New electoral arrangements for Central Council Draft Recommendations June 2020 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why ? 2 Our proposals for Central Bedfordshire 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations 7 , and Sandy 8 , and 10 Shefford area 13 Barton-le-Clay and 15 and 17 , Toddington and 19 and 22 and 24 and 28 Conclusions 31 Summary of electoral arrangements 31 electoral arrangements 31 Have your say 35 Equalities 39 Appendices 41 Appendix A 41 Draft recommendations for Central Bedfordshire Council 41 Appendix B 44 Outline map 44

Appendix C 46 Submissions received 46 Appendix D 48 Glossary and abbreviations 48

Introduction Who we are and what we do

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

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

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

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

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

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

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Central Bedfordshire?

7 We are conducting a review of Central Bedfordshire Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in council elections varies depending on where you live in Central Bedfordshire. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

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

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

Our proposals for Central Bedfordshire

9 Central Bedfordshire should be represented by 63 councillors, four more than there are now.

10 Central Bedfordshire should have 29 wards, two fewer than there are now.

11 The boundaries of 18 wards should change; 11 will stay the same.

How will the recommendations affect you?

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

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

2

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 30 June 2020 to 7 September 2020. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

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

16 You have until 7 September 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 35 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Central Bedfordshire. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for Central Bedfordshire. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

15 October 2019 Number of councillors decided 22 October 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 24 February 2020 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 30 June 2020 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 7 September 2020 forming final recommendations 1 December 2020 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

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

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

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

2019 2025 Electorate of Central Bedfordshire 210,228 227,056 Number of councillors 59 63 Average number of electors per 3,563 3,604 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All our proposed wards for Central Bedfordshire will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 8% by 2025. This was due to major housing developments in the areas of Biggleswade, and Houghton Regis.

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

5

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

Number of councillors

26 Central Bedfordshire Council currently has 59 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that increasing this number of councillors by four to 63 will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 63 councillors: for example, 63 one-councillor wards, 21 three- councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

Ward boundaries consultation 28 We received 98 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included three district-wide proposals from the Council, Councillor Shingler (Barton-le-Clay ward) and a local resident. Councillor Shingler and the local resident broadly endorsed the Council’s proposed wards for the towns of Biggleswade, Dunstable, Flitwick, Houghton Regis, Leighton-Linslade and Sandy, but proposed alternative boundaries in the more rural areas. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of Central Bedfordshire.

29 Each of the three district-wide schemes provided for a mixed pattern of one-, two- and three-councillor wards for Central Bedfordshire. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

30 Therefore, our draft recommendations are based on a combination of all the schemes we received, all of which contained various proposals that reflected our statutory criteria. Our draft recommendations have also taken account of more localised evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

31 Given the travel restrictions, and the social distancing, arising from the Covid- 19 outbreak, there was a detailed virtual tour of Central Bedfordshire. This helped to clarify issues raised in submissions and assisted in the construction of the draft recommendations.

6

Draft recommendations 32 Our draft recommendations are for 12 three-councillor wards, 10 two-councillor wards and seven one-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

33 The tables and maps on pages 8–29 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Central Bedfordshire. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

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

34 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 41 and on the large map accompanying this report.

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

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7

Biggleswade, Potton and Sandy

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Biggleswade East 2 -5% Biggleswade West 3 -3% Potton 2 -7% Sandy 3 -5%

8

Biggleswade East and Biggleswade West 36 We have adopted the Council’s proposed Biggleswade East and Biggleswade West wards in their entirety as part of our draft recommendations. These wards were supported and replicated in the schemes submitted by Councillor Shingler and the local resident. The proposed boundary between the two wards will follow Road and Drove Road, which we observed on our virtual tour to be a strong boundary that will place the commercial centre of Biggleswade within one ward. This proposal will also allow for the residential development east of Biggleswade to be solely contained in a single ward. We regard this proposal as the best reflection of our statutory criteria, with our proposed Biggleswade East and Biggleswade West wards having electoral variances of -5% and -3% respectively by 2025.

Potton 37 Our draft recommendations for Potton ward are based on the proposals of all three district-wide schemes, which proposed retaining the existing ward. The current ward will have good electoral equality in 2025 and will effectively reflect community identities, based on the evidence received.

Sandy 38 We have based our draft recommendations for Sandy ward on the proposals made by Councillor Shingler and the local resident who both proposed retaining the existing ward. This ward currently comprises the of Sandy and . We consider that not enough evidence was provided by the Council to justify including the parish of in this ward, which would worsen the electoral variance of our proposed ward from 5% to -10%. Nonetheless, we would particularly welcome any comments regarding this decision during the current consultation.

