Hull Labour Group Responds to This Further Consultation Wholly Bemused by This Unusual Irregular Process

THE HULL CITY COUNCIL LABOUR GROUP SUBMISSION TO THE FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HULL CITY COUNCIL WARDS

8TH AUGUST 2017

Contents Page

Preface & Introduction 3

East Hull Wards 6  Sutton, Ings, Longhill & Bilton Grange, Marfleet and 6 Southcoates  Drypool and Holderness 8 North Hull Wards 22  Avenue Ward 22  Kingswood, West Carr, North Carr Wards 25  Beverley Sculcoates Ward 33  Central Ward 54  Orchard Park, University Wards 58  Wyke Ward 59 West Hull Wards 60  Pickering 60  Newington & Gipsyville 63  St. Andrew’s & Docklands 72  Derringham 79  Boothferry 80 Concluding Statement 81

Appendices – scans of surveys sent separately due to volume.

Preface

The Hull Labour Group responds to this further consultation wholly bemused by this unusual irregular process. Our unhappiness stems from the fact that we believe we were fundamentally misled by Commission staff who unequivocally stated that the first set of draft recommendations from the LGBCE would be based on a three- member Ward settlement. This LGBCE advice was given at the Labour Group Briefing with Officers and Members (including a Conservative Councillor) present). This then informed our initial response in October 2016.

The alleged rationale and premature dismissal of a three-member Warding Settlement as proposed by Labour, seems to stem from the LGBCE’s refusal to consider a cross-river Ward. It is regrettable that the LGBCE continually refers to “’…our decision in relation to the River Hull…” [LGBCE Page 21 Paragraph 85, June 2017]. At this stage the LGBCE should have ONLY been dealing with recommendations, but it is clear, despite a lack of strong evidence, the LGBCE had made their mind up, preferring the repetition against such a ward by one political party. This is particularly frustrating as Boundary Commissioners from the LGBCE have allowed such very proposals for Cross-River Wards in other communities in other parts of the UK, for example – Glebe Farm and Tile Cross Ward in Birmingham. Although in March 2017, Labour invited the commission to look again at this rationale. This was dismissed on distance, even though the LGBCE new recommendations for Myton have a larger road distance between Anlaby Road’s and Hymers Avenue’s nearest residential properties than that between Beverley High Road’s most Northerly property and those on Kingswood.

Labour will also challenge the inconsistency in the current proposals where in some communities Railway Lines and Bridge are applied as “Ward dividers”, but in other recommendations the proposals argue Railway Lines, (with no community crossing points), do not divide communities.

Labour also objects to forcing a second consultation over the summer holiday period when resources to call upon for such a significant piece of work are limited by Member and Officer availability. Without the support of officers across the council, including some who did not take time off in order to provide needed information over the consultation period this further consultation would have caused significant problems. It is hoped their efforts and ours have not been in vain, and this time there will be a genuine consideration of better outcomes for the communities in Hull than what we have seen so far.

Introduction

Hull Labour Group argued a coherent case for a three-person Warding of the City. The LGBCE decided to reject this. It does then also appear that the Boundary Commission has pre-determined thinking against two-person Wards.

It is Labour’s view that at the point the LGBCE abandoned their stated aim to have three-person Wards, it is just not credible to then also to seek to impose an arbitrary

“quota” as to the number of two-persons Wards this City shall have, especially when the resulting proposals are so catastrophic for long-established Hull communities.

It needs to be remember, that since 2001, this City has had NINE, two person Wards. It is against this backdrop that local community representatives cannot understand the drive to reduce this to three, especially as the LGBCE made the decision to reject the proposal to have zero. The LGBCE state that in paragraph 85 that a high level of evidence would be required to support further two person wards than the three they have selected. Clearly the evidence for the existing NINE was sufficient for the Boundary Commission in 2001. More surprisingly Labour’s reduction to SIX from NINE, has been rejected. This is a fundamental flaw when some of the new three-person Wards such as Beverley and Sculcoates are without strong evidential merit, and with strong local opposition across the length of the proposed Ward.

In fact the Guidance on Page 25 of the “Further Draft Recommendations” [LGBCE, June 2017] reminds of the need for a good pattern of Wards to :-

“Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links” and ………”be based on strong easily identifiable boundaries”

Labour will therefore provide strong and compelling evidence to support the ward proposals from the Labour Group submitted in March 2017. Labour will use evidence to refute claims made in the previous Lib Dems submissions which seem to have been accepted as correct by LGBCE without rigour, when any research would have shown this “evidence” to be wholly false, misleading and without merit.

Labour will be using evidential data provided by:-

 Children’ & Family Services (Schools and Sure Start)  HCC Business Intelligence Segmentation Data *[See explanation below]  Area Plans  Indices of deprivation on ward level (LSOA)  School Catchments/pupil data including EAL and School Meals where appropriate  Data/maps showing ‘recognised city areas of Hull’  Proposed Ward Maps  Information from/about Churches  Retail/Shopping data  GP Practices

*[HCC Business Intelligence Customer Segmentation is about recognising that not all people are the same.

Hull is growing increasingly diverse over time and is very different to how it was 10 – 15 years ago. Our residents live in different neighbourhoods and communities; each with their own unique defining characteristics. People across the city not only look different from one another (e.g. age, ethnicity, housing, income etc), but they have differing attitudes and lifestyles. They use

4 different types of services and have different needs and expectations from the local authority and prefer different communication channels and messaging styles.

Customer segmentation is simply the process of sub dividing Hull’s residents into distinct groups based on who they are, (socio-demographics), what they do, (behaviours), and how they think and feel, (attitudes). This data is important in planning localised services and understanding the needs and wants within a localised area and where the key boundaries between areas and consequent communities of identity lie.

Drawing on a range of national and local datasets, the Hull segmentation model links socio – demographic information with real local attitudinal and transactional data. It provides a detailed and accurate understanding of the city’s resident’s the types of challenges and expectations there may be in areas and their distribution of inter-related groups around the city.]

Labour has enclosed surveys that demonstrate there is real opposition in many communities to your proposed plans. Many of these Surveys also include additional comments which must be separately considered by the LGBCE, as individual responders, and not just survey returnees. We trust that every one of those comments will be read and processed, as they give a real flavour of genuine Hull opinion. They were unfiltered, so you will see them all.

We used 2 types of Surveys. Small survey up to 250 households and larger surveys up to 700 households. The onus was on householders to return these replies unsolicited. Given this factor, the response rate of many of these exceeded turnouts in the local elections in those areas, and we are pleased that hundreds of people have been engaged in the consultation carried out by Labour. The turnout in some of the working-class estates areas was far higher than we expected and indeed at the time of writing this report surveys continue to come in.

A number, as you will see, also refer to this entire process being wasteful of scarce resources, with a number of residents, stating people will likely not listen to the “likes of them”. We expect the LGBCE to listen to those understandably sceptical voices, this time, and adjust their final proposals in a way that was not evident in the last consultation.

EAST HULL WARDS

Sutton, Ings, Longhill & Bilton Grange, Marfleet and Southcoates

The Labour Group are not providing any further changes to these wards and broadly supports the LGBCE rationale for them including the evidence previously submitted as to why these wards provide for good community Identity, electoral equality and efficient local government. There is a reasonably good match with local school catchment areas as shown by the school catchment map below.

School Catchment map showing the primary schools covering Sutton, Ings, Longhill & Bilton Grange and Southcoates Ward.

Labour would have preferred to see the original warding for this area which achieved very good three member wards with very good electoral equality while also maintaining community identity. This is particularly the case for Ings ward which has been reduced to a two seat ward as a result of the decision by the LGBCE to reject the full proposal for three seat wards because of a view that a ward could not cross the River Hull, despite clear evidence of the logistical connectivity and social linkages in the area between the north of the current Beverley Ward and the newer area of the Kingswood development, both being almost exclusively private, large dwellings with high car ownership, greater affluence than surrounding areas and very similar Business Intelligence Customer Segmentation levels.

In Labour’s March submission we did propose a name change for this ward to ‘Bellfield Ward’, which was the name this area used to be called under Humberside County Council because Bellfield Avenue is the main thoroughfare for this area, cutting across the ward from west to east. The Commission rejected this as some

6 streets in the area do not come off Bellfield Avenue. In actual fact the vast majority of streets in this area either come off Bellfield Avenue or link to streets which do and Bellfield Avenue is the main link to Holderness road for the area as well. For these reasons, Labour suggests again that the ward be renamed ‘Bellfield Ward’.

The Labour Group supports the proposal to join Southcoates West and Southcoates East, in fact returning the wards to a similar boundary of the former ‘Southcoates’ that marked the boundaries until 2002. This area encompassed all of Southcoates West and some of the more traditional housing off Southcoates Lane, Southcoates Avenue and Preston Rd. The remaining area of Southcoates East is geographically placed to be in Southcoates – the housing off Southcoates Avenue and Preston Rd up to the natural boundary of Maybury Rd in the east and along the drain on the south eastern boundary.

This area of Hull was part of the residential expansion in east Hull, with significant building to provide housing for the Docking community. It was not uncommon, and indeed is still not, for two or three generations to live within a relatively short distance in this area. The links of families and close friendships (historically often made through work in the Dock trade) are very important to local residents, both in terms of mutual support and community.

The proposed Southcoates will also link in with the primary schools in the local catchment – Alderman & Cogan Primary, Southcoates Primary, Estcourt Primary and Woodland. Families in the proposed Southcoates are lucky to have a good choice of primary schools and around this choice are links based on families and friendships going back beyond one generation, as discussed above.

By joining the two wards the important community link along Southcoates Avenue, focused particularly at St John’s Church/Community and St Aidan’s Church will be strengthened further. The Southcoates East community is based around the Preston Road New Deal for Communities area that is retained in the proposed Southcoates; this will link in with the community hub of the Freedom Village, and charitable community-focused organisations working in the area – Preston Road Neighbourhood Development Company, PROBE, Child Dynamix, Environmental Management Solutions, the Hull Community Shop, etc that focus their work in the HU9 postcode and takes in both Southcoates communities.

The proposed Southcoates will be better served by three members who can work together across the whole area, where the over-lapping links are numerous.

Although incredibly supportive of the proposal to join the Southcoates wards, Labour believes that the commission has made decisions that contradict the broad objectives set out in your visit to Hull City Council in 2015. In particular, your stated preference at that time for three member wards, retaining natural established communities, and basing boundaries on sound knowledge of local communities. Having rejected a pattern of coherent three member wards proposed by Labour in

October 2016; which Labour asked the Commission to reconsider in March alongside further proposals; it is important that the commission do not ignore the other criteria which are by default now as; if not more; a priority. I therefore ask that you revisit the Labour proposal of March 2017 that is based on objective reasoning and not political objectives.

Drypool and Holderness, (Garden Village/Stoneferry).

In the Liberal Democrat proposal from March 2017, which was accepted by the LGBCE, they state that the proposed boundary change from the Labour Group that would see Garden Village move from Drypool Ward to Holderness Ward would be wrong as it would split the Garden Village community between the two wards. Labour proposed to move the entire Garden Village Community into the Holderness Ward which is made up of housing that is far more similar to it than the social housing in the current ward area. What was not clear, however, was that the Garden Village referred to by Labour did include the Derwent Street area which is at the end of Lilac Avenue. With these 15 houses included Garden Village and its entire Conservation Area is completely covered by Labours proposals. The main criticism from the Liberal Democrats appears to be that Labours proposals divide this community when in reality the drafting error excluded only 15 properties. It is an exaggeration in the extreme to pretend that this renders the proposal unworkable and indeed there was never any intention to exclude these properties, which are clearly within the Garden Village conservation area.

Labour carried out a very small sample survey including a random selection of 120 residences on Garden Village. The results of this survey are included below.

There is also a suggestion arising from the template surveys/letters distributed to some areas of the ward that Labour’s proposal also splits the traditional Stoneferry area. This suggestion will be dealt with and dismissed below but firstly we will address Garden Village.

While campaigning to retain the Garden Village area in Drypool local Liberal Democrats have made a number of misleading and even false statements which were then accepted by the LGBCE as ‘strong evidence’, such as the one addressed above but also including that Labour’s proposal would:-

 Split the Garden Village and Stoneferry Communities. (It doesn’t split Garden Village and Stoneferry has, as an area, been split for many decades and would remain so under all proposals tabled).  Split the school catchment area for Garden Village, The catchment area currently covers all Garden Village and also parts of Holderness Ward)  Many local residents would be in a different ward to their local library yet the library is under consultation for moving anyway, with the two potential new

sites in Holderness ward. (A weak argument at the best of times as Sheffield only has one library).  Place Reckitt Benckiser in a different ward to the club house it supports, (The Company is actually called RB and it does not support the club house).  Would split residents north of Chamberlain Road from Rockford Fields, (The allotments to the north of Rockford Ave do this quite effectively already, being surrounded by a security fence and the fields are a natural amenity to the area to the north of the fields, the natural open space for Rockford Ave and Chamberlain Road is the Brooklands Park Recreation Ground to its immediate south).

The Labour Group will address all of these points in detail below and provide very strong evidence that Garden Village was developed as part of Holderness and is a natural part of it, as well as proposing a slight change to the boundary between the rear of the allotments and Rockford fields which would see the allotments themselves retained in Drypool essentially because they are accessed via security gating from the end of Lamorna Avenue and are called Lamorna Allotments and so it is sensible that they should, along with Lamorna Avenue and Rockford Avenue stay together in Drypool Ward. The allotments themselves are surrounded by high level security fencing which prevents access to the general public. This is covered in detail below.

Garden Village

There is now no connection anymore whatsoever between Garden Village and RB, the successor company to ‘Reckitts’ who initially build the community in the early 20th Century to house employees in superior quality housing to the surrounding social housing. Factory workers at RB could not afford the high house prices of this exclusively privately owned residential area. The development of Garden Village was one of several ‘City Village’ projects across the country and The ‘City Village’ itself is contained within what used to be the Jalland Estate, the northern grounds of Holderness House, which gives its name to the Holderness Ward close by and to which Labour proposed to move Garden Village. There is another, smaller and more modest, example of the City Village Movement development in Gipsyville in the west of the city originally belonging to another local entrepreneurial benefactor. The village itself was not connected to Holderness Road until Village Road was built at the end of construction to provide an entrance bounded by mature trees that separated the two areas. The original access was via James Reckitt Avenue showing that it was in fact a development coming from Holderness Ward not from Drypool.

While this provides a historical context to why Garden Village is better placed with the similar area in the current Holderness Ward, it is also the case that the current

Garden Village Conservation Area covers the entirety of the Garden Village area as identified exactly in Labour’s proposal, (See map of Garden Village Conservation Area below.

