questions or would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Marie Rathe Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance and Corporate Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel : (01709) 823527 Internal from old : 7423527 Internal fron new : 23527 Fax : 01709 367343 email : [email protected] Website : http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections Postal Address: Electoral Services, Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham, S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham, S60 1TD Before printing, think about the environment.

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 20 September 2016 08:53 To: Rathe, Marie Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC - Notice of Alteration - September 2016

Hi Marie

Fantastic! I’ve got the registers now. I’ve combined them, deleted elector names and secured the file under a new password here, so you can clear the sharepoint.

Oh it’s great when things work.

Again, I’m so grateful for your help

Regards David.

From: Rathe, Marie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 September 2016 17:03 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC ‐ Notice of Alteration ‐ September 2016

David,

No problem, I have uploaded the files again for you to download. Please use the same username and password that I have previously supplied to login to access the data.

Please let me know when you have downloaded the files so that I can remove them from our secure portal. If I do not hear from you by 5pm on Thursday this week I will remove them then.

Regards,

Marie

Marie Rathe Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance and Corporate Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel : (01709) 823527 Internal: 23527 Fax : 01709 367343 email : [email protected] Website : http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections Postal Address: Electoral Services, Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham, S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham, S60 1TD Before printing, think about the environment.

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 September 2016 16:21 To: Rathe, Marie Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC - Notice of Alteration - September 2016

Hi Marie

Sorry to be bothering you again, but thanks for your help

Regards David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views

David

From: Rathe, Marie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 September 2016 15:58 To: Owen, David Subject: Rotherham MBC ‐ Notice of Alteration ‐ September 2016

Your copy of the notice of alteration published on 1 September 2016 is now available for you to download from our secure portal.

Please click on the link below which will take you directly to the portal. https://rmbcelections.sharepoint.com/

I will remove the notice from the portal on 9 September 2016. Please ensure you have retrieved your file(s) by this date. If you have any problems gaining access to your file(s) please let me know as soon as possible.

Please note that you are responsible for downloading your copy of the Electoral Register before the date it is due for removal (given above) and for securely storing it.

Your username for the portal is:‐ [email protected] Please use the password previously supplied to you.

Please find attached a document detailing how you can download your file(s) from the portal and a letter that sets out what uses you can make of your copy of the Electoral Register.

If you have any questions or would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Marie Rathe Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance and Corporate Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham, S60 1TD Before printing, think about the environment.

3 strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by using the reply facility in your e-mail software, and then delete it from your system. Rotherham MBC may monitor the content of the e-mails sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the law and with RMBC policies. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author and not those of Rotherham MBC.The copyright in all documentation is the property of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and this email and any documentation must not be copied or used other than as strictly necessary for the purpose of this email, without prior written consent which may be subject to conditions.

4 Owen, David

To: [email protected] Subject: Electoral Review of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Attachments: Rotherham MBC - Council Size Submission_FINAL.docx

Dear Sir Derek,

As you will be aware, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has begun a review of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s electoral arrangements. An electoral review such as this one will establish the total number of councillors, the number, boundaries and names of electoral wards, and the number of councillors to be returned to each ward.

Our starting point for a review is to establish the total number of councillors to serve Rotherham in the future. We have asked the Council and each of the political parties represented on the council to make a council size proposal to us. The Council resolved its proposal at its meeting on 7 September, with support from all parties, and has submitted its proposal to us.

I understand from my officer contacts at the Council that you are aware of the Council’s proposal, to reduce the total number of councillors from 63 to 59, but I attach hereto a copy of the Council’s submission to us for completeness.

This Commission will consider the Council’s proposal at its meeting on 18 October and will, having formed a view on the appropriate number of councillors, begin a formal public consultation to invite proposals for ward boundaries. This Commission’s procedures for the conduct of an electoral review and advice on participation in a review can be seen here: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/10410/technical‐guidance‐2014.pdf

If you wish to express a view on the Council’s submission on the total number of councillors or wish to make any comment on the review itself I should be pleased to hear from you. Similarly, if you have any questions regarding the review at this or any future stage, please do not hesitate to contact me

Yours sincerely

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

1 How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 28 September 2016 09:02 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: RE: Council boundary review timetable

Hi James

Many thanks for your message.

In short, neither current nor anticipated parliamentary constituency boundaries will have an impact on the Rotherham MBC electoral review. I expect that our friends over in the BCE will be using current wards and that they will be using a base‐date ward map of the whole country, so covering many authorities in which one of our reviews will be at a similar or more advanced stage than the Rotherham review. I can’t of course, speak for them in how they are conducting their review.

When I worked for Cheshire West & Chester, we had brand new wards in place at the start of the last parliamentary review, but the BCE used previous wards because they didn’t have electorate data for the new wards in respect of their base‐line position.

Your colleagues in a number of authorities undergoing our reviews are asking similar questions, however, in each case our response will be the same: that we cannot have regard to parliamentary constituency boundaries. That would be our position whether or not there was a parliamentary review under way.

Whilst I appreciate that you will be getting lots of questions put to you, I hope, nevertheless, that this helps

Regards David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 September 2016 17:50 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Council boundary review timetable

David,

You will see from the litany of emails below, there is some concern around the impact of the parliamentary constituency boundaries on the local government ward boundaries and vice‐versa.

Are you able to provide any insight on what the impact will be so that I can reassure councillors and colleagues?

Thanks in anticipation.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Office Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

From: Crompton, Miles Sent: 27 September 2016 15:12 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: FW: Council boundary review timetable

Hi James,

See Leader’s query below. As the final proposals of our ward boundary review will be laid before Parliament in Oct 2017, this will be 11 months before the BCE is due to report to Parliament on the constituency review (Sept 2018). However, until our final new wards are published in July 2017, they cannot be used as building blocks to form new constituencies. As long as the current wards remain the definitive wards in Rotherham, they will be used as building blocks. It is possible to split wards but only in exceptional circumstances.

The likely scenario is that new constituency boundaries will be developed using our existing wards but new ward boundaries will be known by July 2017. The Parliamentary review consults on revised proposals in October‐ December 2017. The question will arise as to whether there can be any revision of constituencies involving Rotherham between July and October, so that the new wards can nest within new constituencies. If not, the two sets of boundaries won’t match which will be a headache for Electoral Services and others.