9

Arlesey, Henlow and Stotfold

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Arlesey 2 3% Clifton, Henlow & Langford 3 3% Stotfold 2 1%

Arlesey 39 Given the level of development anticipated in the east of Arlesey, which will result in the existing ward being vastly under-represented by 2025, a significantly different warding pattern is necessary for this area. In respect of this, all three of the district-wide schemes proposed an identical two-councillor Arlesey ward, which

10

paired together the parishes of Arlesey and Fairfield. This is a substantially different configuration to the existing three-councillor Arlesey ward, which currently contains the parishes of Arlesey, Clifton, Henlow and .

40 We have been persuaded by the evidence received that this proposed warding arrangement will provide an effective balance of our statutory criteria, with the two parishes sharing good transport links via the A507. Under our recommendations, this ward will have good electoral equality in 2025 and will, in our view, reflect community identities.

Clifton, Henlow & Langford 41 We received different warding proposals relating to this area. The Council proposed a Kingfisher ward containing the parishes of Clifton, Henlow, Langford and Southill, with an electoral variance of -12%. Conversely, Councillor Shingler and the local resident proposed a ward comprising the parishes of Clifton, Henlow, Langford and Stondon. This ward, which was supported by Stondon Parish Council, would have good electoral equality, with an electoral variance of 3% by 2025.

42 We examined each of these proposals on our virtual tour of Central Bedfordshire. After careful consideration, we decided that the warding proposal submitted by Councillor Shingler and the local resident would best reflect our statutory criteria. We agree that the parishes of Clifton, Henlow, Langford and Stondon possess a shared community identity and the ward will have good road links via the B659. We also decided to adopt this ward as it will provide for better electoral equality than the ward proposed by the Council.

43 Furthermore, we recognise the submissions made by Stondon Parish Council and two local residents which highlighted the proximity of and , proving good evidence that these two areas share common interests and services, despite being in separate parishes. These submissions strengthened our view that the proposal made by Councillor Shingler and the local resident would best reflect community identities and interests in this area.

44 A submission was received from a local resident who requested that Henlow Camp be placed in Stondon parish. We have no power to change external parish boundaries as part of our review. A community governance review conducted by the Council after the completion of our electoral review would be the most appropriate way to address this issue.

Stotfold 45 All three district-wide schemes proposed an identical two-councillor Stotfold ward, comprising the parishes of Stotfold and . We have decided to adopt this proposal as part of our draft recommendations. We agree that this ward will effectively reflect our statutory criteria, where good community links exist between

11

the constituent parishes. The ward will also have good electoral equality, with 1% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2025.

46 We also received three submissions from local residents who stressed the strong community ties between the parishes of Arlesey, Astwick, Fairfield and Stotfold, proposing that these parishes could comprise a single ward. However, a three-councillor ward formed of these parishes would result in an electoral variance of 36%. We consider this variance too high and would not provide for good electoral equality, so we did not adopt this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

12

Shefford area

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Houghton Conquest & Haynes 1 -1% Northill 1 5% Shefford 2 -10%

Houghton Conquest & Haynes and Northill 47 We received 24 submissions during consultation that opposed the Council’s proposed two-councillor Shuttleworth ward for this area including representations from Houghton Conquest Parish Council and several district councillors. These submissions strongly opposed the Council’s ward, which had merged the existing Houghton Conquest & Haynes and Northill wards with the parish of Campton & , on the basis that it was too large and would comprise disparate communities.

13

48 Several of these submissions, in addition to Councillor Shingler’s and the local resident’s proposals, suggested we retain the existing Houghton Conquest & Haynes and Northill wards, stating these wards already effectively reflect local communities and provide for good electoral equality by 2025. We agree with the evidence received that this proposal would better reflect our statutory criteria and have decided to retain the existing Houghton Conquest & Haynes and Northill wards as part of our draft recommendations.

49 A local resident suggested that we rename Northill ward, arguing that the name ‘Northill & Southill’ would better reflect the communities that lie in the ward. We did not consider the evidence strong enough to warrant a name change here as part of our draft recommendations, but welcome views regarding the name of this ward, as well as its boundaries, during the current consultation.