Map showing Garden Village Conservation Area

It is important to note that the ‘club house’ mentioned in the Liberal Democrat proposal, sits almost directly in the middle of the area on the ‘Oval’. The association between this clubhouse ; which was at one point accompanied by a Shopping Centre with a Library in it and a Village Hall which have now gone; and what was ‘Reckitts’ has long ceased and RB has had no association with it at all. It is a community resource used not only by groups on Garden village but increasingly also by groups based in the neighbouring Holderness and Drypool Wards as well as other areas; as such resources have become increasingly rare. It is supported then, not by ‘Reckitts’ but by a much wider association of differing groups and clubs from a very wide area. This will continue to be the case whether it is in Drypool or Holderness and so this is completely irrelevant. The fact that both the Holderness Ward Labour Party Branch and the Drypool Ward Labour Party Branch hold their meetings in the Clubhouse testifies to its universality in the much wider area.

School Catchment Areas

The Liberal Democrat Proposals, supported by the LGBCE, also makes reference to primary schools in the Garden Village area as a reason not to move Garden Village per se into the neighbouring and similar Holderness ward, stating this would split communities. This assertion is simply incorrect.

A simple look at the local schools catchment areas shows that the Garden Village area already completely lies in the catchment area for Westcott Primary which also includes the area around Westcott Street and Lee Street that are in Holderness Ward now. Far from dividing children from the schools they mainly attend, Labour’s proposals of March 2017 serve to unite them. There will always be some children whose parents elect to send them to other schools or who do not get a place in the catchment area they live in due to pupil numbers, although these will be the minority.

Map Showing that Westcott Primary School Serves the Garden Village area and the adjoining area of the Current Holderness ward already.

Children living in Garden Village currently attend Westcott Primary alongside children resident in Holderness Ward and Labours proposal to unite the two would result in greater continuity of the local community whose children are already educated together. The Liberal Democrat proposal, which has been supported by the LGBCE, continues to support this artificial divide.

Garden Village: Holderness and Drypool Boundary Segmentation Data.

The Customer Data Segmentation map below is based upon the ward boundaries proposed by the LGBCE which were supported by the Liberal Democrat Group and those residents that they chose to lobby on Garden Village, and clearly shows the connectivity between Garden Village resident characteristics and those of Holderness Ward as well as the remarkable dissimilarity between Garden Village residents and those to the northern part of Drypool Ward as was clearly pointed out in Labours original proposals. To the North West of the Drypool Ward and further to the West of Garden Village lies a large area of industrial/factory land that is bordered by the River Hull.

Garden Village itself is made up of segmentation groups G, H and I which matches, almost identically with the groups in Holderness Ward and contrasts starkly with most of Drypool Ward which comprises mainly groups C, (Public Renting Young Families), and G, (Diverse private renters).

Segmentation map showing breakdown of Holderness and Drypool Wards as proposed by LGBCE.

% of Households: A B C D E F G H I K L Holderness - - - - 3% 20% - 47% 31% - - Drypool 4% 6% 2% 2% 25% 10% 12% 16% 6% 8% 7%

According to the Hull segmentation model the proposed Holderness ward is clearly dominated by affluent, typically home owning segments living in areas of low deprivation.

It is important to note that those properties categorised as Group I, (Economically active in detached and semis), situated in Garden Village are very different properties to those usually in this category by the very nature of being part of the ‘City Village’ philanthropic movement of the early 20th Century which provided much larger detached, semi-detached and terraced housing with large garden areas to similar categories of housing in traditional social or even private housing developments of the time or since. All of these houses are now privately owned and towards the very upper end of the housing market.

98% of the proposed Holderness ward belongs to three groups:

Group F: Older couples in owner occupied semis

Group H: Economically active residents in owner occupied terraces

Group I: Economically active residents in owner occupied detached and semis

As the map demonstrates, the Drypool ward can be roughly delimitated into the Victoria Dock area (as marked by the green square) and the rest of the ward.

The Victoria Dock area is mostly made up of the more affluent Groups (Groups G, I and K) whilst the rest of the ward is made up of a mixture of typically low income, ethnically mixed, renting groups, most specifically:

Group E: Residents in high density low income non-council terraced houses - Containing low income singles and families in densely packed owner occupied and private rented terraces. These neighbourhoods provide a relatively cheap entry point into the housing market for those who do not qualify for social housing. An above average proportion of residents (13%) were born outside the UK; particularly in other EU countries (5%).

Group L: Young, diverse people in private rented flats and terraces - Typically young singles (and some young families) living in a mixture of private rented housing in ethnically diverse, but economically challenged, areas. A large number of residents were born outside the UK (30%) and there are a high number of households where no one speaks English as a first language (20%). Many residents belong to groups that have recently arrived in the UK.

The Garden Village area, marked by the yellow circle in the previous map, is mostly made up of households from Groups G, H and I. This clearly shows that households in this area share characteristics with the majority of residents in the proposed Holderness ward. These groups are not socially homogenous with the majority of the proposed Drypool ward; (Marked by the Green rectangle) – other than the Victoria Dock area which is clearly a distinct and separate community. Library

There is reference to residents being in a different ward to their local library in Mount Pleasant which would suggest there is some form of physical barrier preventing people from one ward borrowing books from a library a short distance away. Labour completely rejects this as a serious argument and further adds that it is well known in the area and indeed the city, that the library provision at Mount Pleasant is under public consultation with regard to the continuance of provision on the current site as the building it is housed in is no longer used for any other Council run service. Although still in the consultation stage it is unlikely to remain where it currently is and far more likely to be relocated to an alternative site nearby as it has a very low usage where it is now. The Labour Group has checked with the Council and as library usage is recorded, in the last two month period there were an average of 37 visits a week to the Library from Garden Village Area. Usage figures alone this show that the argument about this being a major factor to be patently untrue. As these warding proposals must take into account as much as possible and where known; changes that are planned in communities, it is of questionable merit to argue that residents being in a different ward to their local library. As already stated, there is currently a public consultation ongoing regarding this library with the two alternative sites being in the middle of Holderness Ward anyway.

The Garden Village Conservation area would not be split by Labours proposals of March 2017 albeit the map submitted contained a drafting error in that it missed out approximately 15 properties to the immediate south of Chestnut Aveue and north of Mersey Street School. Labours proposal includes all of the Garden Village Conservation Area.

Survey

Labour carried out a small survey of 300 residences in Garden Village. These were not selected based upon any data held by the party with regard to voting intentions or even if they were regular voters. Addresses across the area were provided with a letter explaining what the survey was about and a survey asking which statement they supported and also asking them if they wished to contribute any comments as well as part of their feedback. Each letter gave a freepost address to be used to return the survey.

It has to be mentioned that there was a typographical error on the survey for this area as at the top it was entitled “Avenue ward Survey…”, however, as the comments show, local residents understood the question they were being asked and responded accordingly.

Of the 300 surveys issued 26 were returned, relating to 30 individuals. This is a response rate of 8.6%. This is considered a reasonable response rate for a survey of this kind compared to industry standards. 27 individuals supported that they recognised the similarities between Garden Village and Holderness Ward and the differenced with Drypool Ward and agreed that they would be better represented in a ward that is more similar to their area. Three residents believed that their area had more in common with the Council/Social housing of most of Drypool. Of those that returned the survey 90% supported Garden Village being more closely associated with Holderness Ward which would represent their interests better with 10% the other way.

The survey also allowed residents to contribute their own comments. One resident asked whether Garden Village could be a ward in itself recognising it is fairly unique, (There is one other ‘City Village Area in the West – Gipsyville, although the two projects were and remain different). Labour does understand the difficulty in constructing single seat wards and does not believe there is a large enough electorate in Garden Village to support such a suggestion. The resident does on to suggest it could be a ‘sub-division’ of Holderness ward, clearly recognising that its similarity would better suit Holderness rather than being part of Drypool. Other comments included:-

“We are a conservation area and have a strong, shared history and a thriving community spirit”.

Scanned copies of all returns have been sent to the Commission.

Stoneferry

The proposals from the LGBCE; again in support of the Liberal Democrat submission; for Stoneferry also accept some assertions that are highly flawed. The logic from the Liberal Democrat submission; which has been accepted and used to reject Labours proposal to move the ward boundary north to include the Rockford Avenue/Lamorna Avenue area in Drypool as opposed to Holderness; revolves around a claim that by so doing the residents of the Rockford Avenue area would be cut off from the amenities of Rockford Fields and the allotments accessed from the end of Lamorna Avenue. While this latter point is valid, and a reason to move Labour’s proposed boundary along the security fenced curve of the allotments boundary, the former claim is without validity as the allotments themselves form an impassable barrier to both residents of the Rockford area and allotment holders alike.

It is difficult to understand how a line on a map delineating an electoral ward boundary would serve to be a greater physical barrier between the Rockford Avenue area than the actual allotments that lie to the rear of Rockford Avenue between it and the fields and which are bounded by impassable security fencing. (See Geographic map of area below evidence and the map evidence taken from the ‘Management Plan for Rockford Fields below).

Map showing the position of the allotments in relation to Rockford Avenue and Rockford Fields.

The tree line curving around the northern edge of the allotments hides the security fencing that protects the allotments on all sides.

A visit to the area itself reveals that there is no pedestrian access from Rockford Avenue/Lamorna Avenue onto Rockford Fields bar one narrow pedestrian access point between housing. There are two access points at either side of this area to cycle paths that border two sides of the fields both protected by ‘P’ Barriers.

Access to Rockford Fields is via the other three borders of the field in the existing Holderness Ward area with 7 access points. This is why moving the fields into this ward is not only sensible; it is the right thing to do if the real intention is to unite the fields with those who mainly use it as an amenity in the Holderness Ward.

Map Showing access points to Rockford Field from Holderness Ward.

The Management Plan for Rockford Fields reveals that Rockford Field was meadowland enjoyed by the residents of Holderness Ward and when building construction began on the southern section of the meadow in Holderness at least some residents objected to losing this part of the meadow to what became the Rockford Avenue area, which is the reason the Avenue was called Rockford, (Page 33).

This is further supported again by looking at the ‘Management Plan for Rockford Fields 2011-16, Appendix 7, page 33 in which it is revealed that in November 2009;

“…questionnaires were sent out to all households in Hull’s Holderness Ward with a freepost return address…” to ascertain what their priorities were for this local amenity that is used by dog walkers, cyclists and joggers amongst others. Although the questionnaire was also available on the Council Website the Area Team, other Officers and Local Councillors did not believe it necessary to do the same in Drypool Ward because access to the fields is from Holderness Ward with only very minimal pedestrian access at two points either side of the Rockford Avenue area compared to seven points from the surrounding area.

Residents of Drypool Ward are far more likely to use the Brooklands Park Recreation Ground which has the added attraction of actually having amenities for the playing of sports and which is accessible from Drypool Ward

Labours proposal to have the ward boundary run to the immediate north of the Rockford Avenue area would in no way impede access to the fields and would have no effect whatsoever in relation to use or access to the actual recreation grounds at Brooklands. In contrast, the proposed ward boundary in this area from the LGBCE in relation to Stoneferry actually divides Stoneferry itself.

The other key flaw in the suggestion that Labours proposal; which is now to draw the boundary along the security fencing to the rear of the allotments of Lamorna Avenue; would split the Stoneferry community is fundamentally flawed in that the ‘Stoneferry’ area itself actually covers a large part of what is now called Holderness ward and over many years it has not only already been split but has also had parts of other areas added to it to form Holderness Ward. The map below shows that a large area of the Stoneferry Area already sits within the boundary of Drypool Ward; (Note the red lines denoting the boundaries of the recognised areas and the black lines the existing ward boundaries); and more than half of the Summergangs/East Park Area has been combined with Stoneferry to make up the Holderness Ward.

Map showing Areas in Hull City that are recognised areas of the city.

Churches

The Liberal Democrat Group claim that the Church of England Drypool Parish covers the whole of the Drypool ward but it also covers the Holderness Ward. They claim that there are two churches in the Drypool Parish i.e. St. Columba’s on Laburnum Avenue and the other on Victoria Dock. However, this is not the case as there are two other churches in the parish i.e. St. John’s on Rosmead Street and St. Andrew’s on Holderness Road opposite East Park and there is not a church on Victoria Dock. Church services are provided from Victoria Dock Village Hall.

The Liberal Democrat Group claim that the main church in the Drypool Parish is St. Columba’s on Laburnum Avenue but there is no evidence that this is the case. The Church of England website does not mention that St. Columba’s is “the main church of the parish” Group or “the principle parish church of the Drypool Parish” as claimed by the Liberal Democrat Group. The Labour Group believe that this information is presented in this way to create a view that Garden Village has stronger ties to ‘Drypool’ than it actually does. As stated the Drypool Parish also covers Holderness so this makes no difference whatsoever in terms of which ward it is placed and it is ‘interesting’ that in the ‘evidence submitted the Liberal Democrats failed to mention these other churches, probably because it did not support the narrative they were purveying.

Shared Shopping

The Liberal Democrat Group also claimed that the most convenient supermarket for residents in Garden Village is ASDA on Mount Pleasant. However, there is no supporting evidence or IDG data presented to support this assertion, and in fact they are more likely to visit the much geographically closer Morrison’s supermarket on Holderness Road because it is much nearer to Garden Village. This makes a mockery of the so-called evidence provided at paragraph 61, page 14, LGBCE [June 2017]. It is also likely that residents of Garden Village, having a very high car ownership density and enjoying higher socio-economic incomes, could simply go to wherever they preferred which could be supermarkets elsewhere, of which there are several to choose from within easy traveling distance by car.

GP Practices

In creating a story linking Garden Village to Drypool the Liberal Democrat submission also states that Garden Village residents use the Morrill Street Health Surgery but provide no evidence to support this claim. The Morrill Street Health Centre is situated towards the New Bridge Road end of Morrill Street and is far more likely to provide services to the New Bridge Road Estate with which it borders, than Garden Village, which has two other GP practices close by.

The Burnbrae Practice is situated on the corner of Lee Street and Holderness Road, close to Laburnum Avenue and East Park Practice operates from the Park Health Centre, 700 Holderness Road in front of the Morrison’s Supermarket equally close by and opposite East Park. These two practices serve approximately 8,500 people in the area. For ease of access it is more likely that residents of Garden Village use these two practises and it is again interesting that they were not mentioned in the Liberal Democrat submission, possibly because they also serve Holderness Ward.

Summary – Holderness/Drypool (Garden Village)/Stoneferry

The LGBCE state in the Further Draft recommendations of June 2017; paragraph 63; that:

“We consider that we have received very strong evidence in support of retaining the existing wards or a close variant of them and accept that our draft recommendations would have placed local residents in a different ward from many of the amenities they use in their day-to-day lives. We are persuaded by the strong practical examples of community identity received and therefore intend to adopt the proposal of the Hull Liberal Democrat Group as part of our further recommendations”.