Do we need to clarify our situation with David Owen?

Miles

From: Read, Chris-Cllr Sent: 16 September 2016 18:05 To: Crompton, Miles Subject: FW: Council boundary review timetable

Miles – please see below from John Healey – are we clear what the rules are with regards to the parliamentary boundary review coinciding with ours?

Chris

From: HEALEY, John (2nd Mailbox) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 September 2016 18:00 To: Read, Chris-Cllr Cc: CHAMPION, Sarah; BARRON, Kevin; HEALEY, John Subject: Re: Council boundary review timetable

Thanks Chris. There must be a keen eye in this process on the new parliamentary boundary proposals and process, which is based on existing wards. Have officers supporting council review considered how to handle this? Best wishes John

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Sep 2016, at 17:48, Read, Chris‐Cllr wrote:

John, Sarah,

I promised I would send you a copy of the timetable for the council’s boundary review. Please find this below:

Draft Council Size Case to the Commission by 30 August 2016 Submission of Council Size Proposal to the Commission by 13 September 2016 Warding Patterns Consultation 25 October 2016 – 9 January 2017 Draft Recommendations published 14 March 20‐17 Draft Recommendations Consultation 14 March – 8 May 2017 Final Recommendations published 11 July 2017 Order Laid in Parliament October 2017

Chris

Cllr Chris Read Leader, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Labour, Wickersley Ward Tel (office): 01709 822700 www.wickersleyward.org.uk www.rotherham.gov.uk

3 presented are only those of the author and not those of Rotherham MBC.The copyright in all documentation is the property of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and this email and any documentation must not be copied or used other than as strictly necessary for the purpose of this email, without prior written consent which may be subject to conditions.

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 28 November 2016 13:30 To: Dimbleby, Jillian Subject: RE: Request for Car Registration Number for Parking Bay for Electoral Review Meeting on 29th November

Dear Jillian

Thank you for your message and for your help with this.

Prof. Mellors’ registration is

I’m grateful to you for sorting this out

Thanks again

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: Dimbleby, Jillian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 November 2016 12:50 To: Owen, David Cc: McLaughlin, James Subject: Request for Car Registration Number for Parking Bay for Electoral Review Meeting on 29th November Importance: High

David,

1 I have been asked to book a car parking bay at Riverside House car park for Professor Mellors for the above meeting tomorrow – could you possibly let me know Professor Mellors’ car registration number?

Thank you.

Jill Dimbleby, Senior Management Secretary to Dermot Pearson, Assistant Director, Legal Services, Finance and Customer Services

Telephone: Internal: Extension: 54437 External: (01709) 254437 E-mail: [email protected] Visit our website: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk

Address Wing A, Fourth Floor, Riverside House, Main Street, ROTHERHAM. S60 1AE  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 November 2016 08:59 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Electoral Review 29 November

Hi James

A slight change of plan for tomorrow’s meeting. Peter Knight is required at Parliament tomorrow so I will be joined by the chair of the Commission, Prof. Colin Mellors.

We are meeting at Riverside House I believe. Is there any parking space there that Colin can use?. I shall be coming by train.

Regards

David

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 28 November 2016 08:59 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Electoral Review 29 November

Hi James

A slight change of plan for tomorrow’s meeting. Peter Knight is required at Parliament tomorrow so I will be joined by the chair of the Commission, Prof. Colin Mellors.

We are meeting at Riverside House I believe. Is there any parking space there that Colin can use?. I shall be coming by train.

Regards

David

1 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 30 November 2016 11:59 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Re Rotherham meeting 29 November

Colin, Jolyon

Further to yesterday’s meeting, I expected to see James McLaughlin, Democratic Services Manager

[email protected]

My initial contact is Claire Wardle, Electoral Services Manager. I had slightly lower expectations of seeing her yesterday [email protected]

I had not been given any indication that the Chief Executive, Sharon Kemp would be attending. [email protected]

Telephone 01709 822770 (Direct)

Switchboard 01709 382121

Regards

David

1 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 30 November 2016 09:11 To: McLaughlin, James; Wardle, Claire Cc: Colin Mellors; Buck, Richard; Jackson, Jolyon Subject: Electoral Review

Hi James, Claire

Thank you for setting up yesterday’s meeting with Chris Read and Allen Cowles.

Peter Knight, who is our lead Commissioner for the review was needed in the cabinet office yesterday so Prof. Colin Mellors, Chair of the Commission, stepped in.

Colin set out the difficulty that the Commissioners had in reaching a decision on Council size; that the Council’s submission set out arguments about council governance well, but didn’t connect the proposal for 59 to the preceding arguments sufficiently. In particular, Commissioners wanted to see an analysis which would follow through from the consideration of different council sizes, leading to a rationalised emergence of a preferred number – why would X be better than X+2, X‐2, X+4, X‐4 etc.

We don’t think that you need to start from scratch on a new council size case. Keep what you already have except write in an analysis and a new back page or do a supplementary addendum.

We’ll aim to get a Council size decision at February’s Commission, so a revised/supplemented case should come to us mid‐late January. We talked about whether this would mean a further decision at the Council meeting in January if the analysis comes up with a number other than 59. That will be workable if you can share with me any report to Council (if one is necessary) as soon as you can.

If we make a decision at the February meeting, we’ll formally launch the review to the world at large by asking for warding proposals on Tuesday 28th Feb or 7 March. That will run for 10 weeks and the review should run from then on its normal timescales, just a few months behind what we originally envisaged.

We’ll still get the review finished in 2017/18 and anyway, nothing from the review will kick in until 2020 elections.

Do keep in touch if you want any further information or advice

And again, many thanks for all your help from the very start right up to yesterday.

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected]

1 www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 05 December 2016 12:14 To: Mellor, Michelle Subject: RE: Local Government Electors

Thanks Michelle. That’s helpful and I’m much obliged

Regards David

From: Mellor, Michelle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 December 2016 12:03 To: Owen, David Cc: Wardle, Claire Subject: Local Government Electors

Good afternoon David,

Further to our telephone conversation please find attached a spreadsheet with details of local government electors for Rotherham.

Kind regards

Michelle Mellor AEA (Cert). Principal Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance & Customer Services Directorate Rotherham MBC

Tel: 01709 823518 Mobile: 07748 142678 Internal from old: 7423518 Internal from new: 23518 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections

Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE

Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD

Before printing, think about the environment.