Shefford 50 We received different warding proposals relating to this area. The Council proposed a Shefford ward combining the town with the parish of , while the local resident’s scheme proposed a Shefford & Chicksands ward comprising the town and the parishes of Campton & Chicksands and Gravenhurst. Councillor Shingler’s proposed Shefford ward contained Shefford and Campton & Chicksands.

51 We have decided to adopt the proposal made by Councillor Shingler as part of our draft recommendations. We are of the opinion that this ward will best reflect our statutory criteria. In particular, we were persuaded that strong community links exist between the parishes of Shefford and Campton & Chicksands.

52 We decided not to adopt the Council’s proposed ward as we were not persuaded that placing Campton & Chicksands parish in a larger two-councillor Shuttleworth ward would effectively represent communities, as discussed in paragraph 47. We decided not to adopt the local resident’s proposals here because we were not persuaded that enough community evidence had been provided for us to include Gravenhurst parish within this ward.

53 We have opted to name this ward Shefford, as suggested by the Council and Councillor Shingler, given it is the most populated part of the ward. We nonetheless welcome comments on whether the ward name of Shefford & Chicksands, as proposed by the local resident, would be more appropriate.

14

Barton-le-Clay and Silsoe

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Barton & Silsoe 2 -9% Meppershall & Shillington 1 3%

Barton & Silsoe and Meppershall & Shillington 54 The district-wide schemes proposed significantly different warding arrangements for this area. The Council proposed a three-councillor Wrest Park ward, incorporating the parishes of Barton-le-Clay, Gravenhurst, Silsoe, Shillington and Stondon. This warding arrangement was opposed by Councillor Baker, Councillor Graham, Councillor Hares, Councillor Walsh and Councillor Zerny, who all argued that this ward would have no obvious community connections and was too

15

large geographically. We agree with these observations and have decided not to adopt this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

55 While Barton-le-Clay Parish Council and Councillor Shingler stated a preference for Barton-le-Clay ward to remain a single-councillor ward, this ward would have an electoral variance of 13%, therefore resulting in poor electoral equality. In consideration of this, Councillor Shingler instead proposed that Barton-le- Clay parish be incorporated in a two-councillor ward with Silsoe parish. This proposed ward of Barton & Silsoe would have an electoral variance of -9% by 2025, ensuring good electoral equality. Councillor Shingler then proposed that the parishes of Gravenhurst, Meppershall and Shillington form a single-councillor Meppershall & Shillington ward. This ward would have an electoral variance of 3% by 2025. This warding arrangement received support from Councillor Graham, Councillor Hares, Councillor Howells and Councillor Walsh.

56 Alternatively, the local resident’s scheme proposed a two-councillor Barton ward that included the parishes of Shillington and Meppershall with Barton-le-Clay. This resulted in Silsoe parish being placed in a & Silsoe ward (which received support from one local resident) and Gravenhurst parish being placed in a Shefford & Chicksands ward.

57 We carefully examined both proposals on our virtual tour of Central Bedfordshire and have decided to adopt the warding arrangement proposed by Councillor Shingler. In particular, we agree that the A6 forms a strong spine for Barton & Silsoe ward, which facilitates simple road access between the two parishes. Furthermore, we consider that Councillor Shingler’s Meppershall & Shillington ward will better represent the village communities that comprise the proposed ward. Councillor Graham provided good evidence that these parishes are ‘rural communities, geographically linked, and they have rural issues and projects which they have shared as a result’.

58 We were not persuaded to adopt the local resident’s proposals here, as we consider that the community and geographical links between Barton-le-Clay and Meppershall were not as strong. Nonetheless, we are particularly interested to hear local views in relation to our draft recommendations during the current consultation.

16

Flitwick and Ampthill

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Ampthill 3 2% & Marston Moretaine 3 5% Flitwick 3 1%

Ampthill 59 We received 11 submissions that related to the area of Ampthill. Councillor Shingler proposed retaining the existing ward, but the Council proposed a minor amendment, including the parish of Millbrook in its proposed ward. The local resident proposed a two-councillor ward comprising the parishes of Ampthill and Millbrook, consequently transferring Clophill and parishes into a two-councillor Clophill & Silsoe ward.

60 In addition to the district-wide schemes, Ampthill Town Council expressed a preference to retain the existing three-councillor ward. Millbrook Parish Meeting and three local residents proposed the transfer of Millbrook parish into an Ampthill ward, providing good evidence of strong community links that exist between the two parishes.

