Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 08 June 2012 10:36 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: County Council boundary review

From: MILLS, Nigel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 June 2012 17:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Derbyshire County Council boundary review

Dear Sir

I am writing in connection with your proposals for the division boundaries for Derbyshire County Council and the impact on divisions within my constituency of .

In relation to the number of divisions I would suggest there is scope for a reduction from the current 64, especially given the abolition of the Police Authority later this year which or course has significant representation from County Council members. The pressure on public finances has led to a reduction in the number of MPs from the next election and I consider that it would have been preferable for the County Council to have followed the same approach. I would also suggest that the majority of the workload on the County Council falls on the minority of members serving on the Cabinet rather than on the other councillors.

My main concern with your proposals is the proposed 2 member division of and Somercotes. Given that on your proposals 60 of the 64 members would represent single member divisions and only 4 from 2 member divisions, I consider that this creates a real inequality of status for those Councillors which will likely confuse the electorate and the Council in terms of its procedures. This 2 member division would cover a very sizeable number of electors and would be very difficult for the elected members to represent effectively without significant support. I would fear also that that the smaller communities that would make up that division eg Ironville would get “lost in the numbers” and not receive the representation they deserve.

I therefore consider that 2 member divisions are inappropriate due to their scale and especially where the vast majority of the Council would still be made up of single member divisions. I would therefore request that the proposal for a 2 member division be scrapped and you either adopt the proposal for a Swanwick, Riddings and Ironville division and an Alfreton and Somercotes division, or stick with the existing split of Alfreton/Swanwick and Somercotes/Ironville/Riddings. I appreciate there are issues with the size on this second proposal which could be addressed by moving AWP polling district from Alfreton division into Somercotes division. I appreciate that there are arguments for and against both proposed splits but overall I think there option of Swanwick/Riddings/Ironville and Alfreton/Somercotes represents the better option as there greater links both geographically and in terms of school catchments between Swanwick and Riddings than Swanwick and Alfreton, and there are reasonable links between Somercotes and Alfreton.

The existing Borough Council ward boundary between Somercotes and Riddings is far from sensible (eg part of Parkside being in Ironville and Riddings ward, and the new construction on James St, Riddings being in Somercotes with no distinct boundary). This should ideally be addressed also.

My other main concern is on the move of Waingroves and parts of into Heanor Central Division. While I can reluctantly see a logic for the bits of Codnor that border Loscoe being in the same division as

08/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

Loscoe, there is no sense in Waingroves being moved into Heanor given that it elects a councillor on to Ripley Town Council. It should form part of either of the 2 proposed Ripley divisions. I would prefer Codnor to be retained wholly in the Ripley East and Codnor division but recognise that the numbers make this difficult to achieve.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Mills MP

Nigel Mills MP Member of Parliament for Amber Valley www.nigelmillsmp.com

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 7233

Thomas Henry House, 1‐5 Church Street, Ripley, DE5 3BU Tel 01773 744341

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

08/06/2012