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 05 January 2017 14:07 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: RE: Draft Addendum to Council Size Submission - Rotherham MBC

Thanks James

Looking at it this afternoon

David.

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 January 2017 13:48 To: Owen, David Subject: Draft Addendum to Council Size Submission ‐ Rotherham MBC

David,

Thanks for taking the time to speak with me yesterday.

As discussed, I’ve drafted the attached and would emphasise that this is very much a draft at this stage, which I’ve not yet had chance to discuss with Cllr Read or Cllr Cowles.

I would welcome your feedback on whether this sufficiently addresses the concerns that Commissioners expressed. I think we have gone further to set out the consideration given to meeting the Commission’s tests for Council Size, but wonder whether the approach used to reach 59 rather than 55 to 63 goes far enough.

The Chief Executive has asked me to join her for the telephone call tomorrow, but if you could feedback to me before then that would be helpful in ensuring that the conversation is beneficial for us all.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Office Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it was addressed. 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 advise the sender by using the reply facility in your e-mail software, and then delete it from your system. Rotherham MBC may monitor the content of the e-mails sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the law and with RMBC policies. Any views or opinions presented are only those 1 of the author and not those of Rotherham MBC.The copyright in all documentation is the property of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and this email and any documentation must not be copied or used other than as strictly necessary for the purpose of this email, without prior written consent which may be subject to conditions.

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 09 January 2017 10:32 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Warding Submissions Attachments: Council Submission agreed by GP Committee submitted to LGBCE.pdf; BexleyCouncilLabour Group submission_Bexley_Stage1.pdf

James

These from Bexley are pretty good. I’ve put two in just to show that they don’t have to say the same thing in order to be good submissions.

The important thing is not just to describe the extent of a proposed ward, but to explain what its community (or communities ) that make the proposed ward relevant.

If you want more, I’ll find some, but you’ll see most of the good elements in this one.

Regards

David

1 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 01 February 2017 09:20 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC - Addendum to Submission

Hi James

Thanks for your message and the addendum. Hopefully we’ll soon be able to kick in to the fun (?) part of the review.

Jolyon doesn’t have a p.a., we’re not that big an organisation. I’d suggest that Sharon talk to Jolyon directly. He may be back here this afternoon, or he’s back tomorrow His number is 0330 500 1290

Or I can speak with her.

I’ll be writing up a report for this month’s Commission meeting and hope to get a decision.

I’m grateful for your help

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 February 2017 09:10 To: Owen, David Subject: Rotherham MBC ‐ Addendum to Submission

1 Good morning David,

I hope you are well.

Please find attached the final version of the addendum to the council’s submission.

If you have any queries please let me know.

In addition, could you let me have the contact details of Jolyon’s PA. Sharon Kemp would like to have a very quick conversation with him to explain the position in respect of Lead Commissioner Sir Derek Myers.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Office Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 26 April 2017 15:18 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Hi James

I may have had the answer to this already, if so I apologise for asking again.

RMBC elections will be in 2020, when will parish elections happen? If it’s also to be 2020, is there an Order I can have a copy of, extending terms of office of present parish councillors and setting the next (and subsequent) election dates

Sorry to bother you on this

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 11:26 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Hi David,

Good to hear from you.

1 We have made good progress and all indications are that there will be a cross‐party proposal on behalf of the Council. We’re awaiting formal feedback from the political groups after this weekend and then the Chief Executive intends to finalise the narrative supporting the proposal by the end of next week to meet the deadline of 8 May. I’ll keep you posted as things develop next week.

We had expected that parish councils would make submissions after we did a presentation to the parish council liaison group.

I will be interested to see the proposals from others when they are published.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Office Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 11:08 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Electoral Review

Hi James,

Our consultation on ward boundary proposals ends on 8 May. Do you know whether I should be expecting to receive a proposal from the Council and/or any of the party groups? I dare say that June 8 may be occupying a few minds.

I’ve had a few submissions in so far, including 5 from parish councils. The rest are from residents.

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

3 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 26 April 2017 12:46 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Thanks James

It did appear to me that some of the people that were writing to us were actually commenting on some proposals that are/were circulating in the area.

Regards

David

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 11:26 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Hi David,

Good to hear from you.

We have made good progress and all indications are that there will be a cross‐party proposal on behalf of the Council. We’re awaiting formal feedback from the political groups after this weekend and then the Chief Executive intends to finalise the narrative supporting the proposal by the end of next week to meet the deadline of 8 May. I’ll keep you posted as things develop next week.

We had expected that parish councils would make submissions after we did a presentation to the parish council liaison group.

I will be interested to see the proposals from others when they are published.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Office Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 11:08 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Electoral Review

Hi James,

I’ve had a few submissions in so far, including 5 from parish councils. The rest are from residents.

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

2 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 26 April 2017 11:08 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Electoral Review

Hi James,

I’ve had a few submissions in so far, including 5 from parish councils. The rest are from residents.

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

1 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 27 April 2017 09:05 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Thanks James

It gives me the reference I need when we come to make the Electoral Changes Orderafter the end of this review Grateful for your help

Regards David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 April 2017 08:32 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Hi David,

Not a problem.

Here is the link to the Order (made in 2015) ‐ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/884/pdfs/uksi_20150884_en.pdf ‐ which extends the term of office for parish councillors to May 2020 and also introduced whole Council elections for the borough council.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Office Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 15:18 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Hi James

I may have had the answer to this already, if so I apologise for asking again.

Sorry to bother you on this

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: McLaughlin, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 11:26

2 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Electoral Review

Hi David,

Good to hear from you.

We had expected that parish councils would make submissions after we did a presentation to the parish council liaison group.

I will be interested to see the proposals from others when they are published.

Best wishes, James

James McLaughlin Democratic Services Manager Assistant Chief Executive’s Office Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone Number 01709 822477 Extension:- 22477 E-mail:- [email protected] Website: www.rotherham.gov.uk

From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 11:08 To: McLaughlin, James Subject: Electoral Review

Hi James,

I’ve had a few submissions in so far, including 5 from parish councils. The rest are from residents.