17

61 As part of our draft recommendations, we have adopted the Council’s proposals for this ward. We were persuaded by the evidence received that placing Millbrook parish in this ward will better reflect community identities and the shared interests between the two areas. While we note that the local resident’s proposed Ampthill and Clophill & Silsoe wards will provide for good electoral equality, we are unable to adopt this ward as part of our draft recommendations, without heavily modifying the ward to achieve good electoral equality, given our recommendations for adjoining areas.

62 We were not persuaded to adopt a local resident’s proposal for combining the parishes of Houghton Conquest and Ampthill in a ward as we considered that insufficient evidence has been provided to justify this proposal.

63 Two local residents suggested that we include the parishes of Clophill and Maulden in the name of our proposed ward. We were not persuaded by the evidence received to adopt this, but we welcome comments on the name and boundaries of our proposed ward during the current consultation.

Cranfield & Marston Moretaine 64 We received four submissions which related to Cranfield & Marston Moretaine ward. Councillor Shingler proposed retaining the existing ward. The warding proposals from the Council and the local resident were similar except that both proposed the transfer of Millbrook parish into Ampthill ward. Parish Council expressed a preference to retain the existing three-councillor ward.

65 Given our decision to transfer Millbrook parish into Ampthill ward, as discussed in paragraph 62, we are basing our draft recommendations on the proposals made by the Council and the local resident. Our recommended Cranfield & Marston Moretaine ward will have good electoral equality by 2025 and reflect community identities, based on the evidence received.

Flitwick 66 We have decided to retain the existing Flitwick ward as part of our draft recommendations. This was proposed in all three of the authority-wide proposals submitted. The current ward, comprising Flitwick town and parish will have good electoral equality in 2025 and reflect community identities, based on the evidence received.

18

Aspley Guise, Toddington and Westoning

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Aspley & Woburn 1 6% Toddington 2 8% Westoning, & Greenfield 1 5%

Aspley & Woburn 67 We received 31 submissions relating to Aspley & Woburn ward. Both the local resident’s scheme and Councillor Shingler proposed that the ward remain unchanged, while the Council included the parish of in the ward. Parish Council, Parish Council and 26 local residents opposed any changes to the existing ward, stating that the current arrangements work well, effectively representing the rural communities within the ward.

68 We have based our draft recommendations for Aspley & Woburn ward on the proposals made by the local resident and Councillor Shingler. We were not persuaded to include Tingrith parish in this ward as it appeared to us from our virtual tour of the area that the parish shared close geographical links with the village of Westoning across the . Based on the evidence received, we are content that this proposal will reflect community identities and we therefore

19

recommend a single-councillor Aspley & Woburn ward, which will have an electoral variance of 6% by 2025.

Toddington 69 We received varied proposals for Toddington ward. The Council and Councillor Shingler proposed retaining the existing two-councillor ward, while the local resident scheme proposed a single-councillor ward comprising Toddington and Tingrith parishes. This had the support of another local resident who suggested the existing ward be split so that the parishes of Harlington and Sundon form part of a separate ward.

70 We carefully examined the two alternative warding patterns for this area and have decided to base our recommendations on the proposals of the Council and Councillor Shingler. While we recognise the M1 can form a barrier between communities here, we note that there are good transport links across the motorway at the Junction 11 and Junction 12 interchanges.

71 Furthermore, the local resident’s scheme transferred Chalton parish into a Houghton Regis East ward. We were not persuaded that this proposal would reflect the community identity of Chalton parish by effectively placing a rural parish in a predominantly urban ward. We nonetheless examined the option of a single- councillor ward, comprising Toddington and Chalton parishes, but this resulted in an electoral variance of 14%. We consider that this variance is too high and would not provide for good electoral equality.

72 We received a submission from a local resident that asked for the entirety of the community, which straddles the boundary between borough and Central Bedfordshire, to be wholly contained within Luton. This, however, falls outside the scope of the current electoral review.

Westoning, Flitton & Greenfield 73 The local resident’s scheme proposed significantly different boundaries for this area when compared to the schemes put forward by the Council and Councillor Shingler. The two latter schemes proposed broadly similar boundaries – Councillor Shingler proposed retaining the existing ward, while the Council proposed a minor amendment, transferring Tingrith parish into their proposed Aspley & Woburn ward. Conversely, the local resident proposed a two-councillor Westoning & Harlington ward, comprising the parishes of Flitton & Greenfield, Harlington, , Streatley, Sundon and Westoning.