The Hull Labour Group believe it has refuted much of the ‘evidence’ provided by the Liberal Democrat Group and their supporters and revealed it to be little short of ‘exaggerated’, to determine a specific political outcome. More of this will be revealed throughout this document. Furthermore Labour has pointed out where assertions and comments have been made in attempting to describe areas but where no actual evidence has been provided or where other salient facts have been omitted.

Labour believes the arguments, proposed by the Liberal Democrats in March 2017 for these areas are spurious and designed to serve only the narrow political interests of a small number of local Lib Dem activists. Unfortunately, the LGBCE appear to have accepted much of this and incorporated the Lib Dem proposals in their 2nd draft proposal. We remain extremely concerned by the partial way the Boundary Commission have accepted misinformation, and patent untruths as facts, and even claiming examples of "strong evidence" when basic research and fact checking by the LGBCE could have dismissed many of these arguments made, in this and other parts of their submission. It is especially disappointing given that the LGBCE agreed with Labours original proposals for this area following a visit and recorded so in the January 2017 LGBCE document in Section 51:

“Having visited the area, we consider that the Garden Village does appear to fit more naturally with parts of Holderness, particularly those surrounding East Park”.

Labour asserts that the best solution to this warding issue is to place Garden Village in the more similar Holderness Ward, as Labour originally proposed and which was supported by the LGBCE at the time. The ‘evidence’ presented by the Liberal Democrats in their proposal has been found to be seriously flawed if not directly misleading and exaggerated.

The Labour Group strongly believes this is the best solution for this area which would unite local residents and result in better electoral representation for both the people of Garden Village and Drypool Ward. Further to this, Labour believes there is strong evidence to support our proposal of March 2017 but for a small further area of the Holderness ward to be better placed in Drypool. This being the area around Rockford Avenue and Lamorna Avenue with the Boundary naturally following the impassable security fencing that surrounds the allotments that are entered from the end of Lamorna Avenue.

North Hull Wards

Avenue Ward, ( also mentioning Myton Ward)

The LGBCE have proposed a map for the Avenue ward which has removed Sunnybank and Hymers Avenue from the existing Avenue Ward and placed it in a new proposed Myton Ward. The Labour Group does not support this change to Avenue Ward or the newly proposed Myton Ward. The LGBCE state; ”we have put the Sunny Bank/Hymers Avenue area in Myton ward as it is isolated from the rest of Avenue ward and this will better reflect communities in Myton.” But by doing this the exact opposite has in fact been achieved because placing this area in Myton ward isolates it from the rest of the ward by two railway lines which residents cannot cross.

The very strong local opposition to this proposal we have encountered from our survey should leave the LGBCE is no doubt that this proposal is not acceptable to this community which self-identifies with the Avenue Ward.

The Sunnybank/Hymers Avenue area is naturally part of the Avenues area and shares a significant amount of connectivity as displayed by the maps below. The Sunny Bank/Hymers Avenue area has nothing in common with the Myton ward and is part of the Dukeries community within the Avenue ward (see the map below).

Maps Showing Recognised Areas of the City – Avenue & Dukeries and the Catchment Area for Thoresby Primary School.

Both of the maps above clearly show that the Sunnybank/Hymers Avenue Areas belong together with the rest of the Dukeries community and are covered by the Thoresby Primary School catchment area. By placing Sunny Bank/Hymers Avenue in the Myton ward you place the primary school children that live in that area in a different ward to the school catchment area they live in i.e. Thoresby Primary School.

The southern border of these maps, which is the southern border of the existing Avenue Ward are in fact two converging railway lines which completely separate this area from the area below it which surrounds the KC Stadium and comprises the existing Myton Ward and Newington Ward.

The Labour Group believes that the only reason this area has been included in the LGBCE proposed Myton Ward is to make the new ward look more topologically sensible. Extending Myton ward beyond the existing City Centre to include the area around the KCom Stadium; (which is unpopulated and represents as much of a ‘clear break’ between communities as it is possible to have in the City of Hull, breaches the community “test”. Such “land breaks” between communities have been given as a reason by the LGBCE to reject wards proposed by Labour in our initial 2016 submission, (e.g. Beverley and Kingswood Ward). To include all the way to Albert Avenue in West Hull merely serves to avoid having a ward that narrows as it moves westwards from the city centre to the Hospital before widening out again as the railway tracks retreat along the edge of the fields of Hymers College. The LGBCE talks of a need for evidence to support plans and proposals submitted by individuals and groups, yet, there was absolutely no supporting evidence provided for why this should happen, or any residential or stakeholder support for this proposal. The residents of Sunnybank and Hymers Avenue would be isolated from the rest of the Myton Ward by impassable railway lines and this would seem to go completely against the criteria that the LGBCE has set for itself.

As our survey clearly demonstrates residents in the Sunny Bank/Hymers Avenue are very strongly opposed to being placed in the Myton ward because of the reasons given above and have made representations outlining their objections.

Returning the area to its natural and existing place as part of Avenue Ward would also weaken any logic for the newly proposed LGBCE Myton Ward, as the undeniable fact is that the area around the Stadium is largely unpopulated and so has no relationship to the City Centre. De La Pole and Albert Avenue are West Hull residential areas and equally only have commonality with the City Centre in that they are also in Hull as well.

The attempted argument that West Park Area and the KCom Stadium has a shared connectivity to the City Centre because of its proximity, is completely dispelled by the presence of an anti-terrorist security gate separating the two areas at Argyle Street Footbridge; (Mistakenly referred to as Derringham Street Bridge, in the LGBCE document); which is intending to be closed, except for match days. This footbridge is the only connectivity between these two points in this area of the city and it has clearly been stated by the Stadium Management Committee, that they can shut this access because it is NOT a public right of way, and is privately owned, as Hull City Council Planning Department will confirm. It is therefore a bit desperate for the LGBCE to suggest proposals for this area that break all reasonable community tests and arguments. Wards cannot be co-joined, where the linkages require access over

23 private land. This is mentioned again later in relation to Newington Gipsyville/ Newington St. Andrew’s Wards.

Survey

Labour conducted a 230 house survey [all households less the Hotels and Bed and Breakfast businesses, and empty houses] and asked for comments along Hymers Avenue, Sunnybank and Springbank West. At the time of writing; and they are still coming in; 57 individual surveys had been returned representing 85 people with 84 opposing the proposed ward boundary dividing this area from the Avenues ward. A high response rate of 37% in very significant for a survey of this type with over 99% opposition to the LGBCE draft proposal. Of those responding you will see that 26 have made additional comments so must be regarded as individual respondents to your proposals as well as just survey respondents.

One respondent who supported staying in Avenues Ward also stated that he ran a neighbourhood watch scheme that operates on Hymers Avenue, Sunnybank, Spring Bank West and Spring Grove and knew the area very well as a result.

Labour also carried out an additional small sample survey of 230 in the Newington area specifically around the Albert Avenue/Walton Street area which would be taken out of Newington and moved into the LGBCE’s proposed Myton Ward. We very simply canvassed opinion as to whether residents in this area supported remaining part of the Anlaby Road Community in Newington. We did not expect a large return, in this area, given that a number of properties are sub-divided into flats and bedsits, but in fact at the time of writing we had received 28 surveys back representing 36 individuals all of whom responded “Yes”, they did support remaining in Newington Ward.

This is a return rate and support rate of over 12.2%, which for a survey of its type is a very good response, and over twice the 6% the LGBCE accepted as a “test” of opinion by the Lib Dems, in their March submission; (Beverley and Sculcoates, March 2017). In addition, the fact that not one respondent spoke out in favour of the proposals gives a very clear and strong indication of the views of local residents on this matter. The Newington survey is commented in the section on Newington and Gipsyville Ward as proposed by Labour. Comments included the following:-

“We do not belong in Myton Ward. We cannot access it directly from Sunny Bank and Spring Grove. We have to go via Spring Bank West cross the rail track, turn into Walton Street”.

“We shop in Chanterlands Avenue and Princes Avenue. Our G P practice is Princes Avenue. Our Granddaughter used to attend Thoresby Primary School. We are divided by the railway track from Myton Ward and geographically fit better with Avenue Ward. Our friends live in Avenue Ward”.

“After reading the comments on the website, this appears to be a number crunching exercise. As residents of Sunny Bank for over 20 years we have always been a part of the Avenues community and involved in the area. We do

24 our shopping, locally on Chanterlands Avenue, my doctor, my local pub and socialising is all carried out in the Avenues area.

We are residents of the Avenues community and feel very strongly that this is how it should remain”.

“We strongly feel that Hymers Avenue has strong community links with the Avenues area that have been established for a long time. We feel a sense of community identity exists between Hymers / Princes Avenue / the Avenues which is part of why we love it here. We don’t have any links with the Myton Ward and feel far removed from that area. This proposal makes no sense”.

“I run a neighbourhood watch group that includes Hymers Avenue, Sunny Bank, Spring Bank West and Spring Grove. We also have a residents association covering the same area. Both work very closely with the Avenues Ward Councillors”.

“The housing, schools and the wider community are joined across the Avenues and Hymers area. As a community child minder I look after children across the Avenue Ward from Sunny Bank where I live to Victoria Avenue. I like the Community feel in the area”.

“Sunny Bank has similar housing (both in style, age, scale and demographic) to that of the Avenues. Great Thornton Street and Anlaby Road are nothing like Sunny Bank and is not joined to our area at all but is separated by railway tracks which makes the Myton area difficult to get to. Furthermore Sunny Bank has nothing in common with Myton Ward. Sunny Bank was developed on the Botanical Gardens at the same period as the Avenues”.

Kingswood/West Carr/North Carr

The Hull Labour Group believes that the further proposals from the LGBCE; based significantly on the proposals from the Liberal Democrat Group and the Residents Association; chaired by a leading Liberal Democrat Member who is standing locally in 2018 in that area; have opted to support the continued division of established communities, such as those tenants of Riverside Housing Association, that currently exists west of Wawne Road up to and including Quarrington Grove. Residents of this Housing Association access the support of the current Bransholme North Councillors as opposed to those on Kingspark as they do not see themselves as part of the continued Kingswood development and do not feel their interests are aligned with the residents of Kingswood. These residents use the GP Surgery at Highlands which is in the Bransholme East Ward, the shopping facilities on Bransholme East as opposed to the Kingswood Retail Park, (ASDA), which is not easily accessible by foot.

This area of Bransholme is over 1.6 miles from the Asda Kingswood Development along Bude Road/John Newton Way and the only safe crossings are at each end, approximately 1.6 miles apart. In addition to this approximately 50% of this route has no footpath and this is mainly towards the Bude Road stretch of this road. This means that only quite able bodied individuals or residents with cars would sensibly opt to access facilities at Kingswood and there is little if any evidence of this happening in significant numbers.

Elderly residents and those with limiting mobility issues also access the services of the ‘North Carr Carers Ltd’, a local voluntary organisation based in Bransholme East for support.

Kingswood Area Action Plan

One of the claims in support of the proposed enlarged Kingswood Ward, put forward in the Liberal Democrat submission is that the Kingswood Area Action Plan would be encompassed in one area. In fact the newly proposed Kingswood Ward will grab the housing south of Bude Road and the housing south of Gibraltar Road near the River Hull to make up the numbers for a three seat Kingswood at the expense of a three seat West Carr Ward and these areas are not in the Area Action Plan. Redidents in the area of the Labour Proposed West Carr, (currently Bransholme West feel very strongly that this is a cynical attempt to carve up their long established and settled community and that they are not seen as important as the residents of the expanding Kings Park Private Estate.

Labour supports the idea of all of Kingswood being in one ward. There is clearly a developing community identity there, it has not become established yet and is still due for significant expansion. It is, however, a bone fide city area now and with similar community demographics it should be together in one ward. Labour opposes, though, the idea that this is at any cost to the surrounding established communities. There is a real danger in this of stoking community unrest and indeed, as can be seen from some of the Kingswood comments in the last consultation this could be something that angers residents from both the Bude Road Area and Kings Park.

No greater consideration or weight should be given to one side of the other. There is a duty to ensure both communities are properly represented in communities that are best able to address their issues and target resources to meet their needs efficiently.

The Area Action Plan is a vehicle to address developmental needs in an area, it is not wholly a statement of community in an area that is new and still evolving as a place and in terms of construction. This is evidenced by the inclusion of the West Carr itself in the Plan when it is, and has been for 50 years, part of Bransholme West. It is important to note also that as Bransholme itself is celebrating its 50 year anniversary as part of the UK city of Culture, with photographic displays and interviews on local radio, there is an attempt to divide it into an new private development of which the very oldest part was planned only 20 years ago.

This is one of the reasons Labour strongly supported the LGBCE proposal from January to accept Kingswood as a two seat ward that neatly encompassed the new community of Kingswood while also respecting the larger neighbouring areas of West Carr and North Carr which contained similar communities, housing and school catchment areas.

Labour Proposed Warding for Kingswood, North Carr & West Carr

This would allow some of large estates of North Carr, (Mostly the current Bransholme East) and West Carr, (Mostly the current Bransholme West), with their well-developed communities and local facilities and large populations to remain as wards benefiting from three local Councillors each to deal efficiently with the issues and challenges faced by large city estate areas and aloe Kingswood to retain its very different and developing identity. Later the specific isses of the area arounf Bodmin Road will be addressed.

School Catchment Areas

Map Showing School Catchment Areas – Kingswood, North Carr, West Carr

The catchment areas map above shows that North Carr is served by Highlands, Cleeve and a small part of Biggin Hill Primaries while West Carr is served Sutton Park, St Andrew’s some of Cleeve and some of Bude Park, which does extend to cover the very new Housing bordering the River Hull beneath the catchment of Kingswood Park Primary.

This new private housing is a stone’s throw away from the older but private housing on the other bank of the river which at this point is quite narrow and was one of the reasons given by the Labour Group for there being a natural connect between the housing, aspirations, affluence and experiences of the residents in this area and would have very neatly provided a uniform pattern of three seat wards with the best electoral equality achievable, but the LGBCE decided to reject this solution.

It cannot be acceptable or reasonable for the resolution following on from this decision to be the splitting of older, established communities to ‘make the numbers up on paper’. One of the ‘reasons’ given for this was that; “No ward has ever crossed the river”. It is this type of logical determinism that would see is still walking on all fours and living in caves. Indeed it is not a principle that the Commission has upheld universally as is shown by ‘Glebe Farm Tile Cross Ward’ in Birmingham which happily straddles the River Cole. Labour would invite the Commission to reconsider the far simpler solution presented by the Labour Group in October 2016 which met all the criteria without significant community compromise.