Regards

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277

3 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

4 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 09 May 2017 15:35 To: Crompton, Miles Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC - Map of Proposed Wards

Hi Miles

That’s brilliant, I converted the files to our system and they worked perfectly. Saved me a fair degree of struggle

Thanks again

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: Crompton, Miles [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2017 15:24 To: Owen, David Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC ‐ Map of Proposed Wards

Hi David,

The proposal was mapped using MapInfo and I have attached the relevant table files for you, hopefully convertible.

Regards,

Miles

1 From: Owen, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2017 08:00 To: Crompton, Miles Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC - Map of Proposed Wards

Dear Miles

Many thanks for your message. The map is helpful. If you have mapped the proposal using any GIS program, could you let me have a copy of the mapping files. We use ArcGIS, but any alternative system that you use would be convertible.

Thanks again & regards,

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: Crompton, Miles [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 May 2017 17:16 To: Owen, David Cc: McLaughlin, James Subject: Rotherham MBC ‐ Map of Proposed Wards

Dear David,

Please see the attached map of RMBC’s proposed wards which are referenced in our submission made earlier today. This map is the same as the one included within our submission document but is larger and hopefully at sufficient resolution.

Please let me know if you require any further mapping or other detail which may lie behind our submitted proposals.

Regards,

Miles

Miles Crompton Policy and Partnership Officer Policy & Partnerships Team Assistant Chief Executive’s Office

Riverside House Wing B, Floor 4

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Tel: 01709 822763 Fax: 01709 822730 email: [email protected]

Visit the Rotherham JSNA Website: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/

3 Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 09 May 2017 08:00 To: Crompton, Miles Subject: RE: Rotherham MBC - Map of Proposed Wards

Dear Miles

Thanks again & regards,

David

David Owen Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

0330 500 1277 Email: [email protected] www.lgbce.org.uk

How are we doing? - Click here to give us your views

From: Crompton, Miles [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 May 2017 17:16 To: Owen, David Cc: McLaughlin, James Subject: Rotherham MBC ‐ Map of Proposed Wards

Dear David,

1 Please let me know if you require any further mapping or other detail which may lie behind our submitted proposals.

Regards,

Miles

Miles Crompton Policy and Partnership Officer Policy & Partnerships Team Assistant Chief Executive’s Office

Riverside House Wing B, Floor 4

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Tel: 01709 822763 Fax: 01709 822730 email: [email protected]

Visit the Rotherham JSNA Website: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Rotherham Borough Council

Electoral Review

July 2017

Translations and other formats To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2017

Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why Rotherham? ...... 1 Our proposals for Rotherham Borough Council ...... 1 Have your say ...... 1 What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England? ...... 2 1 Introduction ...... 3 What is an electoral review? ...... 3 Consultation ...... 3 How will the recommendations affect you? ...... 4 2 Analysis and draft recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Ward boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations ...... 7 The northern wards ...... 8 The western wards ...... 10 The eastern wards ...... 12 The southern wards ...... 14 Conclusions ...... 16 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 16 Parish electoral arrangements ...... 16 3 Have your say ...... 19 Equalities ...... 20 Appendix A ...... 21 Draft recommendations for Rotherham Borough Council ...... 21 Appendix B ...... 24 Outline map ...... 24 Appendix C ...... 26 Submissions received ...... 26 Appendix D ...... 27 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 27

Summary

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament. We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

2 Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

Electoral review

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed • How many wards or electoral divisions should there be, where are their boundaries and what should they be called • How many councillors should represent each ward or division

Why Rotherham?

4 We are conducting a review of Rotherham Borough Council as elections to the Council are now held for all seats on the council rather than for a third of seats at each election. This means that there is no longer a requirement for each ward to be elected by three members, creating an opportunity to better reflect the distinct communities in the borough. Furthermore, the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Rotherham. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

Our proposals for Rotherham Borough Council

• Rotherham Borough Council should be represented by 59 councillors, four fewer than there are now. • Rotherham Borough Council should have 25 wards, four more than there are now. • The boundaries of all wards should change, none will stay the same.

Have your say

5 We are consulting on our draft recommendations for a nine-week period, from 4 July to 4 September 2017. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to

1 contribute to the design of the new wards – the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be when analysing all the views we receive.

6 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

You have until 4 September 2017 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 19 for how to send us your response.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

7 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament.1

8 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors (Chair) • Peter Knight CBE, DL • Alison Lowton • Peter Maddison QPM • Sir Tony Redmond

• Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 2

1 Introduction

9 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in area are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

What is an electoral review?

10 Our three main considerations are to:

• Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents • Reflect community identity • Provide for effective and convenient local government

11 Our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Consultation

12 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Rotherham. We then held a period of consultation on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

13 This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

21 February 2017 Number of councillors decided 28 February 2017 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards 8 May 2017 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 4 July 2017 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 4 September 2017 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 31 October 2017 Publication of final recommendations

How will the recommendations affect you?

14 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward and, in some instances, which parish council ward you vote in. Your borough and parish ward names may also change.

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

15 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

16 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

17 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2016 2022 Electorate of Rotherham 201,314 206,263 Number of councillors 59 59 Average number of 3,412 3,496 electors per councillor

18 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Rotherham will have good electoral equality by 2022.

19 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

20 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

21 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2022, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2017. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 2.5% by 2022.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

22 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

23 Rotherham Borough Council currently has 63 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that decreasing by four will make sure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

24 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 59 councillors – for example, 59 one-councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and/or three-councillor wards.

25 We received three submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on ward patterns. One submission supported the proposal for a council size of 59 whilst two proposed a reduction in council size to 42 or fewer. These submissions contained no new evidence relating to governance or representational matters. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 59-member council.

Ward boundaries consultation

26 We received 23 submissions to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included a detailed borough-wide proposal from the Council. Other submissions made particular reference to localised parts of the borough.

27 The borough-wide scheme would provide for a mix of two- and three-councillor wards for Rotherham. We carefully considered this proposal and concluded that the proposed ward boundaries would, in general, have good levels of electoral equality. We also considered that they generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

28 Our draft recommendations are based on the Council’s borough-wide proposal. However, in some areas of the borough we have also taken into account the local evidence that we received, which provided evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas, we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria. We also visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This visit to Rotherham helped us to decide between different boundaries proposed and helped us to form our own alternatives.

29 Our draft recommendations are for nine three-councillor wards and 16 two- councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

30 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on page 16 and on the large map accompanying this report.