74 As a result of our decision to not adopt a single-councillor Toddington ward, we are unable to adopt a two-councillor Westoning & Harlington ward as part of our draft recommendations if we are to ensure good electoral equality across wards. We therefore recommend retaining the existing Westoning, Flitton & Greenfield ward, as

20

proposed by Councillor Shingler. We were not persuaded to adopt the Council’s proposal, as we are of the view that Tingrith parish should remain in this ward to reflect community identities and ensure good electoral equality.

21

Leighton Buzzard and Linslade

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Heath & Reach 1 -2% Leighton Buzzard North 3 -1% Leighton Buzzard South 3 2% Linslade 3 2%

Heath & Reach, Leighton Buzzard North, Leighton Buzzard South and Linslade 75 All three of the district-wide schemes proposed identical wards for this area. These proposals were similar to the existing wards but expanded the current Linslade ward eastwards in order to ensure good electoral equality for the ward, which was projected to have 13% fewer electors than the district average by 2025. All three schemes retained the existing boundaries of Leighton Buzzard South ward but renamed it All Saints.

76 The district-wide schemes also proposed an identical Clipstone ward that broadly followed the boundaries of the current Leighton Buzzard North ward. However, they also included parish in the ward in order to accommodate the Clipstone Park housing development. It was argued that this development will look towards Leighton Buzzard and Linslade for amenities and should therefore be warded with the town, rather than with the rural parishes that comprise Heath &

22

Reach ward. This proposal had the support of Leighton-Linslade Branch Labour Party and two local residents.

77 We examined this proposal on our virtual tour of the area. While we agree with evidence provided that the housing development should form part of an urban Leighton Buzzard ward, we have decided to adopt the suggestion made by Leighton- Linslade Town Council, Councillor Bowater, Councillor Berry and Councillor Dodwell, who all proposed that Eggington parish be divided between two wards. This would allow the housing development to be warded separately from the village of Eggington, which would remain in a Heath & Reach ward. We consider that this proposal would better reflect the community identities of the two areas. The parish warding arrangements for Eggington parish, which are created as a result of this proposal, can be found on page 32.

78 A joint submission from Councillor Bowater, Councillor Berry and Councillor Dodwell suggested an alternative pattern of wards for the area. This proposal involved the creation of a new two-councillor Leighton Buzzard East ward and reconfigured the other existing wards in the town. In particular, they proposed a significantly modified Leighton Buzzard North ward that would place communities either side of the Grand Union Canal and in one ward.

79 We carefully examined this proposal on our virtual tour. While we note the proposal provides for good electoral equality, we decided not to adopt it as part of our draft recommendations. We resolved that these boundaries were not as clear and identifiable as those proposed by the Council and others. Furthermore, we considered that the Grand Union Canal and the River Ouzel represent a significant boundary in the north of Leighton-Linslade.

80 We have therefore adopted the proposals put forward in the three district-wide schemes as part of our draft recommendations, subject to our proposal to divide the parish of Eggington between wards. We have also decided the retain the existing ward names here, as we were not persuaded that the names of Clipstone and All Saints would adequately reflect local communities.

81 We consider that our draft recommendations for Leighton-Linslade and the surrounding rural parishes will reflect our statutory criteria and ensure good electoral equality by 2025.

23

Dunstable and Houghton Regis

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Dunstable East 3 7% Dunstable North 2 -7% Dunstable South 3 7% Houghton Regis East 3 -6% Houghton Regis West 2 -10%

Dunstable East, Dunstable North and Dunstable South 82 The Council divided the town of Dunstable into three wards, represented by eight councillors. This warding arrangement was endorsed by Councillor Shingler

24

and in the local resident’s scheme. These proposals determined that the A5, which runs through the centre of the town, was the most suitable feature with which to divide the town into wards.

83 We have decided to broadly adopt this warding arrangement as part of our draft recommendations. We agree that the A5 acts as a strong and identifiable boundary that will be recognisable to local electors, and we are satisfied that this warding arrangement will reflect community identities. However, we have made an amendment to the proposed Dunstable North ward in order to facilitate good electoral equality across wards in Dunstable and Houghton Regis. This is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 93 and 94.