Pin Map Location of Bude Park Primary Pupils and Bodmin Rd. Church

The map above shows that the LGBCE proposed ward boundary for Kingswood which scoops in a large part of where the Bude Primary School pupils live, separating them from the ward in which they

In the Lib Dems earlier submission they said Wawne Road is a clear boundary between Kingswood and Bransholme – but to access the Broadacre Primary School which serves part of the current Kingspark ward residents have to travel down Wawne Road to access the school. Kingspark residents access the Lemon Tree Children’s Centre and to do that they have to cross Wawne Road hence it’s not a clear boundary as people interact the length of the road all the time.

Residents between Bodmin Road and Bude Road share an interest in the development of the Bude Park and Wilberforce Woods – there is a major barrier between homes south of Bude Road and Wilberforce Woods i.e. Bude Road and a drain. The LGBCE stated in the initial proposal for Kingswood in January that they “viewed John Newton Way/Bude Road as a strong boundary between communities that we are reluctant to cross”. Why has that view changed?

Residents between Bodmin Road and Bude Road are in easy walking distance of Kingswood Retail Park. Residents south of Bude Road are too poor to shop at the Kingswood Retail Park and use the North Point Shopping Centre instead which is a

29 short walk/bus journey away and offers more shops selling food and consumables at a much cheaper price.

The Liberal Democrats claim, without any supporting evidence, that Kingswood residents use the Children’s Centre south of Bude Road; however this is untrue. The Co-ordinator of the Lemon Tree Children Centre has confirmed that residents of Kingswood access services at the Lemon Tree Centre which is based on the current Bransholme East Ward and not the Bude Park Children Centre which is also managed by the same person. This important evidence shows that despite what has been claimed, Wawne Road is not a barrier preventing Kingswood residents accessing services and it also refutes any proposition that there is a community connection in terms of shared facilities between Kingswood and the facilities on Bude Road. Also in their narrative for the proposed Kingswood Ward in their March submission the Lib Dems state; (page 36); “Bransholme has its own community groups and facilities, which are not used by residents of Kingswood”. The Liberal Democrats have to decide which ‘fact’ they are going to present as ‘evidence’ consistently. Either residents of Kingswood do use community facilities in Bransholme or they do not. To interchange this as it suits is unacceptable. As it happens residents of Kingswood do use the Lemon Tree Children’s Centre in the current Bransholme East Ward but not the facilities in Bransholme West at Bude Road which is the area being claimed as part of Kingswood to make up the numbers for a three seat Kingswood. It cannot be argued that both are the case and the LGBCE should have seen this clear inconsistency.

Further claims to strengthen the view of community connectivity between Kingswood residents and those in the Bude Road area; made by the Lib Dems in their March submission; (page 40); that “Bodmin Road Church reaches out onto Kingwood for its congregations and service users for its social and family groups” are refuted by the Vicar Richard Bentley himself; who we understand will be writing to not only confirm this but to argue that the residents south of Bude Road should not be put in a separate ward to the rest of their community.

The vicar has stated to the Labour Group that only two residents from the Kingswood area have used this Church. This means that these claims in the Lib Dem submission is again found to be false and that they sought to argue linkages which just do not exist simply to satisfy their party interests rather than anything to do with electoral equality, community identity or efficient local government.

The Local Labour Councillors in the current Bransholme West Ward have, over the years, given financial aid to the church to help with the unemployed and the hungry, by ways of a subsidised kitchen. Kingswood is the most affluent area of Hull and by moving the church and this community to a new Kingswood Ward there would be a significant detrimental effect on their funding which is often based upon Ward demographics and not the smaller LSOA areas of deprivation indicators.

People in the Centre of the current Kings Park Ward live 1.6 miles away from the church; which has very limited parking, (Approximately 6 places). There are only two crossings 2 crossings along John Newton Way/Bude Road; which is the stretch of road connecting Kingswood and Bransholme West; and they are at either end of the roads meaning that there is approximately 1.6 Miles between the crossings. When it is also added that there are no footpaths along 50% of the route the claims upon which the LGBCE reached their conclusion; based on shared facilities and easy access between the two areas are proved to be false.

If this new ward was to be accepted it could lead to an area of significant deprivation effectively becoming more deprived, and poorer, as well as the support services currently struggling to support local people being denied vital grant funding regimes.

Schools Catchment

The Lib Dems claim that the West Carr Ward proposed by the LGBCE in January “would see many more children got to school in a different ward from where they live”. This is just not the case, as can be evidenced. The residents south of Bude Road are in the catchment area of Bude Park Primary School and the new ward proposal would remove this school from West Carr. This would mean that the catchment area would be split and would lead to children going to school in a different ward to where they live.

The Lib Dems claimed that using Kesteven Way would create an artificial boundary and that Kingswood is a single community. However, contained within the current Kingspark ward are houses that are owned by Riverside Housing Association which owns the North Bransholme social housing currently contained with the Bransholme East Ward. So clearly Kingswood is not a single community and the rest of the housing up to Kesteven Way are part of the old Kingswood and separate to the new development.

Survey

A survey on 350 Residents of the Bude Community has shown the huge opposition to these proposals. An incredibly high response of 27.4% or 96 Surveys representing 110 individuals were returned with 100 individuals, (90.1%), opposing the proposal in the LGBCE ward to split the Bude Road Community and 10 (9.1%) supporting it. As the Boundary Commission previously accepted the finding of a Lib Dem survey; (Beverley Sculcoates Ward in March 2017) with a response rate of 6%, we urge the LGBCE to consider that this response rate, over four times that rate and in a working-class Council Estate area, is an indication of the level of opposition from this community, who believe you are sacrificing and ignoring their interests to merely seek to address the concerns of a more prosperous Kingswood Community. As well

31 as just Survey respondents, 23 of the replies contain additional views and comments on your proposal which must be regarded as separate submissions and strong evidence. The survey responses are all included for your consideration. Many of the views expressed show a clear community identity and spirit for keeping the area united in one ward and that there understand they are better served in a ward that reflects their community.

Some quotes are included below:-

“It’s been one ward for years and should stay that way”

“We have been living at above address for a long while we don’t want things to change I do not like the Kingswood area and usually avoid it”.

“Having been part of the current boundary for 49 years, I do not wish to change and cannot understand why as Bransholme existed before Kingswood was built…”.

“As long as I have lived on Bransholme, 30+ years, we have stood strong as one, if split it will weaken the strength.”

“A larger area, (much larger) would, in my opinion be more difficult to oversee, with the same attention as both areas now receive. There are differences in the social mix of the two areas. I believe that in general the people in the Bude area have been and are satisfied in the main with current arrangements”.

“I moved onto Bransholme when I was 11 in 1967. Bransholme has been around way before Kingswood was ever started. Kingswood should stay as Kingswood…”

“Kingswood residents should remember Bransholme was here first so it should be our say”.

“I have lived in the Bude area from 1968 since they were built. The Park wasn’t even there, why should Kingswood take preference from people on Bude Rd”.

“The Kingswood area will only get bigger, the split will only lead to a bigger gap between council house residents and private. The needs are different”.

“Bude Road was here a long time before Kingswood residents”.

It is necessary to remind of the LGBCE Guidance on Page 25 of the “Further Draft Recommendations” [LGBCE, June 2017] reminds of the need for a good pattern of Wards to “…be based on strong easily identifiable boundaries” and “reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links”..

Clearly the decision to attempt to split a community that has been one organic entity for 50 years, placing half across Bude Road, fails these community tests miserably, and we do not expect Bransholme’s current 50th year “birthday” celebrations to be it effective wake.

Summary

We therefore urge the Boundary Commission to return to the LGBCE’s original proposals for January 2017, supported by Labour in March 2017, if they are not prepared to have the City-wide three-person Warding proposal from Labour of October 2016.

Opposing Beverley Sculcoates Ward.

The Labour Group was disappointed that the LGBCE opted to retain the Liberal Democrat ‘Beverley Sculcoates Ward’ in the June proposals as we felt significant evidence had been provided in the form of Customer Insight Segmentation Maps which clearly showed the lack of any community commonality between the northern part of the proposed ward and the southern end as well as along its very long length.

Any individual travelling the length of this proposed ward would immediately recognise the diversity and variation in community, housing, and affluence as they moved from the northern reaches of the city centre through the city itself to the Edwardian areas of Beverley High Road at the far north of the city. Indeed, LGBCE staff who visited the city confirmed this verbally when initially questioned about the ward following the publication of the initial draft proposals.

To further explain the enormous differences and socio-economic variations along the length of this ward; which borders nine other wards and includes four different primary school catchment areas, (Dividing Clifton Primary School catchment area to the south of the ward); Labour will re-present the Customer Insight Segmentation Data with greater explanation and also include other supporting evidence.

It has to be noted, with further disappointment, that the so called consultation undertaken by the Liberal Democrat Group on a very small area of the Fountain Road Estate was phrased in such a way as to confuse the actual issue. They asked residents whether they felt they had more in common with the Great Thornton Street Estate than they did with Beverley Road. The Fountain Road Estate lies off the lower part of Beverley Road so there is certainly connectivity with this bottom part of Beverley Road. However, the issue is that there is a very large variation along the length of Beverley Road stretching from the estate itself and the far more affluent northern end. The road moves through at least three distinct communities with one of these; along the middle section of the road; itself being an area of significant and constant change over time.

The Liberal Democrats conducted a small survey of 431 households based on their database of who voted in the area which resulted in only 25 returns, representing 37 individuals; (only 6 % of those surveyed and a mere 0.02% of the residents in the area with only 0.012% supporting the proposed ‘Beverley Sculcoates Ward). Of the 37 individuals 26 supported their Beverley Sculcoates Ward and 11 opposed it. Labour assumes that this is seen by the LGBCE as part of the ‘strong evidence’ in support of the ‘Beverley Sculcoates Ward’ proposal which the Commission accepted.

Labour conducted its own survey in the Sculcoates area specifically, and as part of a larger survey which also asked residents further up Beverley Road if they supported or opposed the LGBCE proposed Beverley & Sculcoates Ward. It also asked if they wished to make additional comments. Many of them did! The results of this are reported later in this section, (See ‘Survey’ below), and Labour think it is important not just to recognise the huge volume of responses but to also listen to the comments submitted by local residents which should be treated as individual responses in addition to the survey results.

Elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats make the case that the Sculcoates section of Beverley Road would benefit from being included in a ward that encompasses the whole of the supposed ‘Beverley Road Community’ due to the fact that they state “the current ward councillors have had little engagement with the Sculcoates area.” One of the current ward councillors for Sculcoates is Councillor Mike Ross, the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group in Hull, and one of the two people who conducted the ‘survey’! This is perhaps the one of the few statements in the Liberal Democrat proposal that Labour might agree with.

Further evidence in relation to identity along the length of Beverley Road was provided, by citing an organisation called ‘The Beverley Road Traders Association’, which purportedly operates along the whole length of the road. This organisation does not appear in any telephone directory, website and cannot be located using search engines. It was relatively easy to find other local traders associations, such as the Newland Avenue Traders Association, but as far as we can determine there is no entity that publicly operates and is contactable under the name of ‘The Beverley Road Traders Association’.

This is confirmed by the fact that Hull City Council Trading Standards and Hull City Council Economic Regeneration and Development Unit, have never heard of them. The City Council’s Wyke Area Team and the Riverside Area Team have stated that they have no knowledge of them. City Council Officers of the Northern Area Team recalled that there was an attempt to set up such an organisation 7 years ago which had failed to get off the ground after only 4 people attended a meeting called by the Council and who then disagreed about the purpose of the proposed organisation.

This is yet another example of where ‘supporting evidence’ presented by the Liberal Democrats in relation to evidencing the validity of their preferred warding has been

34 found to lack rigour and unfortunately where it has been accepted by the Commission, who then discarded evidence presented by Labour as ‘not sufficient’.

Such desperate attempt to obfuscate and mislead must cast real doubt on much of the evidence presented as supporting the proposals of the Liberal Democrat Group throughout this process.

Customer Segmentation Data

Customer Segmentation Data Map for the LGBCE proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward also showing part of the proposed Myton Ward

The Segmentation Data Map above shows that the Sculcoates/Fountain Road Estate area below the raised railway line that divides Beverley Road between Fitzroy and Ryde Street comprises the following segmentation groups:-

Group B (Orange) – Economically inactive households living mainly in flats

Group C (Red) – Households with young families in public rented accommodation

Group D (Yellow) – Households with low incomes in the public rented sector

Group L (Green) – Diverse households in the private rented sector

The vast majority in the area described belong to Group L followed by a slightly smaller, but still significant, number in Group B and another slightly smaller cohort in Group D. There is a small number of Households in Group C.

This community may have some association with this section of Beverley Road but it is not the case, as shall be shown, with the other areas of Beverley Road to its north. This community has very low levels of car ownership and looks to the city centre for its main shopping, social life and amenities. They would also utilise local shops in their own community and occasionally some of the few shops to their north, although these shops have increasingly catered exclusively for the student and/or Eastern European communities in which they sit.

A Stronger resolution for this area is the proposed ‘Central Ward’ by the Labour Group. Looking at the Segmentation map below for the Labour Group proposed Central Ward from March 2017, it is very clear that almost the entire segmentation of this proposed ward is the same. The inclusion of the Sculcoates/Fountain Road area in a Central Ward, as proposed by Labour, would mean they would share a very high similarity of community cohesiveness, interests, challenges and issues which would allow a far greater ability for local councillors and Council Officers to identify, shape and target available resources more effectively to meet community needs and facilitate good governance arrangements.

Labour Group Proposed Central Ward Customer Segmentation Data Map

The majority of the Labour proposed Central Ward would comprise households in Group L, (Over 50%), with a smaller cohort in Group D. Both groups represent low income renters in the public and private sectors.

When this is compared to the segmentation data for the LGBCE proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward, which was put forward by the Liberal Democrats, it is equally clear that these groups in Sculcoates/Fountain Road would see their specific and community issues diluted dramatically by being included in a ward with very different communities spread out along the length of the Beverley Road corridor.

Moving north from the raised railway line the community changes instantaneously to a layer comprising:

Group H (Blue) – Economically active households in Terraced properties

Group J (Grey) – University Students in shared privately rented properties

This area also includes large numbers of flats and bedsits used by temporary workers and economic migrants and is a very fluid community area that by its nature has a larger turnover of individual residents, especially the predominantly student area, (J).

There is little commonality between this area and the area to the south of the railway bridge. This area has a vibrant and diverse community comprising mainly younger people and young working couples. A high proportion of these are from Eastern Europe or from other areas of the UK, Europe and other countries. It also represents the language, cultural and ethnic diversity of many inner-City areas in the Country.

To the north of this community; past Clough Road and Cottingham Road; the community changes again with a greater number of Group G, (Affluent Professionals), and a smaller proportion of Group J, (Students), sharing accommodation in the large Edwardian housing in the Beresford Avenue area. People in Group G in this area comprise many public sector workers in qualified professional roles with local councils, schools, colleges, the University of Hull and the NHS with a number of self-employed people as well.