31 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

Draft recommendations

32 The tables and maps on pages 8–15 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Rotherham. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

• Equality of representation • Reflecting community interests and identities • Providing for effective and convenient local government

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 7

The northern wards

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Greasbrough 2 -6% Hoober 3 -2% Keppel 3 5% Kilnhurst & Swinton East 2 -9% Rawmarsh East 2 5% Rawmarsh West 2 4% Swinton Rockingham 2 -8% Wath 2 -2%

Greasbrough 33 The Council proposed a two-councillor ward for Greasbrough, describing the communities that make up its proposed ward. We received no other representations about this area. We consider that the ward boundaries proposed by the Council to be clear and the level of electoral equality to be satisfactory. We therefore recommend the Greasbrough ward proposed by the Council as part of our draft recommendations.

Hoober and Keppel 34 The Council proposed two three-councillor wards in this area, having clear boundaries and good levels of electoral equality. One resident advocated the combination of these two areas in a single ward. However, the number of electors in these areas warrants two three-councillor wards, and we are unwilling to recommend wards represented by more than three councillors. The Council’s proposal would achieve the outcome sought by another resident: the inclusion of the whole of the Kimberworth Park area in Keppel ward. We recommend the Hoober and Keppel wards proposed by the Council as part of our draft recommendations.

Kilnhurst & Swinton East, Rawmarsh East, Rawmarsh West, Swinton Rockingham and Wath 35 The Council proposed five two-councillor wards in this area, generally having clear boundaries. Whilst the Kilnhurst & Swinton East and Swinton Rockingham wards would have 9% and 8% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the borough by 2022, respectively, we recognise that the pattern of wards facilitates a good representation of community identities not just in these areas but also in adjacent parts of Rotherham.

36 The parish councils of Ravenfield and Thrybergh argued, in their submissions to us, that the boundaries of current wards link their areas with both Kilnhurst and Rawmarsh which they consider to be inappropriate. Rotherham Council’s proposal would make those areas distinct from both parishes. One resident suggested that the whole of Kilnhurst and Swinton should form a single ward. However, the number of electors in these areas warrants representation by four councillors and, as described above, we are unwilling to recommend wards represented by more than three councillors.

37 Whilst touring the area to examine the submissions made to us, we noted a small group of houses on Golden Smithies Lane and nearby housing that we considered would be better represented in a Swinton Rockingham ward than with more distant housing areas in Wath ward. We also took the view that the Wedgewood Close and Greenfield area of Rawmarsh would be better represented with adjoining residential areas in Rawmarsh East ward rather than in Rawmarsh West ward.

38 Subject to making these small changes, our draft recommendations are for Kilnhurst & Swinton East, Rawmarsh East, Rawmarsh West, Swinton Rockingham and Wath wards, largely as proposed by the Council

The western wards

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Boston Castle 3 0% Brinsworth 2 10% Rother Vale 2 -6% Rotherham East 3 4% Rotherham West 3 3% Sitwell 3 -2%

Boston Castle and Rotherham East 39 The Council proposed two three-councillor wards for these areas, broadly having clear boundaries and good levels of electoral equality. We received one further submission, from a local resident who argued that whilst the proposed ward boundaries would be appropriate, the Boston Castle ward would be better named Rotherham Central. We are not persuaded by this suggestion, as the Boston Castle ward would extend considerably to the south of the town’s central area, and the castle and park are notable features of the area.

40 On our visit to the area, however, we noted that housing on the north and south sides of Wickersley Road in Herringthorpe appeared to be part of the same community and we therefore propose that both sides of the road be included in a Rotherham East ward. Making this small change, our draft recommendations are for Boston Castle and Rotherham East wards, largely as proposed by the Council.

Brinsworth and Rother Vale 41 The Council proposed two two-councillor wards for these areas, broadly having clear boundaries. We received a submission from a local resident who argued that Catcliffe should not be separated from Brinsworth as to do so would weaken the position of Brinsworth. We are not persuaded by this argument, noting that the Council’s proposed ward would be coterminous with (have the same boundaries as) Brinsworth parish.

42 We received further submissions from Orgreave Parish Council, the Waverley Residents’ Association and from local residents. They argued that the Waverley development, a modern and continuing large-scale residential development, should be represented in a single ward. This development area lies on the boundary between Catcliffe and Orgreave parishes, and is currently split between two wards.

43 The Council’s proposal would achieve the outcome sought in these submissions. We note that the proposal would mean that Orgreave parish would be represented in two wards, but also that Orgreave Parish Council considers that the Waverley area and the older Orgreave community do not share a common identity and that there ought to be a separate Waverley parish. It is not within our power to alter parish boundaries or to create new parishes, but we are able to divide a parish between borough wards. Where we do so, we must provide parish wards, and we propose to do so as part of our draft recommendations. With this in mind, our draft recommendations are for Brinsworth and Rother Vale wards as proposed by the Council.

Rotherham West and Sitwell 44 The Council proposed two three-councillor wards for these areas, broadly having clear boundaries and good levels of electoral equality. The Council also described the community identities of these areas persuasively. We received no further submissions about these areas. Our draft recommendations are for Rotherham West and Sitwell wards as proposed by the Council.

The eastern wards

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Bramley & Ravenfield 2 6% Dalton & Thrybergh 2 7% Maltby East 2 -3% Maltby West 2 -5% Wickersley North 3 -2%

Bramley & Ravenfield 45 The Council proposed a two-councillor ward for this area which includes Hooton Roberts parish. Whilst we note that the ward would have around 200 more electors per councillor than the average for Rotherham by 2022, we consider that the Council’s proposed ward would have good boundaries. We also note that it provides for the separation of Ravenfield from Kilnhurst and Rawmarsh as suggested by Ravenfield Parish Council. We propose, as part of our draft recommendations, one minor change to the Council’s proposal by including within a Wickersley North ward, properties at Coppins Close and the southern end of Holyrood Rise.

Dalton & Thrybergh and Wickersley North 46 The Council proposed a two-councillor Dalton & Thrybergh ward and a three- councillor Wickersley North ward. Dalton Parish Council proposed a ward having the same boundaries as the parish, whilst Thrybergh Parish Council proposed that the whole of its parish be included within a single ward, preferably with Dalton parish rather than with Kilnhurst or Rawmarsh.