84 Councillor Jones and Councillor Gurney both suggested in separate submissions that the boundary of the existing ward should either follow the Luton-Dunstable Busway, the Duck Bridge or Boscombe Road. They argued that any of these features could form a clear and identifiable ward boundary for the east Dunstable community, which is separated from the rest of Dunstable town by various commercial and industrial buildings. We recognise that the community east of the Luton-Dunstable Busway, Duck Bridge and Boscombe Road is distinct from other communities in the town. However, placing the boundary here would result in a two- councillor ward with an electoral variance of -25%. In our opinion, this variance is far too high, given the need to ensure that local electors have a vote of broadly equal weight. We have therefore not adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

85 Councillor Jones also suggested we increase the councillor allocation for some of the existing wards in Dunstable. We decided that insufficient evidence had been provided to justify an increase in the total number of councillors representing Dunstable. Indeed, this would have a consequential effect on the overall number of councillors for the whole authority.

86 Councillor Gurney requested that the Woodside Industrial Estate be fully incorporated into an East Dunstable ward. We decided not to adopt this proposal as this would result in the creation of a parish ward with no electors, which would not provide for effective and convenient local government.

87 One local resident proposed various amendments to the existing wards in Dunstable in order to better reflect community identities and improve electoral equality. We decided not to adopt these proposals as no community evidence was supplied to support these changes.

Houghton Regis East and Houghton Regis West 88 A high level of development is expected in the town of Houghton Regis, which would result in town being significantly under-represented by 2025 under the current

25

warding arrangements. This therefore necessitated notable changes to the existing warding pattern for the town in order to meet our statutory criteria.

89 The Council proposed two wards for the town, dividing it into a Houghton Regis East ward and a Houghton Regis West ward. Councillor Shingler supported this warding arrangement but noted that the loss of the existing Parkside and Tithe Farm wards may not be supported locally.

90 The local resident who put forward proposals for the whole authority supported the Council’s Houghton Regis West ward. However, they included the parish of Chalton in their proposed Houghton Regis East ward, stating that the parish will need to cooperate with the town with regard to issues relating to urban expansion. As stated in paragraph 71, we have decided not to adopt this proposal as part of our draft recommendations as it would not seem to reflect community identities and would require placing of a rural parish in a predominantly urban ward.

91 We have consequently based our draft recommendations for Houghton Regis on the Council’s proposals. We noted, however, that the Council’s proposal resulted in a Houghton Regis West ward with an electoral variance of -17%. Given the need to ensure each elector has a vote of broadly equal weight, we considered this variance was too high to accept. We therefore examined alternative boundaries that would provide for better electoral equality.

92 We first decided to expand the Council’s Houghton Regis East ward. This allowed us to incorporate a majority of the Houghton Regis North Site 1 development within one ward, while also allowing the entirety of the Tithe Farm and Parkside estates to be contained in a single ward. This ward would be represented by three councillors and would have an electoral variance of -6% by 2025.

93 These amendments to the Council’s proposed wards resulted in a two- councillor Houghton Regis West ward, which shared similar boundaries to the existing Houghton Hall ward. This ward would contain the entirety of the Houghton Regis North Site 2 development, but it would have an electoral variance of -20% by 2025. As this variance would not provide for good electoral equality, we again examined alternative boundaries that would reduce this electoral variance.

94 We opted to incorporate the area around All Saints Academy, which forms part of Dunstable parish, in our Houghton Regis West ward, which improved the electoral variance of the ward from -20% to -10%, therefore achieving good electoral equality. We consider that this area has good links to the rest of Houghton Regis West ward along Houghton Road and shares much in common with electors that reside on Northview Road and Douglas Crescent, which are in the parish of Houghton Regis.

26

95 Councillor Hamill and the Central Bedfordshire Liberal Democrats opposed any warding pattern that resulted in the amalgamation and consequent loss of the existing Parkside and Tithe Farm wards. Both submissions argued that each ward has its own distinct community identity. While we recognise the concerns raised, we were unable to develop a warding pattern that would retain these wards and integrate the Site 1 development that will eventually surround these two estates. In any case, we consider it preferable to combine separate communities in the same ward rather than dividing them between wards to ensure good electoral equality.

96 We also received two submissions from local residents. Both suggested that the existing Houghton Hall ward be split into two, with one local resident suggesting the boundary follow Park Road North. We were not persuaded to adopt this proposal as we were not convinced by the evidence that this would reflect community identities and interests.

97 One of the local residents also suggested we should double the councillors currently allocated to Houghton Regis from four to eight, due to the large-scale developments taking place in the town. The proposed allocation of five councillors for the town provides for good electoral equality, so we were not persuaded to adopt this suggestion as part of our draft recommendations.

