THE HULL CITY COUNCIL LABOUR GROUP SUBMISSION TO THE FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HULL CITY COUNCIL WARDS TH 8 AUGUST 2017 1 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. 2 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 3 “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. 5 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.