47 A ward consisting solely of Dalton parish would not have good electoral equality, either as a two-councillor or a three-councillor ward, and would also increase electoral inequality in adjacent areas to levels we would not be prepared to accept. A three-councillor ward consisting of Dalton and Thrybergh parishes in their entirety would have an acceptable level of electoral equality, but again, at the expense of electoral equality in adjoining areas. Furthermore, we visited the south- eastern part of Dalton parish in order to gauge its community links with the northern part of Wickersley. We concluded that this part of Dalton does appear to have greater commonality with Wickersley than with the northern and western parts of Dalton. We are therefore not persuaded that a ward having the same boundaries as Dalton parish would satisfy our statutory considerations.

48 We also noted, however, a considerable disparity in levels of representation between the Council’s proposed Wickersley North ward and its Thurcroft & Wickersley South ward. We visited the Sledgate Lane and the Moorlands area to ascertain whether its inclusion in Wickersley North would reflect community identity while minimising electoral variances. We observed that whilst Bawtry Road is a major urban highway, provision has been made for pedestrian and vehicular crossing and that the road also provides the sole means of access from this area to the Wickersley shopping and services centre which itself spans Bawtry Road.

49 We therefore propose, as part of our draft recommendations, a Dalton & Thrybergh ward as proposed by the Council and a Wickersley North ward, largely as proposed by the Council but including the Sledgate Lane and Moorlands area.

Maltby East and Maltby West 50 The Council proposed two two-councillor wards for this area, Maltby East having almost the exact number of electors per councillor as the average for Rotherham by 2022 whilst Maltby West would have 8% fewer. One local resident commented that current ward boundaries as they relate to Hellaby should change.

51 We visited Maltby to ascertain whether Braithwell Road represented a significant division between communities and concluded that it does not appear to do so. We therefore propose to modify the Council’s proposal in order to provide a better balance of representation by including all the properties fronting or gaining sole access to Braithwell Road in a Maltby West ward, along with Church Lane and Church Close.

The southern wards

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2022 Anston & Woodsetts 3 -7% Aston & Todwick 2 5% Aughton & Swallownest 2 -2% Dinnington 3 -4% Thurcroft & Wickersley South 2 3% Wales 2 7%

Anston & Woodsetts and Dinnington 52 The Council proposed two three-councillor wards for this area. Its proposed Anston & Woodsetts ward would comprise the parishes of North & South Anston, Thorpe Salvin, Woodsetts and the Laughton Common area of Dinnington St John’s. Woodsetts Parish Council argued that its inclusion in a ward with North & South Anston would mean that the parish would be ineffectively represented, advocating a ward to represent Woodsetts, Gildingwells, Letwell and Firbeck. A single-councillor ward for that area would have 45% fewer electors per councillor than the average for Rotherham by 2022, a degree of electoral inequality that we are not prepared to recommend. The addition of Thorpe Salvin parish would not resolve this over- representation, giving an electoral variance of 35%.

53 In his submission to us, Councillor Jepson commented that the Council’s proposal would split the Laughton Common area inappropriately. He added that the Council’s proposal to divide the Borrowdale Crescent area between Anston & Woodsetts and Dinnington wards would also split a localised community. We visited both areas in order to consider the points he raised. We agree that the Council’s proposal would split the Laughton Common community. Whilst the argument for the Lakeland Drive area is less clear-cut, we consider that modifying the Council’s proposal will provide a better balance of our statutory considerations.

54 Our draft recommendations therefore propose that the Laughton Common area of Dinnington parish be included in the Dinnington ward and that the Borrowdale Crescent and Park Avenue area be included in our Anston & Woodsetts ward.

Aston & Todwick and Aughton & Swallownest 55 The Council proposed two two-councillor wards for this area, broadly having good boundaries and electoral equality. We received no other submissions regarding this area. On our visit to the area, we noted, however, that the Manvers Road, Eden Grove and Egerton Road area is served by cul-de-sacs. We consider the orientation of this area to be towards Worksop Road and our draft recommendation is to include it in Aston & Todwick ward. To maintain good levels of electoral equality, we propose to include Rosedale Road and Town End Avenue in Aughton & Swallownest.

Thurcroft & Wickersley South 56 The Council proposed a two-councillor Thurcroft & Wickersley South ward, having good boundaries but having 8% more electors per councillor than the average for Rotherham by 2022. This compares with 8% fewer in Wickersley North ward. We received no other submissions regarding this area. As described in paragraph 48 above, we propose, as part of our draft recommendations, to modify the Council’s proposal in the Sledgate Lane and Moorlands area in order to improve levels of electoral equality.

Wales 57 The Council proposed a two-councillor Wales ward, made up of the parishes of Harthill with Woodall and Wales, which would have good electoral equality. We received no other submissions regarding this area. We consider that the Council’s proposal satisfies our statutory considerations, and include it as part of our draft recommendations.

Conclusions

58 The table below shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2016 and 2022 electorate figures.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2016 2022

Number of councillors 59 59

Number of electoral wards 25 25

Average number of electors per councillor 3,412 3,496

Number of wards with a variance more 3 0 than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Rotherham Borough Council should be made up of 59 councillors serving 25 wards representing 16 two-councillor wards and nine three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Rotherham. You can also view our draft recommendations for Rotherham on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

59 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

60 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our

16 recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Rotherham Borough Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

61 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Aston cum Aughton, Bramley, Dalton, Dinnington St John’s, Maltby, Orgreave and Wickersley.

62 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Aston cum Aughton parish.

Draft recommendation Aston cum Aughton Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Aston cum Aughton North 5 Aston cum Aughton South 7 Aston cum Aughton West 3

63 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Bramley parish.

Draft recommendation Bramley Parish Council should comprise seven councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bramley North 3 Bramley South 3 Bramley West 1

64 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Dalton parish.

Draft recommendation Dalton Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Dalton East 9 Dalton North 5 Dalton South 2

65 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Dinnington St John’s parish.

Draft recommendation Dinnington St John’s Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Dinnington Park Avenue 1 Dinnington Town 14

66 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Maltby parish.

Draft recommendation Maltby Parish Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Maltby East 10 Maltby West 8

67 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Orgreave parish.

Draft recommendation Orgreave Parish Council should comprise seven councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Orgreave 2 Waverley 5

68 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Wickersley parish.

Draft recommendation Wickersley Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Wickersley North 9 Wickersley South 7

3 Have your say

69 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

70 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Rotherham Borough Council, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

71 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

72 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to: Review Officer (Rotherham) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

73 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Rotherham which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

74 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government

75 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the council area?

76 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?

• Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

77 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

78 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices in Millbank (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

79 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

80 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

81 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Rotherham Borough Council in 2020.

Equalities

82 This report has been screened for impact on equalities, with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for Rotherham Borough Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2022) councillor % councillor % Anston & 1 3 9,816 3,272 -4% 9,714 3,238 -7% Woodsetts

2 Aston & Todwick 2 7,118 3,559 4% 7,348 3,674 5%

Aughton & 3 2 6,910 3,455 1% 6,849 3,425 -2% Swallownest

4 Boston Castle 3 10,112 3,371 -1% 10,526 3,509 0%

Bramley & 5 2 7,445 3,723 9% 7,423 3,712 6% Ravenfield

6 Brinsworth 2 7,864 3,932 15% 7,715 3,858 10%

Dalton & 7 2 6,917 3,459 1% 7,503 3,752 7% Thrybergh

8 Dinnington 3 9,663 3,221 -6% 10,089 3,363 -4%

9 Greasbrough 2 6,375 3,188 -7% 6,567 3,284 -6%

10 Hoober 3 9,750 3,250 -5% 10,286 3,429 -2%

Kilnhurst & 12 2 6,025 3,013 -12% 6,342 3,171 -9% Swinton East

13 Maltby East 2 6,684 3,342 -2% 6,764 3,382 -3%

14 Maltby West 2 6,674 3,337 -2% 6,648 3,324 -5%

15 Rawmarsh East 2 7,324 3,662 7% 7,365 3,683 5%

16 Rawmarsh West 2 6,975 3,488 2% 7,286 3,643 4%

17 Rother Vale 2 5,013 2,507 -27% 6,550 3,275 -6%

18 Rotherham East 3 11,046 3,682 8% 10,917 3,639 4%

19 Rotherham West 3 10,604 3,535 4% 10,812 3,604 3%

20 Sitwell 3 10,209 3,403 0% 10,285 3,428 -2%

Swinton 21 2 6,490 3,245 -5% 6,466 3,233 -8% Rockingham

Thurcroft & 22 2 6,851 3,426 0% 7,194 3,597 3% Wickersley South

23 Wales 2 7,165 3,583 5% 7,480 3,740 7%

24 Wath 2 6,950 3,475 2% 6,835 3,418 -2%

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2022) councillor % councillor % 25 Wickersley North 3 10,246 3,415 0% 10,241 3,414 -2%

Totals 59 201,314 – – 206,263 – –

Averages – – 3,412 – 3,496 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Rotherham Borough Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Appendix B

Outline map

Key

1. Anston & Woodsetts 14. Maltby West 2. Aston & Todwick 15. Rawmarsh East 3. Aughton & Swallownest 16. Rawmarsh West 4. Boston Castle 17. Rother Vale 5. Bramley & Ravenfield 18. Rotherham East 6. Brinsworth 19. Rotherham West 7. Dalton & Thrybergh 20. Sitwell 8. Dinnington 21. Swinton Rockingham 9. Greasbrough 22. Thurcroft & Wickersley South 10. Hoober 23. Wales 11. Keppel 24. Wath 12. Kilnhurst & Swinton East 25. Wickersley North 13. Maltby East

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/yorkshire- and-the-humber/south-yorkshire/rotherham

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/yorkshire-and-the-humber/south- yorkshire/rotherham

Local Authority

• Rotherham Borough Council

Councillors

• Councillor A. Carter (Rotherham Borough Council) • Councillor C. Jepson (Rotherham Borough Council)

Local Organisations

• Waverley Residents’ Association

Parish and Town Council

• Dalton Parish Council • Orgreave Parish Council • Ravenfield Parish Council • Thrybergh Parish Council • Ulley Parish Council • Whiston Parish Council • Woodsetts Parish Council

Local Residents

• 12 local residents

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in

whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

Ms Sharon Kemp Chief Executive Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Riverside House Main Street Rotherham S60 1AE

4 July 2017

Dear Ms Kemp,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF ROTHERHAM: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has opened a public consultation on its draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Rotherham Borough Council.

The consultation opens today (4 July 2017) and closes on 4 September 2017.

The draft recommendations propose that 59 borough councillors should be elected to Rotherham Borough Council in future. The recommendations also propose new electoral ward boundaries across the borough.

Once the Commission has considered all the responses to the consultation, we aim to publish final recommendations in October 2017. We will then lay a draft order in both Houses of Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements are scheduled to come into effect at the borough elections in 2020.

All information relating to the draft recommendations is available on our website. The Commission’s report on its draft recommendations can also be found at: www.lgbce.org.uk. In addition, hard copies of the report and accompanying map will be dispatched to the council shortly.

Interactive maps of the proposals are also posted on the Commission’s consultation portal at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk. The portal also allows visitors to submit comments and alternative proposals.

Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0330 500 1525; Fax: 0330 500 1526; [email protected]; www.lgbce.org.uk

Publicising the consultation

The Commission will shortly dispatch hard copies of the recommendations to the council for distribution to local information points. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you could bring the consultation to the attention of elected members.

We have also provided information on the draft recommendations directly to local councils and community organisations as well as notifying local press and media.

I would be grateful if you could also take steps to bring the consultation to the attention of the public and interested parties. In particular, please include details of the consultation:

• On your website; • Promote the consultation through social media and; • Use any other channels you would normally employ to engage residents in local consultations (newsletters, press releases, publications etc).

The Commission would be happy to provide information and/or copy to help you promote the consultation locally.

Draft recommendations

The Commission considered all the submissions it received in the previous stages of the review before drawing up the draft recommendations.

We have sought to balance the criteria we must follow when drawing up recommendations, namely:

• To deliver electoral equality where each borough councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the borough. • That the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. • That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.

The Commission will consider all representations made on the draft recommendations and has an open mind about amending the scheme if an alternative pattern of wards would better meet the statutory criteria above. It is also important for respondents to the consultation to indicate where and why they support the draft recommendations.

Further information on drawing up a pattern of electoral wards and putting forward alternative proposals is available in our guidance document: Electoral reviews: technical guidance which can be found at: www.lgbce.org.uk/ data/assets/pdf file/0006/10410/technical-guidance-2014.pdf .

Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0330 500 1525; Fax: 0330 500 1526; [email protected]; www.lgbce.org.uk

We also publish a practical guide for putting forward submissions called How to propose a pattern of wards which is available at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/ data/assets/pdf file/0008/25694/Proposing-new-wards- guidance-2015-08-04.pdf.

Our website includes information about previous electoral reviews of borough councils where you can see how the Commission came to its conclusions and how other counties, districts and parishes responded to consultations on draft recommendations.

As ever, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about the consultation.

Correspondence and enquiries

Correspondence relating to the review – and consultation responses - should be addressed to:

Review Officer (Rotherham) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Email: [email protected]

Responses to the consultation can also be made directly through our specialist consultation portal: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk.

Further information on electoral reviews can also be found at our main website at: www.lgbce.org.uk.

Your direct contacts for the review:

David Owen, Review Officer, with specific responsibility for the day-to-day running of the review.

Richard Buck, Review Manager, leads the team dealing with this and other electoral reviews.

Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0330 500 1525; Fax: 0330 500 1526; [email protected]; www.lgbce.org.uk

Ms Claire Wardle Electoral Services Manager Riverside House Main Street Rotherham S60 1AE

4 July 2017

Dear Claire,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF ROTHERHAM: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

As you know, the Commission today publishes its draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Rotherham Borough Council.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Sharon Kemp formally notifying your Council of the publication of our draft recommendations, together with:

• a copy of the news release announcing the publication of the Commission’s report • 5 copies of the report summary • 30 A4 posters advertising the draft recommendations

Hard copies of the report are being sent to you separately. I have arranged for a courier to deliver them to your offices at the Council after we receive them. The report will be available on our website from today.

Please note that it is open to the Commission to modify its draft recommendations before publishing. The Commission would welcome comments on its report by 4 September 2017. Representations should be made through https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk, by email to [email protected] or in writing to this address:

Review Officer (Rotherham) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th Floor, Mil bank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0330 500 1525; Fax: 0330 500 1526; [email protected]; www.lgbce.org.uk

News Release

Embargoed until: 00:01, 4 July 2017

Rotherham residents: have your say on new ward boundaries

The independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking people across Rotherham to comment on its draft proposals for new council ward boundaries.

A nine-week public consultation on the recommendations begins today and will end on 4 September 2017. The consultation is open to anyone who wants to have their say on new council wards, ward boundaries and ward names across Rotherham.

The Commission’s draft recommendations propose that the Rotherham should have 59 councillors in the future, four fewer than the current arrangements. The recommendations also outline how those councillors should represent nine three-councillor wards and sixteen two- councillor wards across the borough.

The full recommendations and detailed interactive maps are available on the Commission’s website at consultation.lgbce.org.uk and www.lgbce.org.uk. Hard copies of the Commission’s report and maps will also be available to view at council buildings.

Professor Colin Mellors, Chair of the Commission, said: “We are publishing proposals for a new pattern of wards across Rotherham and we are keen to hear what local people think of the recommendations.

“Over the next nine weeks, we are asking local people to tell us if they agree with the proposals or if not, how they can be improved.

“Our review aims to deliver electoral equality for local voters. This means that each councillor represents a similar number of people so that everyone’s vote in council elections is worth roughly the same regardless of where you live.

“We also want to ensure that our proposals reflect the interests and identities of local communities across Rotherham and that the pattern of wards can help the council deliver effective local government to local people.

“We will consider all the submissions we receive whoever they are from and whether your evidence applies to the whole borough or just part of it.

The Commission wants to hear as much evidence as possible to develop final recommendations for Rotherham. If you would like to make a submission to the Commission, please write or email us by 4 September 2017:

The Review Officer (Rotherham)

Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP

Email: [email protected]

Have your say directly through the Commission’s consultation portal: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/9224

Link to the dedicated web page for the Rotherham electoral review: www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/yorkshire-and-the-humber/south-yorkshire/rotherham

For further information contact: Press Office: 0330 500 1250 / 1525 [email protected] ends/

Notes to editors: 1. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is responsible for reviewing local authority electoral arrangements, defining boundaries for local elections and the number of councillors to be elected, as well as conducting reviews of local government external boundaries and structures.

2. The Commission is carrying out an electoral review of Rotherham Borough Council to deliver electoral equality for voters in local elections. The borough currently has relatively high levels of electoral inequality where some councillors represent significantly more, or fewer, voters than other members of the council. The council’s move away from elections by thirds (where one third of councillors is elected at each election) in favour of whole council elections (where every councillor stands for election every four years) provides an opportunity for the Commission to carry out a review of the ward boundaries.

3. The types of questions the Commission is asking residents at this stage are:

- Do the proposed wards reflect local communities?

- How do you think the proposals can be improved whilst maintaining electoral equality?

- Are the names of the proposed wards right?

4. The electoral review of Rotherham Borough Council is a separate undertaking from the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries which is being carried out by a separate body (Boundary Commission for England) under different rules and legislation.

5. Residents have from 4 July until 4 September 2017 to have their say about where ward boundaries for Rotherham should be drawn. The Commission will consider all submissions and aims to publish its final recommendations in October 2017. Once the Commission agrees its final recommendations it will lay a draft order in both Houses of Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 days in which to consider the recommendations. If both Houses are satisfied with the recommendations, the draft order will be ‘made’ and the new wards will come into effect at the council elections in May 2020.

Owen, David

From: Owen, David Sent: 03 July 2017 10:34 To: Wardle, Claire Subject: Rotherham electoral review Attachments: Rotherham_Draft_Recommendations_Report.pdf; Roth-Draft-CEX-letter-2017-07-04.pdf; Roth- Draft-Contact-Letter-2017-07-04.docx; Rotherham draft recs Jun17.doc

Dear Claire

We are launching our draft recommendations at midnight on our website. I’m attaching dome documents here for your information. There will be some e‐mails to follow because of constraints on attachments file size on our system. All of the stuff I’m sending is under embargo until midnight, but it may help you brief your CE, colleagues or members and prepare any media response.

In the series of e‐mails, I’ll include GIS mapping so that you can reproduce maps at any scale for all or part of your area.

There will be letters coming to you and CEx in hard copy.

If you have any queries, do let me know