98 The other local resident requested that we follow the A5505, the A5 and the M1 as the boundaries for any proposed Houghton Regis wards. We decided not to adopt this proposal, instead following the Houghton Regis parish boundary. Following these roads would result in the creation of parish wards with little or no electors, which would not be conducive to effective and convenient local government.

99 We are therefore recommending a three-councillor Houghton Regis East ward and a two-councillor Houghton Regis West ward, with forecast electoral variances of -6% and -10% by 2025 respectively. We consider that our draft recommendations for the town of Houghton Regis provide the best reflection of our statutory criteria. We nonetheless welcome comments on the proposed ward boundaries and ward names during the current consultation.

27

Caddington and Eaton Bray

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Caddington 2 8% Eaton Bray 1 -4%

Caddington 100 We have based our draft recommendations for Caddington ward on the current ward boundaries, as proposed by the three authority-wide schemes. The current ward, comprising several parishes in the south-west of the authority, will have good electoral equality in 2025 and will reflect community identities, based on the evidence received.

101 This proposal also keeps the parishes of , and together in one ward. These parish councils submitted a joint submission which indicated that strong links exist between these communities.

102 One local resident suggested the existing ward be divided into two wards along the A5183. We were unable to adopt this proposal as both proposed wards would have poor electoral equality. A single-councillor ward comprising the parishes of Caddington, and Hyde would have a variance of 44%, while a ward comprising Kensworth, Studham and Whipsnade parishes produces a variance of -29%.

103 Two submissions from local residents referred to parliamentary constituency boundaries in this area during consultation. We are not responsible for amending

28

parliamentary constituency boundaries, which are reviewed by the Boundary Commission for England – a separate body.

Eaton Bray 104 We are retaining the existing ward of Eaton Bray as part of our draft recommendations, as proposed in the three authority-wide warding schemes. The current ward will have good electoral equality by 2025 and will effectively reflect the identity and interests of the rural parishes that will comprise this ward.

105 Billington Parish Council made a submission requesting that their parish boundary be moved to the A505. However, as stated in paragraph 44, a community governance review, which would facilitate this, is not within the remit of the Commission.

29

30

Conclusions

106 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Central Bedfordshire, referencing the 2019 and 2025 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2019 2025 Number of councillors 63 63

Number of electoral wards 29 29 Average number of electors per councillor 3,337 3,604 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 8 0 from the average

Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 2 0 from the average

Draft recommendations Central Bedfordshire should be made up of 63 councillors serving 29 wards representing 12 three-councillor wards, 10 two-councillor wards and seven one- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Central Bedfordshire. You can also view our draft recommendations for Central Bedfordshire on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

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

31

108 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Central Bedfordshire Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

109 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Biggleswade, Dunstable, Eggington, Houghton Regis and Leighton-Linslade.

110 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Biggleswade parish.

Draft recommendations Biggleswade Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Holme 5 Ivel 4 Stratton 6

111 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Dunstable parish.

Draft recommendations Dunstable Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing six wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors All Saints 1 Central 2 Icknield 4 3 Northfields 4 Watling 4

32

112 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Eggington parish.

Draft recommendations Eggington Parish Council should comprise seven councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Clipstone 5 Village 2

113 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Houghton Regis parish.

Draft recommendations Houghton Regis Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Houghton Hall 5 Parkside 4 Tithe Farm 5

114 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Leighton-Linslade parish.

Draft recommendations Leighton-Linslade Town Council should comprise 21 councillors, as at present, representing eight wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Barnabas 4 Brooklands 2 Grovebury 4 Leston 1 Planets 2 Plantation 2 Southcott 4 St George’s 2

33

34

Have your say

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

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

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

118 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

LGBCE c/o Cleardata Innovation House Coniston Court Riverside Business Park Blyth NE24 4RP

119 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Central Bedfordshire which delivers:

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

120 A good pattern of wards should:

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

35

121 Electoral equality:

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

122 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

123 Effective local government:

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

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

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

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

127 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft

36

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Central Bedfordshire in 2023.