To the northern section of the proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward the community changes yet again and comprises predominantly;

Group H (Blue) – Working households in terraces

Group F (Purple) – older couples in large semi-detached and detached properties.

Group F are situated more to the north of this section in large houses of significantly more worth and this is why Labour originally identified this area as having far more in common with the similar, although newer, housing in the Kingspark area over the

37 narrower section of the River Hull, which can be partially seen on the segmentation map above as well.

Uniting this area with the very similar adjacent community over the dual carriage way bridge to Kingspark would have very neatly resolved what has become a significant problem in balancing electoral equality and community commonality by providing a pattern of well-balanced three member wards which did not unnaturally combine dissimilar neighbourhoods together or divide others simply to gain electoral numbers for wards to stack up. This proposition, however, has been rejected by the Commission which seems to focus more on what divides communities than what unites them, at least in this area of the city, if not in others.

School Catchment Areas

Map showing the different primary school catchments in the proposed Beverley Sculcoates ward

Further evidence that the proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward is not representative of a so called ‘Beverley Road Community’; as claimed elsewhere; is that the ward comprises a total of four different primary school catchment areas; and indeed slices through part of the Clifton Primary Catchment meaning some children attending Clifton Primary would not attend the school in their ward if this proposed ward went ahead. In other areas, this alone has been enough to question the viability of a boundary. It is equally important to point out at this point that although the Labour Proposal for a Central Ward looks like it slices through the catchment area for Stepney Primary School the reality is that the vast bulk of children attending Stepney come from the area of that catchment area that would be in the proposed Central Ward in Sculcoates itself. This is because the catchment area above the railway line to the east is a wholly industrial area and to the west it is predominantly a student accommodation area, (J), as shown on segmentation map above.

The make-up of these primary schools reveals significant socio-economic differences in the communities they serve along this proposed ward.

Beverley Sculcoates Ward School Free Pupil IDACI* EAL% School Premium% Meals% Parkstone Primary 13 21 33 8 Endyke Primary 26 36 36 16 Stepney Primary 20 25 25 63 Clifton Primary 32 42 42 50 Hull 23 29 29 16 England 16 X X 21 IDACI* = the percentage of pupils resident in the 10% most deprived super output areas nationally (based on the income deprivation affecting children index of the index of multiple deprivation)

The table above provides the percentage of each schools roll eligible for a free school meal; the percentage of pupils resident in the 10% most deprived super output areas nationally (based on the income deprivation affecting children index of the index of multiple deprivation - IDACI*); the percentage of roll that speak English as an additional language (EAL) ; the percentage of pupils eligible for the pupil premium – in other words the percentage of pupils eligible for a free school meal – ever – in the last 6 years.

The important point here is to look at the ‘variation’ between the schools which reveals very significant differences between Clifton at the southern end, Stepney above it, then Endyke and finally the outlier of the bunch, Parkstone. It has also been confirmed by the Information Management Research Manager for the Education Service at Hull City Council that there are higher numbers of children eligible for FSM in Stepney Primary than is recorded due to the high numbers of children from ethnically diverse communities that live in this area of the proposed ward; (as

39 indicated by the high EAL %); who traditionally do not claim FSM for cultural reasons. This further supports Labours evidence that this section of Beverley Road is significantly different as a community from that which sits to its south and which Labour placed in our proposed Central Ward with its natural community. The EAL rates at the schools in the southern parts of Beverley Road mirror those that can be found on Spring Bank. This completely reinforces the Labour plan for a Central Ward. It ensures the commonality of these two areas. The current LGBCE proposals instead seek to force together areas where there is a difference in EAL diversity of SIX to SEVEN times the numbers. This fails on any logical test of community, and governance. It also shows a disregard of the City’s important ethnicity and racial diversity issues.

Beverley Road Conservation Areas

The proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward covers three distinct conservation areas that in themselves recognise the significant differences history, use and style of building that exist along this road that stretches almost the whole length of the city.

The first conservation area is the Sculcoates area itself as shown below:

Map of Sculcoates Conservation Area

The arear itself is sub-divided into specific areas of interest and conservation based on the buildings in each, their use and importance to the development of the area, see below.

Area 1 - Old churchyard and river bank Area 2 - Sculcoates Lane east and west of Beverley & Barmston Drain Area 3 - East Stepney Lane/Tannery site Area 4 - Former Goods Station and Travellers’ Site

Area 5 - Northumberland Avenue/ Fountain Road

These areas specific characteristics are detailed in the ‘Sculcoates Area Appraisal’.

In summary, this area has been a settlement since the 14th Century and in that time has been heavily industrial and commercial in use due to its proximity to useful berthing on the River Hull and strong transportation connections in the City Centre and docks on the River Humber such as the Victoria Dock Railway Line which linked this area to other areas of trade and industry associated with the Humber. The industry, activity and consequently housing here grew up due to its association, not with areas further to the north along Beverley Road, but facing towards the City Centre and the River Humber. People in this area still have a strong association with the City Centre and see themselves as a community either part of the Centre itself or living on the close edge of it historically and culturally.

The second conservation area is the Beverley Road Conservation Area; which benefits from heritage lottery funding; as shown below:

Map of Beverley Road Conservation Area

This conservation area stretches from just north of Freetown Way on the edge of the City Centre all the way up to the railway bridge to the north of Melwood Grove which is also the northern boundary of the proposed Labour Group ‘Central Ward’. The conservation area itself extends four streets beyond this proposed boundary at which point it rapidly merges with the St. John’s Wood Suburban Area. The division at this point is indistinct in nature and community from this community which comprises mainly shared student houses and people in owner terraces off Beverley Road.

The conservation area is concerned only with the frontage facing buildings along this middle stretch of Beverley Road and does not include the developments either side. In this way it does not recognise Sculcoates or Fountain Road as being associated with the type, style, construction or use of these buildings.

The Sculcoates and Fountain Road areas are connected from this part of Beverley Road by Fountain Road, Stepney Lane and Melwood street; which becomes Sculcoates Lane as it passes in to the distinct neighbourhood of Sculcoates covered by the Sculcoates conservation Area referred to above. All three of these street stretch to connect Sculcoates to the main road reflecting the clustering of Sculcoates around its traditional area nearer the River Hull and its environs as described above.

The conservation area character appraisal which can be accessed via the links below: http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page_pageid=221,130768&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HOME/PLANNING/CONSERVATION/CONSERVATIO N%20AREAS/BEVERLEYROADAPPRAISAL(INCLUDINGMANAGEMENTPLAN).PDF

This describes how this section of Beverley Road developed from the early 19th Century to attract a suburban development of more significant properties with larger gardens and trees lining the road. Businesses and shops grew up around this area and it then benefited from significant Victorian public buildings. The conservation area itself is quite long and is sub-divided as follows:

 The City Centre Approach Area

 Stepney Village Area

 Pearson Park and Queens Road Area

The City Centre Approach Area

Map detailing the City Centre Approach Area

This specific area is characterised by early houses with classical details and front gardens, later shops and business uses associated with this location and influenced by its close proximity to the city centre and on the major approach. Its mature trees and long front gardens provided a surprisingly ‘green’ area being so close to the city centre and creates a separate but connected feel. Greater detail is available in the character appraisal document.

The area has some notable buildings and clusters of buildings. Some of the former large houses now extend downward into local shops or are converted to offices which was a historical trend as more small businesses located to this area and residential living moved further away from the City Centre itself. Other notable buildings of the early and mid-Victorian era had gone through a number of different used including clubs while others such as the terraces have been converted to flats long ago. The area contains some historic, now derelict properties that still attract some investment interest such as the Swan Public House and the former National Picture House which may yet become a monument to WWII and its impact on Hull.

Stepney Village Area

Map Detailing the Stepney Village Area

To the north of Fountain Road the road opens out with some much bigger buildings and some more modern developments including a former school, Endeavour High, now a Local Authority Training Centre, supermarkets and large Victorian Public Houses. This area has a large number of flats and also begins to see more student houses and flats/properties rented by migrant workers

Pearson Park and Queens Road Area

Map Detailing the Pearson Park and Queens Road Area

This area includes a larger number of larger villas and terraces most of which are now flats leading to major public buildings such as Stepney Primary, Beverley Road Baths and Victorian Public Houses. This developed as a desirable place to live and this remains the case in parts of the area. This section of the conservation area sees the nature of the area begin to change again as Beverley Road moves north. Beyond Queens road there is a much more suburban residential feel with streets shared by families and an larger population of students.

The Beverley High Road Conservation Area

There is a gap between this conservation area and the preceding one reflecting that the space between is unlike much of that surrounding it, being much more heavily occupied by students in private houses of multiple occupancy and flats.

To the north of this area just beyond the junction of Cottingham Road and Clough Road the Beverley High Road Conservation Area begins.

Map of the Beverley High Road Conservation Area

In brief the ‘character appraisal’; which is available from the council Planning Section; makes the following observations relating to this specific section of Beverley Road and distinguishes it from other sections along its length.

The section of Beverley Road; north of the east end of Cottingham Road and the west end of Clough Road; is historically part of ‘Beverley High Road’ and it has a different nature to Beverley Road to the south, being greener and with more detached development. Furthermore, whereas Beverley Road is essentially Victorian in character, Beverley High Road is more outwardly Edwardian.

The conservation area includes:

 The western half of Wellesley Avenue, a pleasant and atmospheric Edwardian side street, with grass verges and trees, and a satisfying curve midway along its length. Views along the street from the main road contribute to the Edwardian character of the area.

 Beresford Avenue west of the Beverley and Barmston Drain. This is another pleasant and atmospheric Edwardian side street. Views along the street again contribute to the Edwardian character of the area.

The area contains a number of architect designed properties.

One of the most important groups of buildings is the Endsleigh Centre.

History of site - http://www.ourladyofmercy.org.uk/ourstory/dsp- default.cfm?loadref=151

These are of particular importance to the character and appearance of the Beverley High Road conservation area. The buildings are situated within extensive grounds on the west side of Beverley Road, within the Beverley High Road conservation area and setting of the Newland conservation area. The buildings were formerly part of a higher education training college established by the Sisters of Mercy (R.C.) in 1905, following their acquisition in 1901 of Dawson House (originally Endsleigh), an Italianate villa of 1876-7, for use as a convent.

In terms of value and significance, the buildings have historic value, aesthetic value and high communal value. This area is characterised by large semis and detached properties and as can be seen from the Customer Segmentation Data Map at the beginning of this section, is a markedly different area to the sections of Beverley Road below it.

Beyond this conservation area the style of property remains high value but becomes more modern with a large private housing estate; locally referred to as ‘The Ghost Estate’; stretching along behind the east side of Beverley Road to the northern border of the city boundary. The Customer Segmentation Data for this area reveals it

48 to be a combination of economically active people in terraces (H); (although larger terraces); affluent professionals, (G) and older people living in semis, (F) – mostly The Ghost Estate.

The fact that there are three distinct conservation areas along Beverley Road is a clear indication of the variation in community that exists along it. Indeed the Beverley Road Conservation area that covers a long stretch of the middle section is itself divided into three distinct areas each with its own characteristics that set it apart within the conservation area itself. Combined with the Customer Segmentation Data that also clearly shows the variation along the length of the road there can be no doubt that this proposed ward has no community commonality whatsoever and is a construct merely to prop up and support other ward structures proposed by the Liberal Democrats and adopted almost wholly by the LGBCE.

Labour has stated clearly and consistently that the area on the outskirts of the city centre that constitutes the Sculcoates/Fountain Road area has a character and make up that is by its very nature a city centre facing district with great similarities to other areas that outlie the city centre.

This assertion is also supported by the practicalities of how local services are delivered, such as the Children’s Centre on Fenchurch Street which is the lead in a cluster of centres including the Children’s Centre on Great Thornton Street for the delivery of local services. Labour has always said that these two communities are similar in make-up partly due to their location and proximity to the city centre and this is borne out in the way support services are designed and delivered to meet local need and is why Labour has proposed a ‘Central Ward’ that unites these similar areas, with similar needs under the control of one set of three elected representatives.

City Area Overlay

In addition to the above evidence, which clearly shows the differing natures of the communities along the Beverley Road corridor in the proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward, there is further evidence provided by looking at a map of the recognised city areas that exist along the length of this road, below. This map, with Beverley Road highlighted, reveals that the proposed ward includes five distinct community areas that are recognised within the city. These are, from the north to the south, Haworth Park, Inglemire, Newland, Sculcoates and Springbank and finally the northern part of the City Centre itself.

The map below is an extract of this map which was included in the ‘Council Size Report’ previously submitted to the LGBCE in 2016.

Map Showing Recognised City Areas with Beverley Road Highlighted.

Survey

Labour conducted two linked surveys in the LGBCE proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward. A small survey of 300 was conducted in the Sculcoates/Fountain Road area of the proposed ward which asked residents to state whether they supported or opposed the ward and whether they believed they had more in common with areas around the city centre or with the rest of Beverley Road.

This was done because it had been claimed that there was ‘significant’ support for the proposed ward in this area when it was proposed as part of the Liberal Democrat Group submission in March 2017, which had a woeful response rate of 6%.

Labour also conducted a larger survey in the northernmost parts of the proposed ward of 700. In this area residents were asked whether if they opposed the proposed new Beverley Sculcoates ward and whether they believed the area they lived in had little in common with the city centre parts of Beverley Road or whether they supported the area they lived in being joined in a ward with parts of Myton Ward, which is the ward Sculcoates and Fountain Road is currently in.

In each case households were not selected based upon any data held by the party with regard to voting intentions. Addresses across the area were provided with a letter explaining what the survey was about and a survey asking which statement they supported and also asking them if they wished to contribute any comments as well as part of their feedback. Each letter gave a freepost address to be used to return the survey.

Returns for Labour’s surveys are still coming in daily but at the time of submission the results were as follows:-

In the Sculcoates/Fountain Road survey of 300 random households there were 40 responses representing 45 individuals. Two Surveys were spoilt, in that they did not provide a view on the questions, instead commenting on other matters not directly related to the survey, (One of these has not been forwarded to the Commission as it contained offensive and potentially libellous comments). A significant 42 of the 43 individuals; (97.7%), opposed the proposed LGBCE Beverley Sculcoates Ward.

In the Beverley High Road Survey of 700 random households there were 161 responses representing 193 individuals. 193 individuals, (100%), opposed the proposed LGBCE Beverley Sculcoates Ward. It has to be noted that the previous Lib Dem submission had not tested any public opinion in the Northern sub-urban private owner-occupied estates, of Compass Road and Stanbury, as to their Beverley and Sculcoates Ward. We think we now know why. Our Survey in these parts of the current Beverley Ward show an overwhelming opposition, from people that had no idea what was being proposed by their current elected representatives in “their name”.

For the combined areas of the LGBCE proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward; (Originally proposed by the Lib Dems); there were, (at the point of submission), 238 individuals represented. One individual refused to support either position and commented that:-

“I would like our ward to include Kingswood and Sutton Park down Beverley High Road up to Clough Road”.

This option was not on the survey but is similar to the ward proposed in Labour’s original submission of October 2016, which was rejected by the Commission. This response has been classed as a spoilt paper for the purposes of the results of the survey.

In total across both surveys of different parts of the LGBCE proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward 235 out of 238 individuals opposed the ward (98.7%). Of those who chose to provide a view point: (As stated three were spoilt papers across the combined survey); 99.6% opposed the proposed ward and represented communities from either end of the ward, confirming beyond reasonable doubt that Labour’s view, expressed from the beginning; that this proposed ward is utterly

51 unrepresentative, has no community identity at all, will provide for poor electoral representation of local need and therefore poor and inefficient local government; was correct.

In addition to this strong and clear evidence, Labour is also aware that the local residents association in the Sculcoates area discussed this matter at their AGM held on 6th July at the Mitchell Centre and where a motion was carried by 45 -1, (of local residents and people representing groups that use the centre), opposing the proposed ward structure. Labour was copied into a letter written by Mrs. Pat Jackson to the LGBCE; (Enclosed); from this local group which states the opposition to the proposed ward and also support for the Labour Group proposals for this area. We trust that this time the “weight” of Fountain Road’s Community Centre opinion will actually be given appropriate consideration by the LGBCE to this significant community opinion, as your last draft proposal paragraphs 77-80 (Pages 19-20, LGBCE, June 2017) does not even reference their opposition, erroneously referring to their previous representation as merely from a “local resident” in the body of the report.

Summary

There is clear and strong evidence to suggest that the LGBCE proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward does not provide any community identity and the significant differences along the length of the ward are highlighted using different data sets to emphasise this. In addition to this is the very significant survey results described above which show a unanimous opposition to the proposal from local residents.

The great differences in communities in the proposed ward would make efficient local government extremely difficult and would generate competition between different communities for ward support making it difficult to represent effectively and meaningfully. It is likely that this would result in some areas not having their needs adequately met as effectively as if they were in a ward that more neatly reflected common needs, issues, challenges and aspirations.

The physical geographical characteristics of the ward itself would also make this a very difficult ward for elected members to represent.

As before, Labour believes that this ward, originally proposed by the Lib Dems, is merely an artificial construct that allows their other proposals for altering areas of West Hull to fit and which are to their own electoral benefit. In contrast to this, Labour’s proposals are based on community identity as the strongest motivating factor but, as with labours original proposals from October 2016 which were largely rejected; also provide better electoral equality and allows for very effective and efficient local government as well. This includes the creation of a ‘Central Ward’ bringing in very similar areas around the top of the city centre; (See Section on Central Ward below). Labours plan for this area also unifies the strong and vibrant

52 seafaring community of Hessle Road with the city centre which will see heavy investment in developing as the UK’s ‘Maritime City’.

Labour originally proposed a good system of how a complete set of representative and equal three member wards could be achieved but the Commission decided to move away from that. To then determine there should only be three two member wards as a consequence is random, perverse and fails to meet the other criteria the Commission has set for itself.

Labour reasserts that the best, [non city wide three-person], ward design for these areas of the city is the one Labour put forward in March 2017 and which provides for very good governance, representation and equality. This is the Labour proposed two seat Beverley Ward which, when evidence and local opinion is recognised is the best resolution for this area and those living in it.

We urge the Commission to listen to the strong evidence provided and also the clear message from the local people who will be directly affected by this proposed ward. Labour also firmly believes that there is very strong evidence presented in this report for the acceptance of more than three two member wards to ensure the process of warding accurately reflects communities that exist in the city. These principles cannot be ignored in favour of a blunt preference to concoct artificial three member wards just to make the numbers up or to adhere to an already compromised preference for three member wards at the expense of community identity, equality

Central (Sculcoates & Springbank)

The Labour Group support the creation of a Central Ward as a stronger resolution to the warding proposals in this area of the city as outlined below.

Map Showing Recognised City Areas – Sculcoates/Springbank.

Customer Segmentation Map showing the Labour Proposed Central Ward.

Looking at the Customer Segmentation Map for the Labour Group proposed Central Ward from March 2017 and the Recognised City Area Map extract above; it is very clear that the segmentation of this proposed ward is very similar, being comprised mainly of:-

Group L – Diverse private rented accommodation,

Group D - Low income public renting households

Group C – Young families in public rented housing and:

Group B – Economically inactive households.

The inclusion of the Sculcoates/Fountain Road area in a Central Ward, as proposed by Labour, would mean they would share a very high similarity of community cohesiveness, interests, challenges and issues which would allow a far greater ability for local councillors and Council Officers to identify, shape and target available resources more effectively to meet community needs and facilitate good governance arrangements.

There is also a small enclave of Group – Young Professionals in rented accommodation which represents the higher quality apartments at the northern edge of the city centre close by the newly built Travel Lodge Hotel.

Labour’s proposed Central Ward covers virtually all of the area recognised as Sculcoates/Springbank by people living in Hull. Although Labour has elected to call this proposed ward “Central”, due to its location, it could justify simply reverting to its commonly known area name of “Sculcoates Spring Bank”.

The inclusion of the Sculcoates/Fountain Road area in a Central Ward, as proposed by Labour, would achieve a very high similarity of community cohesiveness, interests, challenges and issues which would allow a far greater ability for local councillors and Council Officers to identify, shape and target available resources more effectively to meet community needs and facilitate good governance arrangements. It would also ensure that grant and investment decisions that are based upon Ward-based social deprivation factors are secured and maintained in this new Ward, due to the identical social topology of this proposed new area. The proposed Beverley Sculcoates in contrast, would dramatically round-up and dilutes these. This fact has been remarked upon by those working with vulnerable children in these poorer neighbourhoods, hence their support for the Labour proposal of March 2017.

The Labour Group’s proposed Central Ward includes the Council owned housing estate on Stanley Street/Londesborough Street at the west of the ward and the Council owned housing estate on Fountain Road at the east of the ward. Both Council estates have very similar types of households, (See evidence above), i.e. low income public renters and public renting young families. Both areas are surrounded and joined by diverse private renters along Spring Bank and Beverley Road.

Both Council estates are located close to an industrial area i.e. at the west of the ward there is an industrial area on Derringham Street and at the east of the ward there is an industrial area located at the riverside, (See clarity and evidence in the section on Beverley Sculcoates Ward).

As the ward is in close proximity to the city centre residents will shop at the Tesco superstore at St. Stephen’s Shopping Centre as this is the nearest large supermarket for these residents. Alternatively there is a well-used Aldi Supermarket slightly further up Beverley Road within the proposed Central Ward that has just been renovated and extended to meet local demand.

The east side of the ward is served by the Spring Bank Community Centre and the west side of the ward is served by the Mitchell Community Centre on located on Fountain Road.

This high degree of common interest was reflected in the outcome of a recent well attended Annual General Meeting held at the Mitchell Community Centre on Sculcoates which overwhelmingly voted, (45-1), to support a motion opposing the area being included in the LGBCE proposed ‘Beverley Sculcoates Ward’, recognising that the proximity of the area to the city centre is an overriding factor in the issues and challenges faced by residents in the area and that they had no shared community issues with the other communities that exist along Beverley Road.

Labour has received survey letters from Sculcoates residents which also support this strong view as well as from the other parts of Beverley Road, the vast majority of which clearly recognise the great diversity of community that lie along the length of this LGBCE proposed ward. At the time of writing surveys in this area and from the rest of Beverley Road were still coming in but it is very clear that there is a large and strong depth of feeling opposing the Beverley Sculcoates ward.

The Mitchell Centre on Sculcoates is a much valued community hub providing sports and social clubs to the local area as well as a very well used and resourced ICT hub which enables local residents to connect to the internet, pay bills and engage widely. On the other side of Beverley Road within this proposed ward is the Springbank Community Centre on West Parade, which fulfils a similar role for the residents of that area as the needs are very similar.

When this is compared to the segmentation data for the LGBCE proposed Beverley Sculcoates Ward, (See the evidence in the section on Beverley Sculcoates Ward), which was originally proposed by the Liberal Democrats, it is equally clear that these groups in Sculcoates/Fountain Road would see their specific and community issues diluted dramatically by being included in a ward with very different communities spread out along the length of the Beverley Road corridor.

It would not be acceptable in any other aspect of public life for the distinct and particular needs of BAME communities to be ignored. The LGBCE, failure to reference these issues, and silence in reference the needs of this community, is at best regrettable, and at worst typical of the issues raised in the Macpherson report. These BAME issues, Labour raised in March 2017, are not addressed at all in the LGBCE latest draft proposals.

The LGBCE proposal that would seek to shoehorn areas together where there is a variance of six to seven times the number of EAL, is ill thought out. The Labour Central Ward recognises the inner-City's ethnic diversity and ensures these issues remain a key consideration, in the co-joining of similar communities. It will ensure the needs of these groups remain targeted and focused in this Ward, ensuring good

56 governance. The LGBCE proposal would lead to the marginalisation of the needs of the BAME community, and a reduced focus on diversity issues.

In addition to the evidence presented above, when the school catchment areas for Labour’s proposed central ward are included, above, it can be seen that the proposed Central Ward also closely matches the catchment areas for Clifton, Pearson Stepney and a large part of Collingwood Primary Schools.

Map Showing The School Catchment Areas For The Proposed Central Ward

Summary: Proposed Central Ward (Sculcoates and Springbank Ward).

Labour’s proposed ‘Central Ward’, (or Sculcoates Springbank Ward), reflects the proximity of the residents of this area to the city centre and how these communities have evolved as a result of that and been shaped by the influences and industries that grew up around the city centre. Local people retain a sense of belonging to a close knit community that looks to the city centre

Orchard Park and University Wards

The Labour Group supports the proposals for the Orchard Park Ward from the LGBCE which are being consulted on. Labour notes the commissions comments in paragraphs 73 and 74 in their ‘New electoral arrangements’ document from June 2017.

I fully support including the private housing development which surrounds the Tesco superstore in the proposed Orchard Park Ward. This is because the majority of residents of the proposed ward shop at the Tesco superstore and also by adding this

57 area into the proposed ward it would ensure that the catchment area for Thorpepark Primary School is fully contained within the ward.

The two wards are fairly neatly catered for in terms of local school catchments, (See below).

Map showing the Primary School Catchments for Orchard Park Ward and University Ward.

Using Beverley High Road for the boundary for the east side of the ward as this is a very busy dual carriageway which is difficult to cross as it in a duel carriageway along this stretch of the road . The proposed boundary for the ward keeps the communities within the proposed Orchard Park Ward together with the amenities and services which serve them. In terms of governance the ward would be contained within the current Northern Area Committee area of the city and would be represented by the three Orchard Park Ward Councillors rather than the current five Councillors i.e. three in the Orchard Park & Greenwood Ward and two in the Beverley Ward thus making representing the electorate in the area much simpler as well as providing for good electoral equality.

Labours local Councillors for the area have had discussions about the proposed Orchard Park Ward with many residents at Ward Forum meetings and at community events and local residents have all expressed their support for this proposal.

Wyke Ward

The Labour Group originally proposed the Wyke ward boundary in October 2016 as part of the Groups universal three member ward proposal and saw then, as now, that while there are some differences between the current Bricknell Ward and the area of the current Newland Ward we proposed to unite with it to make Wyke Ward, there

58 was also evidence of significant linkages too. This and other factors, such as that the area is well served by Appleton, most of Bricknell and Sidmouth Primary Schools, minded Labour to view the area as sufficiently similar to be a cohesive and meaningful three seat ward.

Catchment Areas for Appleton, Sidmouth and Bricknell Primary Schools.

WEST HULL WARDS

Pickering Ward

Map showing the Labour Group Proposed Pickering Ward from March 2017

Map of the Recognised City Area of Pickering Summergroves (left) and Sir Christopher Pickering Primary School, (right).

In establishing Labour’s Pickering Ward to match the recognised Pickering/Summergroves community area the imperative is to ensure that no other community is artificially added or indeed split off from elsewhere simply to ‘make up

60 the numbers’ to a three seat ward. Labour’s Pickering Ward proposal has very minor additions to the Recognised Area of Pickering/Summergroves in order to unite the Boothferry Estate which is located to the north and south of Boothferry Road but is one estate built at the same time. There is also a ‘spur to the south east corner of the ward which simply follows the curve of the railway line but contains no housing and so is neither here nor there.

Labour is strongly of the view that community identity is the strongest criteria while understanding that electoral equality has to be a key factor. However, once the Commission decided to move away from all three seat wards; which was Labour’s first submission and achieved very good levels of electoral equality not achieved in any proposal since; then there has to be a clear recognition that electoral equality has to represent clear community identity to be meaningful and provide for efficient and convenient local government for the Council as a whole and those representatives elected in wards. This is made more and more difficult the more identified communities are divided simply to make up numbers because of a view in favour of three seat wards as a priority. There must be recognition of where this detracts from good governance and community identity.

Labour and local residents believe that a Pickering Ward, containing the whole of Boothferry Estate is the best and most viable ward in this area. The housing to the south of Boothferry Estate which is called Summergroves was mostly constructed in the late 1980’s/ 90’s and those resident there do not tend to face eastwards towards Newington or St. Andrew’s which are older more established areas linked to the former fishing industry. This area has many residents who have moved into the City from Hessle and who will regard themselves as being more akin to Hessle than other parts of Hull. It is obvious, therefore, given their physical location that they are part of the Pickering Ward which is co-terminus with Hessle at the City border to the west.

The LGBCE has included Pickering Park into Pickering Ward which Labour opposes. Pickering Road, which is the eastern border of Labour’s proposed ward, takes its name from the Park, not the other way around and the park has always been associated with the Gipsyville area. Gipsyville borders the park without any break and the lake in the park is reflected in the naming of Lakeside Grove which runs to the park via West Grove. In fact, Pickering Road is the natural divide between Gipsyville, the park and the Pickering/Summergroves community itself. Further strong evidence supporting this position is provided in the section on Labour’s proposed Newington and Gipsyville Ward.

Labour’s proposed Pickering two member ward would be bordered to the North by Boothferry road except where Boothferry road itself runs through the Boothferry Estate. It is simply wrong to artificially divide a single identifiable estate built at the same time to the same style and to cater for local people that share the same Business Intelligence Segmentation characteristics.

Business Intelligence Segmentation Data for Boothferry Estate in Pickering Ward.

Pickering Park borders the housing on Gipsyville which naturally flow into the park area, but is divided from the ward named Pickering by Pickering Road, a road named after the Park, not the other way around. The park and its amenities were developed to provide green space for the households that grew up around Hargreaves and Bros Company Works in the early 20th Century inter war period. Gipsyville was another example of the ‘City Village’ movement of semi-detached and terraced housing that also resulted in Garden Village in the East of the city, although the housing at Gipsyville was more modest. Hargreaves and Bros manufactured ‘Gipsy Black Metal Polish’, which gave its name to the village, hence ‘Gipsy Ville’.

The properties on Boothferry Estate as a whole (both North & South of Boothferry Road - see map above), were built much later; and long after Pickering Park and Gipsyville were well established; between 1959 and 1966, although most were completed by 1964 the last, (The multi-storey blocks at Millport, Torpoint & Woolwich Drives), were completed in 1965. The estate has a mix of houses, bungalows, low – rise flats and shops with maisonettes above. These properties are all of ‘Traditional’ construction. There are also a small number of houses and low-rise flats built in 1976/77 which are of a ‘Traditional’ type construction.

Boothferry Estate residents are more closely served by Boothferry Playing fields and Costello Playing Fields, which also serves the Anlaby Park area

The housing in Summergroves came even later in the 1980’s and 90’s and was designed to attract buyers mainly from the Hessle area which is why the housing more reflects that than the housing nearby in Hull. The Business Intelligence

Customer Segmentation Data shows the different characteristics of this part of the ward and why is actually more closely resembles areas of Hessle than the areas to its East in Newington.

Business Intelligence Customer Segmentation Data for the Summergroves Area of Pickering Ward.

Summary Labour Proposed Pickering Ward

Labour has provided strong evidence to detail why Pickering Ward meets the criteria to be a two-seat ward so that its elected representatives can continue to meet the needs of the communities in it which neatly fall into two distinct characteristics whilst not impacting on the more established, historical and similar communities on Newington and Gipsyville. Labour believes it is important to value and respect community identity and where differences mean that communities need a more bespoke and reflective response than the tyranny of a predetermined number of two seat wards elsewhere that mean this area has its characteristics ignored.

Newington and Gipsyville Ward

The Labour Group opposes the LGBCE pattern of wards for the Newington, Gipsyville and St. Andrews areas of the city and proposes a ward based around the unification of the Newington and Gipsyville areas which provides a better community identity as it recognises the historical evolution and connectivity of these areas as well as evidencing the existing community identity and commonality as well as factors that provide for efficient and effective local government in the proposed ward.

Labour’s proposed ward is the same as the Newington Gipsyville Ward proposed in the Groups March 2017 submission because we believe, as do the people in the area concerned, that this represents a good local community ward with reasonable electoral equality and a sense of belonging based on related housing and ties to the major employment and industry that developed this part of the city alongside the Hessle Road community.

Labour will provide strong and clear evidence for this in this section of our submission and will also refer to a small sample survey carried out in an area affected by the proposals put forward for consultation by the LGBCE and the results and comments from local residents contained in it.

Map showing Labour’s proposed Newington and Gipsyville Ward

The GipsyVille Area of the Proposed Ward.

The communities of Gipsyville and Pickering/Summergroves that adjoin it to its west are completely different and do not share services or amenities including primary schools, shopping facilities etc. Gipsyville predominantly consists of Council owned properties. Pickering/Summergroves is divided between privately owned properties in Summergroves to the south of the area and the large Boothferry Estate which sits towards the upper eastern edge of the ward along the city boundary. The distinct Gipsyville area of the city is covered in its entirety by the Francis Askew Primary School catchment area, (see maps below).

Map showing Francis Askew Primary School catchment area in Gipsyville alongside the recognised city area of Gipsyville.

The Labour proposal in March 2017 unites the park associated with Gipsyville with a Gipsyville that is itself re-united once again and recognised in the proposed name of the ward, (Newington and Gipsyville), as a natural and longstanding area of the city with strong industrial and community connections to the Dairycoates Industrial Estate and the former ‘Birdseye’ fish processing plant both of which employed hundreds of local people from the Gipsyville and Newington areas, the industry mainly being seafood processing, related logistics and one or two important local manufacturing companies. This area is a natural continuation of the main industry of the whole of this part of the city, epitomised and centred on the fish docks to their immediate east along the historic and iconic Hessle Road and its still strong community.

Moving north east from Gipsyville in Labour’s proposed new ward are the Hawthorn and West Park city areas now known as Newington. Hawthorn Avenue and the roads off it grew up around local industry such as wagon works and the housing developed in the late 19th century. The growth of manufacturing in this area led to its growth shortly after in Gipsyville. The area itself was formerly farm land with fields bordered with Hawthorn bushes, hence the name. The area housed people employed in the industries around and complementing the main industry of the area as well as supplying machinery. Wider evidence of its growing population is shown in

65 the late 1800’s by the building of a hotel to accommodate business travellers and a Methodist church to serve the needs of the growing community in this area.

Map showing the connectivity between Gipsyville, Dairycoates and Newington.

Towards the top of the Labour proposed Newington and Gipsyville Ward is the West Park Area which was the natural amenity of the residents of the Boulevard and Coltman Street areas. These areas were built to house the ship’s officers, captains and senior crew and their families and are characteristically much larger and grander in design to reflect this. In recent years they have largely become rented accommodation and flats due to their size. The area is connected to West Park, where the KCom Stadium is situated by walkways and roads that go underneath the Anlaby Road flyover. The park is also accessed from the Walton Street area which also traditionally housed sea farers and their families as well as workers at the docks and the related fishing industries of the area.

The LGBCE proposal sees Anlaby Road in this area as a natural divide, being a busy road, however all the way along Anlaby Road there are numerous pedestrian crossings and the communities on either side of the road are identical and always have been. The fact that people do not perceive or relate to Anlaby Road as a divider is emphasised by local school catchment areas, (see below).

The Newington area of the proposed ward is served by Wheeler Street and Paisley Primary Schools in the main. The other school in the area is St. Georges Primary but this school does not have a local catchment area as it is the Foundation School of

66 the West Hull Co-Operative Learning Trust which has a city wide catchment. As a result of this there is an area to the south of Anlaby Road, next to the Wheeler Street Primary School catchment Area that actually has no designated school catchment area, (shown on map below). Primary School aged children in this area are as likely to attend Wheeler Street as they are to cross Anlaby Road to attend Paisley Primary. The number of well-established safe crossings in this area allows for a high degree of community connectivity and the local residents identify as being ‘Anlaby Roaders’.

Map showing local school catchment areas along Anlaby Road at Newington.

Further strong evidence that these areas are established and highly connected areas that local people identify strongly with, and which as an area has very significant local similarities across a whole range of factors is that it is incorporated in one neighbourhood plan.

Map Showing the Newington Neighbourhood Plan Area.

This provides further evidence that Anlaby Road, at this juncture, is not considered in any way a barrier or natural divide. The LGBCE proposed warding for this area would cut right through the heart of this newly established Neighbourhood plan and would confuse the process for efficient local government in the area. The application for the plan establishes the similar issues that the area faces:-

Extract taken from the application for the Newington Neighbourhood Plan.

The plan can be found via this link: http://thenewingtonplan.co.uk/

The Labour Group understands that The Lonsdale Community Centre; a community group that campaigns for improvements for the Newington area of the city; are also objecting to the LGBCE proposed Newington and St. Andrew’s Ward because it takes large areas of Newington out of Newington and paces them in the LGBCE proposed Myton Ward. This group has a long history of championing Newington and indeed were central in securing the Newington Neighbourhood Plan. They are based on Lonsdale Street and that area is very clearly part of Newington as can be seen by the entrance to the building from which they operate, (See below).

Lonsdale Community Centre, Lonsdale Street in Newington, Hull.

Against Newington St Andrew’s and Myton Ward

The proposed Newington St. Andrew’s Ward uses Anlaby Road as a boundary at the northern part of the Ward which would effectively divide the community in the current Newington Ward from Albert Avenue/ Walton Street/KC Stadium (West Park) and place them in the LGBCE newly proposed Myton Ward. As has been established above these communities are highly interconnected and the section of Anlaby Road between them; far from being difficult to cross as was proposed in the Lib Dem submission in March; is littered with pedestrian crossings, making it very easy to cross at several places and does not prevent the road being crossed by children and parents attending schools in the area and accessing the West Park Area. Drawing a ward boundary across this part of Anlaby Road also divides the Boulevard/Coltman Street Area from West Park which it was intended to serve. The LGBCE Wards proposals also places De La Pole Avenue to Parkfield Drive in to a proposed Boothferry Ward when these areas have developed as part of the recognised West Park city area and are part of Newington. This would split the recognised area of West Park in Newington and place the western part of it in the Derringham Bank area of the city from which it is separated by an old overhead railway line. However, this same disused railway line is then used in Gipsyville as a divide to separate it from Newington. This can only be because it is convenient to make up the numbers for the LGBCE proposed Boothferry and Newington & St. Andrew’s Wards but fails to meet the Community Test. The LGBCE has to decide whether overhead railways are community dividers or not. It is not reasonable to have two differing views in two different wards, in the same document, about the same issue.

It has also been argued; (paragraph 83 LGBCE New Electoral Proposals); that this area; “…shared a connection to the city centre via its proximity to the KCom”. This connection is via the Argyle Street Bridge, (mistakenly referred to as the Derringham Street Bridge by the Liberal Democrats), which connects the Argyle Street area of the city close to the city centre with the KCom Stadium part of West Park. This bridge has an Anti-terrorist Security Gate at the KCom end of the bridge which the Stadium Management Committee is intending to only open for use on match days. The reason this gate has could be fitted is that this is NOT a designated public "right of way" as the Hull City Council Planning Department will confirm. You cannot obviously gate off a public right of way. It is therefore not acceptable for the LGBCE to accept a community argument, and propose a Warding arrangement involving the crossing of private land, which is restricted. The waste ground and railway lines that wholly cut off the eastern edge of West Park from the area between it and the city centre make this completely impassable, even to vehicles, coming to it from the east and further emphasises, as states in Labour’s submission above, that the connectivity to the West Park Area is from the South and West which are in Labour’s proposed Newington & Gipsyville Ward.

This in itself is enough to scotch the proposed LGBCE supported Myton Ward, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of community identity and efficient local government and significantly strengthens Labour’s argument for a very different warding structure in this area that does more than crudely ‘make up the numbers’ and which recognises the evidence for a more reflective pattern of three and two seat wards in the area beyond those the LGBCE have decided are permissible. Labour proposed strong connectivity between the northern part of

Beverley Ward and the new housing on Kingswood given the two large and heavily used bridges between the two areas but this was rejected while ‘connectivity’ is accepted across a bridge between Argyle Street and West Park across private land which is to be blocked by an anti-terrorist security gate.

The LGBCE appear to be splitting an existing established community within the current Newington Ward to ensure that electorate numbers add up for your proposed three Councillor Myton and Boothferry Wards. This is clearly against your own criteria for a ward “reflecting community interest” and other communities must not be sacrificed to this end.

The Liberal Democrat Group also claim that the type of housing on Albert Avenue, Alliance Avenue and De La Pole Avenue are very similar to those on Spring Bank up to Beverley Road. But this does not make them a community and evidence that they have any common interest. The community on Spring Bank up to Beverley Road is over a mile away from Alliance Avenue and have no common community interest or share any amenities including schools, GP surgeries etc.

By taking the area from Alliance Avenue to the KC Stadium out of the current Newington Ward you are dividing the Newington Neighbourhood Plan area which brings the local community together to produce a vision for the area and planning policies for the next 15 years. The Newington area and forum were designated by Hull City Council in July 2015 with the forum consisting of 21 people who live or work in the area and includes two Ward Councillors and two representatives from the Stadium Management Committee (KC Stadium).

Your proposed warding pattern for this area of the city would place the Newington Neighbourhood Plan area in three wards i.e. Boothferry, Newington and St. Andrew’s and Myton Wards. It would place the area in two Area Committees i.e. Riverside Area Committee and West Area Committee. This would complicate the governance arrangements of the area and complicate the Council’s decision making process and management of resources for the Newington Neighbourhood Plan. The implications for the Newington Forum would be that more Councillors from differing Wards would have to be liaised with and, potentially, to convince regarding proposals and future investment in the area via Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy funding.

It is concerning that it appears that in order to crudely stack up numbers the Commission is deliberately ignoring the plans, aspirations and needs of Newington residents as outlined in the Newington Neighbourhood Plan and its refreshed plan.

The Myton Ward is a city centre ward; however; the area from the KC Stadium up to Albert Avenue is not in the city centre but part of the established Newington Ward; (See evidence above). Indeed this area is part of the community within Hull of West Park (please see map and evidence above) attached. This area does not share any community interest with that of the current Myton Ward. The amenities used by this area are completely different, including schools.

The Liberal Democrat Group claim that the KC Stadium is a city centre facility but this is simply not the case. The KC Stadium serves the whole city; East, West and North and was originally referred to as “The People’s Stadium” when it was built by

Kingston upon Hull City Council, who still own it, and residents from all over the city support Hull City AFC and travel to the stadium by various means from various directions across the city and indeed from other parts of East Riding. Indeed; Hull City AFC’s fan base is made up with about 40% from outside the Boundaries of Hull and there is a sizable fan base that regularly travels from Rotterdam in Holland via the ABP ferry terminal in East Hull to watch home games. The footbridge from Argyle Street, (Not Derringham Street), provides an entrance into the stadium on match days only, but the main entrance is located on Anlaby Road.

Survey

Labour carried out a very small sample survey of 230 in the Newington area specifically around the Albert Avenue/Walton Street area which would be taken out of Newington and moved into the LGBCE proposed Myton Ward. These were not selected based upon any data held by the party with regard to voting intentions or even if they were regular voters. Addresses across the area were provided with a letter explaining what the survey was about and a survey asking which statement they supported and also asking them if they wished to contribute any comments as well as part of their feedback. Each letter gave a freepost address to be used to return the survey. We very simply canvassed opinion as to whether residents in this area supported remaining part of the Anlaby Road Community in Newington. We did not expect a large return but in fact at the time of writing we had received 28 surveys back, a response rate of 12.2%. This is considered a reasonable response rate for a survey of this kind compared to industry standards.

The 28 surveys represented 36 individuals 100% of whom responded “Yes”, they did support remaining in Newington Ward. In addition, the fact that not one respondent spoke out in favour of the proposed changes to Newington or its inclusion in Myton, quite the reverse. This gives a very clear and strong indication of the views of local residents on this matter. Comments included the following:-

“I have lived here for 40 years and we have always been, and should remain, part of the Newington Ward. Who on earth dreamt up this idea!!”

“We wish to remain in the Newington Ward and do not want to belong to Myton Ward in any way”.

“We are located on Spring Bank West – not Spring Bank and we are located on Anlaby Road en route to Anlaby on the opposite side of the flyover to Great Thornton Street. Stick to the Newington plan”.

“Never heard such a ridiculous idea. We live a 2 min walk from Anlaby Rd and its 25 min to walk to Great Thornton St”.

“We have been residents in Newington Ward for 40 years and all of our family too and think it is disgusting that you want to move us into a ward on the other side [of the] railway and fly-overs which is not part of our community and we wish to stay in the Newington Ward”.

“Newington Ward has a community feel and it would be our choice to remain as part of that community, with decisions & plans designed to be in the best interests of all ward residents. We see no positive points to dividing the area between Newington & Myton Wards”.

“We are Newington Ward and that’s the way it should stay I totally oppose being placed with Great Thornton Street”.

“We are a member of Anlaby Road Community…We have no common connections with Great Thornton Street or Spring Bank”.

“I am shocked to learn about the change in Boundary update. The thought of being part of Spring Bank and Great Thornton Street is astounding…This brainwave should be cancelled before people demonstrate”.

“We have no common connections with Gt. Thornton Street or Spring Bank”.

“I totally oppose being placed with Great Thornton Street”

Copies of this survey have been scanned and sent to the commission.

Summary - Supporting Labour’s Newington and Gipsyville Ward and opposing the LGBCE Proposed Newington and St. Andrew’s Ward.

There is very strong evidence presented in this submission to support the Labour Group’s proposed Newington & Gipsyville Ward and it ensures the existing community around Anlaby Road would remain together and reunites the Gipsyville Estate with areas of significant community identity to create good electoral equality and efficient local government. The responses to the small sample survey conducted by the Labour Group also provide strong and clear evidence which supports our proposal for this area and opposed the LGBCE proposed ward boundary solution. We sincerely hope this is carefully listened to and acted upon.

St Andrews and Docklands Ward

The St. Andrews Docklands Ward that is proposed by Labour in March 2017 makes sense from both a community, and also an economic regeneration point of view. The proposed footprint would include all the principal residential elements that are co- located with both the Rivers, West of the River Hull. This would include the residential properties of High Street, abutting the River Hull, the Marina Community, including the proposed new Fruit Market properties, and the traditional fishing communities of Hessle Road, which are close to the River Humber.

It was stated there was not enough evidence to support our new Ward, even though no meaningful evidence was provided by the LGBCE to justify their new Myton Ward. Given this we will provide significant evidence of the economic and governance benefits for St Andrews and Docklands Ward.

The synergies between the City Centre, St Andrews and the seafaring traditions of both areas can be demonstrated by the dry docks being located on the River Hull on the Western side. This is where the Mutiny on the Bounty was built, and this area of the City Centre has been subject to a successful Heritage Lottery Fund Bid of £25m which will see the Hessle Road Trawler, the Artic Corsair, which used to sail from St Andrews Dock, permanently stored in the River Hull dry-dock as part of a major refurbishment linking it to the Maritime Museum, which tells the history of Hull’s fishing and whaling past, in the City Centre. The Arctic Corsair trawler has been based here, on the River Hull for twenty years, outside the Street Life Museum, with Hessle Road seafarers acting as the museum guides on board the ship.

In the same way that all the Eastern Docks are in one Ward, Marfleet, it makes strategic sense for all the West Hull Docks to be in this one new Ward, where the water, and it continuing commerce and economic benefits are so crucial to this area. That this area has a shared identity can be seen by the fact that one of the two Fisherman’s memorials to Hessle Road’s Fisherman is currently based in the Zebedees’ Yard, the former Trinity House School Yard in the Centre of Myton Ward, on Princes Dock Side. The other monument is in St Andrews Quay. This again demonstrates that these rich traditions cross over between the current Myton and St Andrew’s Ward.

Currently following the re-warding of 2001, one entrance to St Andrews Dock is in Myton Ward behind Smith and Nephew, where the other is via St Andrews Ward and St Andrews Quay. As this is a critical economic regeneration site for the City, subject to a masterplan proposal being worked up as part a development brief, this splits good governance. The success of the Fruit Market housing scheme on Hull’s Marina, where interest, outnumbers supply by about 8 to 1, will lead to an inevitable expansion development West on Hull’s Western River Humber waterfront. It makes sense that this remains in the same Ward as the Marina, namely the proposed new St Andrews & Docklands. Managing this development as part of one economic Ward entity would greatly assist such development.

This is given further credence by the City Council’s Cabinet decision in 2017 to relocate its aged Ice Arena from its English Street Site, in the current Myton Ward. The Council also owns the Freehold on the neighbouring Odeon Cinema and has committed to looking at master-planning this entire site which joins onto the St Andrews Dock at its Southern rear, (see satellite image of area around Ice Arena referred to below); and the St Andrews Quay in St Andrews Ward. Having a clear economic plan covering the one Ward makes strategic economic sense and would reflect rationale and good governance for this area of the City Centre.

Satellite Image Of Location Of Ice Arena Next To Albert Dock – The Beginning Of The Docklands To The West From The City Centre To St. Andrew’s Dock

Hessle Road & Thornton Estate

The traditional Hessle Road community has a cultural resonance in West Hull communities. That is why the previous decision to divide Hessle Road by the LGBCE and Hull Lib Dems was so badly received.

The original Hessle Road starts on the West-side of the A63, beyond the fly-over. It is certainly the case that many residents on the Thornton Estate, (and both the

Alexandra Arms and the Vauxhall Tavern), still see themselves as Hessle Roaders with connections to Hessle Road and the related industries. The two public houses still have a Hessle Road address. If you look at the historic map you will see that Porter Street and Walker Street adjoin Hessle Road. Both these Roads still exist as part of Thornton Estate, which is why many residents see there is more than a passing connection, as it is the historic links with many of their families and relatives homes streets.

Even up to date maps clearly show that these points of linkages are made, with Hessle Road clearly listed both sides of the Western fly-over.

The West half Thornton Estate was also part of St Andrews Ward until 2001, when a proposal to unite the whole estate took it all into the Myton Ward . There had been a counter proposal to unite all the estate still, but move it all into St Andrews at this point, but this was rejected by the Boundary Commission. Evidence of the strong cultural links to Hessle Road is clearly evident within the Thornton Estate Area. The mural to Hessle Road’s most famous woman, Lil Biloca, [‘The Headscarf Revolutionary’, who successfully fought the trawler owners and the Government for improved safety and proper two-way radios on Hull’s Trawlers] is actually on Thornton Estate not Hessle Road (see picture below), as they still themselves as a Hessle Road community.

Mural of Lilly Biloca, Hessle Road Safety Activist Commemorated on the side of the Goodwin College, Great Thornton Estate.

The other three murals which complement this one, are on the other parts of Hessle Road, along with the Bethel Boards that mark the names of the 6,000 dead trawlerman.

Murals On Hessle Road Marking Aspects Of Hessle Road Fishing Heritage.

Rawlings Way

The Boundary Commission have also stated that Rawlings Way remains a physical Boundary. Compared to some of the other bizarre proposals such as the crossing of the two Railway lines in the Hymers Avenue linkage to the proposed new Myton Ward and the attempt to shoe-horn half of the Council Housing South of Bude Road into the proposed new Kingswood Ward, these communities are positively connected!

The Community Centre on Bean Street, has always largely served the population of West Thornton estate, across Rawlings Way. Less than a hundred people now live on Bean Street which is a cul-de-sac and the access to other parts of St Andrews are only via two pedestrian walkways. If the Community Centre did not serve this wider population catchment, and community, in an area with low car ownership, it would have shut years ago. There are after all, two further Community Centres that serve the St Andrews Ward which are located far more centrally in that current Ward area.

The pictures below evidence the pedestrian crossing which is also a cycle path from West Thornton to the Maurice Rawlings Community Centre and the Bean Street Park.

These were fitted by public demand due to the pedestrian and cycle flows across this Road. It also satisfied the Council tests to justify this significant investment in this pedestrian crossing. Clearly if this was the community divider the LGBCE/Lib Dems try and assert, it would have not evidenced the modal flows required by Highway policy, based upon national guidance and would not have been funded under Council Policy.

Additionally the Bean Street Park is disproportionately used by the children from West of Thornton Estate, and not those from West of Bean Street, who have their own park on Constable Street which is far closer. The Bean Street Park is far geographically closer than the other Thornton park for large sections of the estate, and is safely accessed via the pedestrian crossing. So the statements that this is a major barrier is clearly made by those that have no understanding of the area, and not born out by the modal pedestrian and cycle movements, and the Council’s related traffic and building infrastructure.

This route is part of the City’s cycling route from St Andrews Ward, Hessle Road to the City Centre. It is here because of its well-used connectivity, and this is a desire route due to the many linkages between these communities.

Pictured below are the Community Centre, the pedestrian crossing which flows straight behind it, and the Bean Street Park which is in front of the Community Centre, with Cycle Route and Pedestrian signs for the nearby crossing.

When you compare the linkages between St Andrews Ward and Thornton Estate, these are far more embedded and strongly evidenced that the dubious attempt of the LGBCE to manufacture a non-existent link between the Estate of South Spring Bank (Myton) and the KCOM Stadium by an access route that is private, and not even an established public right of way, and has an anti-terrorist gate fixed upon it.

Elliot Chappell Health Centre, Hessle Road

The Elliot Chappell Health Centre, is a key NHS GP Health Centre on Hessle Road which according to Hull CCG currently serves a catchment, up to the River Hull. This means that for many of the residents of the Marina area of Myton, this is the closest Health facility by car [accessing the Daltry Street Roundabout via English Street]. This is further evidences that there are clear strong links between these communities, as proposed in the new St. Andrews & Dockland Wards

Western Library, Boulevard

The Western Library is currently the closest Library to residents of the Thornton Estate, and also the Hull Marina, who would otherwise have to cross or drive through the major Ferensway junction. This again demonstrates that there is community

78 connectivity in the proposed new Ward with most of the residential community populations living to the South and West of this proposed new Ward area and naturally looking West due to their traditional connections.

Proposed Enhancements of the A63

The Government’s proposed hundreds of million pound investment of the A63, is proposed to start in 2018. This will be about upgrading the are from Myton Bridge in the current Myton Ward along Hessle Road [West] to Daltry Street Flyover /Roundabout in St Andrews Ward. As the traffic delays and adjusted diverted modal movements are likely to affect Hessle Road, English Street, and Rawlings Way it makes strategic sense for these areas to be in one unified Ward. The Labour proposed St Andrews & Docklands Ward achieves just this allowing smoother governance of these issues, and the related factors of air pollution, traffic congestion and diversions and re-routing, that will inevitably result.

Under the Boundary Commissions current proposals these vital strategic issues will remain divided. For this reason we urge the LGBCE to think again at the strongly evidenced merits of this proposed Ward, which is also supported by Hull’s Fishing Community and two large Community Associations in the current Myton and St Andrews, and the Hessle Road Trader Association.

Derringham

As the LGBCE points out in their ‘New electoral arrangements for June 2017’ at no point in time has anyone proposed any changes to the current Derringham Ward as the current ward appears to meet the criteria set out for a well balanced and equal ward. It is served by the Priory and Wold Primary School Catchments in their erntirity and this is supplemented partially with approximately three quarters of the Ainthorpe catchment area.

Map of Derringham Ward Primary School Catchment Areas.

Boothferry Ward

The LGBCE only mentions Boothferry Ward in passing in its June 2017 document at paragraph 78. Labour presumes this is because in deciding to adopt the Liberal Democrat warding proposals; as stated in paragraph 86; no further evidence is required as it fits neatly as a ‘jigsaw piece’ into the Lib Dem picture. Labour only makes one proposed alteration to the LGBCE Boothferry Ward which is in relation to its Eastern Border which meanders onto then off of, then onto again De La Pole Avenue, splitting off a significant part of the long established and recognised area of Newington and also splitting Alliance and De La Pole Avenues from their sister street, Albert Avenue. Labour opposed this as it is clearly an attempt to simply make up the numbers for the ridiculously proposed Myton Ward. Myton Ward itself is a cynical attempt to force a particular set of ward boundaries in the West that are unsupported in terms of accurate and meaningful evidence that reflects local communities and identity. Labours strong and overwhelming evidence in support of this in ion the section on our proposed Newington and Gipsyville Ward above and is clearly reflected in the survey results and comments provided by local people in Newington.

Summary – Boothferry Ward

Labour sincerely hopes that the overwhelming evidence and opinion provided in this report regarding Newington will result in acceptance of the proposed change of eastern boundary of the proposed Boothferry Ward so that the Newington area residents can remain in a Newington Ward that is part of a naturally flowing Newington and Gipsyville Ward that unites Gipsyville in Newington where it belongs.

Concluding Statement

As with the other wards proposed by Labour the priority has been in achieving all criteria and respecting natural communities, interests and identities. To do this there either has to be acceptance of Labour’s original pattern of three member wards from October 2016 or a recognition that by ceding that two member wards are required there has then to be a serious attempt to reach effective community identity rather than dividing some communities while combining others inappropriately to make up the numbers. Local residents deserve greater consideration than this.

Labour firmly believes that this response does two things. It refutes large sections of ‘evidence’ previously submitted in the Liberal Democrat submission in March 2017 which we believe to be significantly weak in areas and non-existent in others. Labour has been as clear as possible in identifying these areas in the document and in providing what we believe to be very strong, significant, weighty and indeed irrefutable evidence which itself is supported by a number of surveys that were conducted in certain areas where we knew the claims made were incorrect or exaggerated.

Labour did not expect the volume of survey returns that have been received or the additional comments which tend to clearly support our view as expressed, in many cases, in January 2016 and also again in our revised submission in March 2017.

We believe the strong evidence we have provided supports us in putting forward the proposed wards we offered in March 2017, with one small correction in relation to Garden Village where the document and map we submitted was a little unclear in relation to our proposal to move the totality of the Garden Village Conservation Area into the more similar area of Holderness Ward. The second small change relates to the boundary line between Holderness and Drypool which we propose more naturally should lie to the back of the allotments on the southern end of Rockford Fields as this is a curved barrier of high security fencing that is impassable and a clear natural divide. This small change allows Lamorna Allotments to remain in Drypool as they are entered via security gating by allotment users from the end of Lamorna Avenue which terminates at the gate.

Labour is also aware, from contacts made with us, that a significant number of community groups and organisations intend to give their views on certain aspects of the LGBCE proposed wards as part of this consultation and we hope that the LGBCE will listen very carefully to what these groups and individuals, who work tirelessly in our communities and help many, many people have to say from their significant local experience of our communities around Hull.

Councillor Daren Hale On Behalf of the Labour Group Hull City Council August 2017