37

38

Equalities 128 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review

39

40

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Central Bedfordshire Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Ampthill 3 10,362 3,454 4% 11,037 3,679 2% 2 Arlesey 2 6,354 3,177 -5% 7,431 3,716 3% 3 Aspley & Woburn 1 3,729 3,729 12% 3,826 3,826 6% 4 Barton & Silsoe 2 6,226 3,113 -7% 6,567 3,284 -9% 5 Biggleswade East 2 5,758 2,879 -14% 6,848 3,424 -5% Biggleswade 6 3 9,966 3,322 0% 10,459 3,486 -3% West 7 Caddington 2 7,387 3,694 11% 7,752 3,876 8% Clifton, Henlow & 8 3 10,103 3,368 1% 11,115 3,705 3% Langford Cranfield & 9 Marston 3 10,575 3,525 6% 11,390 3,797 5% Moretaine 10 Dunstable East 3 10,968 3,656 10% 11,596 3,865 7% 11 Dunstable North 2 6,307 3,154 -5% 6,733 3,367 -7% 12 Dunstable South 3 11,227 3,742 12% 11,531 3,844 7% 13 Eaton Bray 1 3,357 3,357 1% 3,443 3,443 -4%

41

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 14 Flitwick 3 10,500 3,500 5% 10,961 3,654 1% 15 Heath & Reach 1 3,431 3,431 3% 3,545 3,545 -2% Houghton 16 Conquest & 1 2,317 2,317 -31% 3,562 3,562 -1% Haynes Houghton Regis 17 3 8,873 2,958 -11% 10,146 3,382 -6% East Houghton Regis 18 2 4,924 2,462 -26% 6,464 3,232 -10% West Leighton Buzzard 19 3 9,600 3,200 -4% 10,717 3,572 -1% North Leighton Buzzard 20 3 10,422 3,474 4% 11,080 3,693 2% South 21 Linslade 3 10,707 3,569 7% 11,021 3,674 2% Meppershall & 22 1 3,422 3,422 3% 3,723 3,723 3% Shillington 23 Northill 1 3,500 3,500 5% 3,784 3,784 5% 24 Potton 2 6,269 3,135 -6% 6,731 3,366 -7% 25 Sandy 3 9,873 3,291 -1% 10,250 3,417 -5% 26 Shefford 2 6,105 3,053 -9% 6,476 3,238 -10% 27 Stotfold 2 6,755 3,378 1% 7,295 3,648 1% 28 Toddington 2 7,532 3,766 13% 7,798 3,899 8%

42

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % Westoning, Flitton 29 1 3,679 3,679 10% 3,775 3,775 5% & Greenfield Totals 63 210,228 – – 227,056 – – Averages – – 3,337 – – 3,604 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Central Bedfordshire Council.

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

43

Appendix B Outline map

Number Ward name 1 Ampthill 2 Arlesey 3 Aspley & Woburn 4 Barton & Silsoe 5 Biggleswade East 6 Biggleswade West

44

7 Caddington 8 Clifton, Henlow & Langford 9 Cranfield & Marston Moretaine 10 Dunstable East 11 Dunstable North 12 Dunstable South 13 Eaton Bray 14 Flitwick 15 Heath & Reach 16 Houghton Conquest & Haynes 17 Houghton Regis East 18 Houghton Regis West 19 Leighton Buzzard North 20 Leighton Buzzard South 21 Linslade 22 Meppershall & Shillington 23 Northill 24 Potton 25 Sandy 26 Shefford 27 Stotfold 28 Toddington 29 Westoning, Flitton & Greenfield

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all- reviews/eastern/bedfordshire/central-bedfordshire

45

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/eastern/bedfordshire/central-bedfordshire

Local Authority

• Central Bedfordshire Council

Political Groups

• Central Bedfordshire Liberal Democrats • Leighton-Linslade Branch Labour Party

Councillors

• Councillor J. Baker (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor D. Bowater, Councillor R. Berry and Councillor A. Dodwell (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor A. Dodwell (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor K. Dhillon (Haynes Parish Council) • Councillor F. Firth (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor A. Graham (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor J. Gurney (Dunstable Town Council) • Councillor P. Hamill (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor R. Hares (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor T. Howells (Shillington Parish Council) • Councillor L. Jones (Dunstable Town Council) • Councillor D. Milton (Northill Parish Council) • Councillor I. Shingler (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor M. Versallion (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor M. Walsh (Central Bedfordshire Council) • Councillor A. Zerny (Central Bedfordshire Council)

Parish and Town Councils

• Ampthill Town Council • Aspley Heath Parish Council • Barton-le-Clay Parish Council • Billington Parish Council • Eversholt Parish Council

46

• Houghton Conquest Parish Council • Kensworth Parish Council, Studham Parish Council, Whipsnade Parish Council • Leighton-Linslade Town Council • Lidlington Parish Council • Millbrook Parish Meeting • Southill Parish Council • Stondon Parish Council

Local Residents

• 67 local residents

47

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE