–

1. Introduction 1.1. This document contains City Council’s response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for ’s draft recommendations on warding arrangements for Sheffield. The Council submission represents the view of the majority group, and points of difference with the opposition groups are noted where relevant in the text. Responses from the Liberal Democrat and Green groups are included in full in appendices at Appendix A and Appendix B. The submission also appends the minutes of a specially convened meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, and the submissions of community representatives who gave evidence to which have already been sent to you (see Appendix C and D).

1.2. All political groups are largely supportive of the majority of the Commission’s proposals, which largely replicate the proposals put forward by the Council in our response to the consultation on warding arrangements. We do, however, have a number of comments and alternative proposals to address some of the areas where we do not believe that the Commission’s recommendations are satisfactory.

1.3. This response starts by reiterating the Council’s approach to developing our boundary proposals and then addresses the Council’s main point of concern first, followed by the remaining points of difference.

2. Future-proofing Sheffield 2.1. As stated in our submission to the Commission in July 2014, in developing our proposal the Council adhered to the Commission’s statutory criteria, and at the same time sought to propose a scheme of wards which takes into account the potential for significant growth in certain areas of the city and minimises the risk of an early review. Wherever possible, this has included keeping the variance from the ward average to plus or minus 5%. We also sought, where possible, to maintain current ward boundaries in view of the general agreement amongst councillors that the current wards worked well at a community level and because of the challenges of Sheffield’s topography.

2.2. In light of the above, our main concern the with Commission’s proposals is with the proposals to include all of Broomhall in City ward which, would leave City ward 2% smaller

than the ward average. We are concerned that in view of the high levels of anticipated development in the city centre, that this runs the risk of a further early boundary review.

2.3. Developing a scheme of wards in an electoral review relies on developing a forecast of the electorate for six years ahead of the start of the review. In a fast-growing city this is challenging, and the Commission’s need for certainty means that we were restricted to taking into account planning permissions which had been granted at the date of the forecast. As new planning permissions are granted on an ongoing basis, the picture is constantly changing, and by January 2015 further planning permissions have been granted which would increase the electorate in the current Central ward by approximately 37% by 2026. These are clearly not all forecast to be completed by 2020, but they give an indication of the potential growth of the city centre in the medium term and indicate that the rate of growth is similar to the rate experienced since the last review and which caused the present review.

2.4. In addition to our concern about the size of City, it became apparent during our development of a response to the Commission’s proposal that there was an error in the Commission’s proposed electoral numbers for Park and Arbourthorne and City wards. In order to keep Broomhall together in City ward, the Commission proposed to include the polling district GF, the area bounded by the Inner Ring Road, London Road, Denby Street and in Park and Arbourthorne ward rather than in City as proposed by the Council. In doing this, the Commission used the 2013 figures rather than the 2020 figures, resulting in an undercounting of 221 in Park and Arbourthorne. This was compounded by the draft proposals rounding down rather than up when assigning percentages, making it appear that the Commission’s proposed Park and Arbourthorne ward would be 7% over the city ward average, when in reality it would be 9% larger than average on 2020 figures.

2.5. Unfortunately, the area where the undercounting occurred is also the location of one of the largest proposed developments in the city, which was not included in the original forecast as planning permission was not submitted until September. This will see a development for accommodation for 700 students built by 2018 (planning permission was approved in January 2015). Whilst it is anticipated that many of the students would be from overseas, it is likely that many would be eligible to vote in local elections, and work which has been carried out with the two universities means that all students are invited to register to vote at the same time as registering at university, resulting in high levels of registration amongst students 1. Although this development is not included in the electoral forecast and is still awaiting planning approval, we would urge that given the size and progress of the application, the potential for 700 additional students in this area be borne in mind when making decisions in this area. It is clear that not only is it not desirable from a community perspective to include this development in Park and Arbourthorne, including this area in the ward would potentially take the ward significantly over the 10% threshold before 2020.

2.6. The Council’s proposed scheme of wards would retain the area of GF in City, as in our original proposal, at the same time keeping City as small as possible to allow for future

1 See paragraph 2.7 below.

growth. We propose to do this by drawing the boundaries with Walkley to include electors from within the Inner Ring Road into Walkley.

Individual electoral registration 2.7. This electoral review takes place as the Council is in the process of transitioning to Individual Electoral Registration. There has been considerable national media coverage recently about the numbers of electors, particularly students, who have been lost from the electoral roll as a result of this transition. Sheffield has an agreement with Sheffield University to invite all students to register to vote at the same time as registering for the university , and Sheffield Hallam University will be implementing the same process from the 2015/16 academic year. At this early stage in the transition when university cities elsewhere have seen significant reductions in the numbers of students (and other residents) registered, with as few as 10% of students registered, Sheffield has only seen a reduction of 3,000 electors across the city, with over 60% of Sheffield students who are eligible to register having done so.

2.8. The automated process for registering students means that available resources can be used to increase electoral registration amongst other groups, and we anticipate an increase, rather than a decrease in electoral registration across the city, particularly in wards where there are currently low levels of registration, including City ward amongst others. Therefore it is expected that Individual Electoral Registration will have only a minimal impact on overall numbers of electors, and differential impacts (e.g. reductions in the numbers of registered students) will be less than in other cities. We would therefore urge the Boundary Commission not to factor national changes resulting from IER into their conclusions for Sheffield.

3. Consultation 3.1. In addition to making the Commission’s proposals available in libraries and other council buildings around the city and distributing posters widely across the city, the Council held a meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to hear views from the community on the draft proposals. The chair of the Scrutiny Committee invited the Commission to attend to hear the evidence of the community and to explain their proposals to community representatives, but this invitation was declined. The evidence put to the committee, and the minutes of the meeting are appended at Appendix C and D. A summary of the evidence heard by the Council, grouped by areas of concern, is given below.

Highfield 3.2. The main area of concern raised by residents was that the area of Highfield which had been included in Park and Arbourthorne was not a good fit with the new ward and that the community had been separated from .

3.3. The inclusion of part of Highfield, bounded by Queen’s Road, the Inner Ring Road and Bramall Lane, in Park and Arbourthorne was a proposal in the Council’s initial consultation response and was included by the Commission in its proposals. The Council has been aware that this proposal causes some concern for residents, and that it separates the community from the remainder of Sharrow. Representations from the community have been made

directly to the Commission and also at the meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee.

3.4. We recognised the concerns in our initial proposal, and that the resulting Park and Arbourthorne has very distinct communities, and it is with regret that, despite spending many weeks seeking to find alternative solutions, we have been unable to find an alternative solution which would not involve splitting up a number of different communities across the city, developing a city ward that would be too large and likely to trigger a further review, or creating a number of boundaries which are not easily identifiable. We gather that in drawing up their draft proposals the Commission also tried to address this issue and was unable to find an acceptable solution.

3.5. The concerns of the community stem from the geographic separation of the two areas and that the existing links between Highfield and the city centre and Sharrow areas would be broken, as well as concern that the current Arbourthorne ward is very unlike Highfield in terms of its demographic make-up and housing tenure. Despite this, the Council believes that there are a number of factors which suggest that the two communities are more alike than might appear to be the case. Much of Sheffield has been experiencing demographic change in recent years, and the current Arbourthorne ward in particular has experienced the fifth highest growth in BME residents on the city over the ten years since the last census, and is now approaching the city average (17% compared with 19%). This demographic change is anticipated to continue. Similarly to Highfield, housing tenure in Arbourtherne is mixed, albeit with a small percentage of private renting at present (there are high levels of private rented accommodation in Highfield), and both Arbourthorne ward and Highfield experience high levels of poverty and health challenges. Therefore we believe that the similarities between the two communities are greater than might appear to be the case.

3.6. Notwithstanding the above, the Council has attempted to find other possible solutions in this area. The officer leading on the review for the Council and councillors for Central ward met with representatives from the community in Highfield to try to achieve a solution which works for Highfield and for the City more broadly. As the number of electors concerned is large (2690), this was not possible to achieve, but the community have used the information provided by officers to put forward alternative proposals which would be more acceptable to them. Unfortunately these are not numerically possible within the Commission’s criteria and would also break other community ties, and so we are unable to recommend them to the Commission.

3.7. The Commission also proposed to include the ‘John Street triangle’ in Arbourthorne. With a total of seven electors at present, this area has very little impact on electoral equality, but the thriving business community in this area associates strongly with Sharrow and has shared interest with the business community in Sharrow and Nether Edge. We would recommend that this area be included in Sharrow and Nether Edge.

3.8. The community also objected to the inclusion of polling district GF in Park and Arbourthorne. As discussed above, the Council proposes that this area should be included this area in City ward.

Broomhall 3.9. The main engagement with Broomhall residents took place in the first stage of the consultation on boundaries, with three residents (including one Councillor) also providing evidence to Scrutiny. The community’s overriding concern is to be united, although some residents have also expressed the view that the area has more in common with the ward currently known as Broomhill than with City ward and should be included in that ward.

3.10. The Commission has sought to find a solution for the community, and although the Council believes that the Commission’s proposals are not workable, we have identified an alternative proposal which does keep the community together in one ward, although in City ward rather than in Broomhill (see proposals section below).

Bradway 3.11. The other main area that attracted community concern is Bradway. The Council proposal sought to put all of Bradway in Dore & Totley rather than the current split between Dore & Totley, and Beauchief & Greenhill wards, although this would have the impact of reducing electoral equality in both wards. Those attending from the community disagreed strongly with the Commission’s conclusion that the community looked east towards Greenhill.

4. Proposals 4.1. The majority of our proposed amendments to the Commission’s scheme of wards follow on from our concern to future-proof City ward, and reflecting concern about adding potentially 700 electors to Park and Arbourthorne which is proposed to be 9% over the City average and close to the maximum permitted variance allowed by the Commission. Our initial proposal was developed on the premise that we should a) keep the city centre wards together as far as possible and b) use easily identifiable boundaries where possible. Therefore, we have used the Inner Ring Road as the boundary for City for the majority of the ward. Residents from Broomhall responded to the Commission’s consultation, requesting that the two parts (either side of the Inner Ring Road) of Broomhall be kept together. The Commission accepted that this community spanned the Inner Ring Road and found a solution which would enable all of Broomhall to remain together, but in doing so increased the size of City ward significantly, which, as explained above, the Council is concerned about. To enable City ward to have a smaller overall size, we have developed an alternative proposal which would keep both parts of Broomhall together in the same ward (City) and would also enable us to reunite the community at Netherthorpe in Walkley ward, which has also been split by the Inner Ring Road but where strong community ties remain.

4.2. This Council submission also includes, at Appendix A, the Green party’s proposal which would keep Broomhall together in Broomhill as well as including the part of Highfield which has caused community concern in City ward. This proposal would result in a slightly larger City ward than the Council proposal, as well as two further wards which are at the extremes of the permitted varience, and as a result we are unable to recommend it because we are concerned that the combination of these factors would significantly increase the risk of triggering an early boundary review.

4.3. The resulting wards following these changes are as follows:

City Electorate 2013: 11,204 (-21%) Electorate 2020: 13,731 (-8%)

4.4. The proposed ward is largely bounded by the Inner Ring Road as in our original proposal, but uses the boundary proposed by the Commission at Broomhall (i.e. including Broomhall within the boundary). As outlined at paragraph 3.8, we include the area bounded by Denby Street, London Road, Bramall Lane and the Inner Ring Road in City ward, before following the Inner Ring Road around to the north west, then following the railway, and taking Rutland Road and the A61 to include Kelham Island in City, before reverting to the Inner Ring Road. In order to include both parts of Broomhall in City, and to keep City ward small to future- proof it, we propose that the boundary in the west of the ward should be drawn along Scotland Street, Solly Street and Broad Lane. This proposal has the benefit of meeting the preference to keep Broomhall together, whist at the same time keeping City almost as small as our previous submission.

4.5. The Green group propose alternative boundaries for City. These can be read at Appendix A.

Walkley Electorate 2013: 14,447 (2%) Electorate 2020: 15,384 (4%)

4.6. In the same way as the Commission has recognised the important community ties between the two parts of Broomhall, we believe that a similar argument should be made for the community at Netherthorpe. Like Broomhall, the original proposal would see Netherthorpe currently split by a ward boundary that follows the Inner Ring Road – we believe that this neighbourhood should be united in the same ward. The Edward Street Flats and surrounding area are inside the Inner Ring Road and are currently part of Walkley. Many families attend the mosque in Netherthorpe and children at the school attend Netherthorpe Infant and Junior School which is in Walkley. By including this area in Walkley we are able to decrease the size of City ward significantly and to unite this community in the same way that is proposed at Broomhall. In order to reduce the size of City further, we also include some of the properties neighbouring Edward Street flats in Walkley. This This area includes significant amounts of student accommodation and private accommodation and although not completely similar to the rest of the ward, Walkley does also contain student accommodation along Hoyle Street, so there is a reasonable community fit.

4.7. The proposals leave Walkley at 3.6% over the city ward average by 2020. We have taken the precaution of drawing the boundary with Hillsborough so that Hillsborough takes on land from Walkley which is currently vacant or industrial, but has the potential for development in the future. Drawing the boundary in this way means that there is little scope for future development in Walkley, and therefore elector numbers should remain reasonably stable.

4.8. The Green group proposal alternative boundaries for Walkley. This can be read at Appendix A.

Hillsborough Electorate 2013: 14,387 (1%) Electorate 2020: 15,144 (1.98%)

4.9. As outlined above in the section on Walkley, we are proposing that Hillsborough should take on the largely industrial land to the east of the River Don running towards the city centre. There are currently no electors in this strip of land, but there is potential for development and Hillsborough is currently only 1.98% over the ward average and so has slightly more room to absorb any future growth. The remaining boundaries of Hillsborough are proposed to follow the Commission’s proposals.

4.10. The Green group propose alternative boundaries for Hillsborough. Their proposals can be read at Appendix A.

Broomhill and Sharrow Vale Electorate 2013: 13,750 (-3%) Electorate 2020: 14,509 (-2%)

4.11. As outlined at paragraph 3.10 we have accepted the Commission’s proposals to include Broomhall in City ward. As a result we are recommending that the name of Broomhill be changed to Broomhill and Sharrow Vale. This is because our original proposal to name the ward Botanicals sought to find a unifying feature that the ward could be named after as it was not desirable to name the ward after the three, or arguably four, areas that were proposed to be included in it. As Broomhall is now not included, it is preferred that the ward is named after the two main neighbourhoods in the ward.

4.12. Our proposals above would see Walkley taking on more electors than proposed in our original submission. Therefore we recommend that the boundary between Walkley and Broomhill reverts almost to the current boundary, including all the housing up to and including Birkendale View in Broomhill. As can be seen on the map, the housing type changes suddenly north of Birkendale View from large detached houses to terraces, and the community below Fulmer Road associate more closely with Commonside and Crookesmoor and Broomhill more generally than with Walkley. This boundary is, therefore, an improvement on the boundary proposed in our original submission and on the Commission’s proposals, both from a community perspective, and also from the perspective of electoral equality.

4.13. Other than these two changes, we propose that the Broomhill and Sharrow Vale boundaries are largely the same as our original submission, with Crookes and Crosspool taking on the part of polling district EH north of the centre line of Crookesmoor Road, and the part of EG north of the centre line of Tapton Crescent Road. We accept the proposals made by the Commission at Endcliffe.

4.14. The Green group proposals would differ significantly from this proposal and can be read at Appendix A.

Park and Arbourthorne Electorate 2013: 13,646 (-4%) Electorate 2020: 14,735 (-0.77%)

4.15. As outlined above at paragraph 2.5, we recommend that the Commission reverts to the Council’s originally proposed boundaries for Park and Arbourthorne ward.

4.16. The Green group proposals would restore the boundaries of this ward to that of the current Arbourthorne ward and their proposals can be read at Appendix A.

Crookes and Crosspool Electorate 2013: 14,485 (2%) Electorate 2020: 14,904 (0%)

4.17. Following consultation with residents, all three councillors in the ward, representing both Labour and Liberal Democrat groups, have asked for the name of Crookes to be changed to Crookes & Crosspool to reflect the two distinct communities that make up the ward.

4.18. We have largely reverted to our original proposed boundaries for Crookes & Crosspool, with two slight amendments. In order to enable greater electoral equality in Walkley, housing around the Bolehills Park (and the park itself) has been included within Crookes & Crosspool. This works well as residents in this area associate with the current Crookes ward, and residents active in the Friends of the Bolehills are mainly drawn from the current Crookes ward.

4.19. The Liberal Democrat group maintain their concern about the boundary with Fulwood at and their comments can be read in Appendix B.

Burngreave/Firth Park Burngreave electorate 2013: 15,058 (6%) Burngreave electorate 2020: 15,523 (5%)

Firth Park electorate 2013:14,140 (0%) Firth Park electorate 2020: 14,837 (0%)

4.20. It has been suggested since the previous round of consultation that the northern half of the cul-de-sac formed by Vicker’s Road and Vicker’s Drive which is currently part of Firth Park should be included in Burngreave as residents here currently presume that they are in Burngreave, and are relatively isolated from the rest of Firth Park. Councillors for both wards, as well as a local resident have raised the anomaly and as the change does not impact significantly on the electoral equality in the wards it is suggested that the boundary be changed to reflect this.

Burngreave/Foxhill and Chaucer Foxhill and Chaucer Electorate 2013:14,361 (1%) Electorate 2020: 14,911 (0%)

4.21. The Commission’s draft recommendations place all of Parkwood Springs in the proposed Foxhill and Chaucer ward. This causes the Council some concern as Parkwood Springs includes an area of landfill site which causes a number of issues for local residents in the Burngreave ward to the east of Parkwood Springs. Two local community groups, Friends of Parkwood Springs and Parkwood Landfill Group are made up almost exclusively of Burngreave residents. We recognise that residents on Penrith Road whose properties back onto Parkwood Springs and the allotments may also be affected by any issues affecting the

northern part of Parkwood Springs, and so suggest an alternative boundary along a footpath which bears south west from Parkwood Road North and then joining the railway. This does not affect any electors.

Dore and Totley/Fulwood/ Electorate 2013: 14,965 (6%) Electorate 2020: 15,576 (5%)

Beauchief and Greenhill Electorate 2013: 14,004 (-1%) Electorate 2020: (14,353 (-3%)

Fulwood Electorate 2013: 14,822 (4%) Electorate 2020: 15,246 (3%)

4.22. The Commission has proposed that the area of housing at the junction of Abbeydale Road South and Abbey Lane should be included in Beauchief & Greenhill rather than Dore & Totley as proposed by the Council. We argue that the community here fit more naturally in Dore & Totley (or in , where it is currently located, but electoral equality dictates it must be moved) than in Beauchief & Greenhill. The housing backs directly onto Ecclesall Woods, and the issues affecting residents are more likely to concern the woods and issues along the Abbeydale corridor than up the hill and across the railway in Beauchief and Greenhill. There are no buses between the area and the rest of Beauchief and Greenhill, but several travelling on through Dore & Totley.

4.23. The Commission’s boundary with Beauchief & Greenhill at Beauchief traffic lights, which includes the above area in Beauchief & Greenhill, is supported by the Liberal Democrat Group and their comments can be read at Appendix B.

4.24. The Council originally proposed that Bradway should be brought together in Dore and Totley. The Commission has disagreed with this, and members of the community have presented evidence which can be read at Appendices C and D. The Council’s response to this is that if, as it seems, the Commission prefers electoral equality over community view in this area, then it is more pressing that the area at the junction of Abbey lane and Abbeydale South be included in Dore and Totley than the boundary at Bradway be amended.

4.25. Finally the Commission’s proposals at Ringinglow would have left a Fulwood elector isolated within land which is in Dore and Totley, presumably due to the restrictions on the Commission when drawing boundaries. We have proposed drawing the boundary between Dore & Totley and Fulwood along the Ringinglow Road instead of Limb Brook and including Ringinglow Village in Dore & Totley. This boundary is also better than the previous proposed boundary as there are better bus linkages between Ringinglow and the rest of Dore & Totley than there are with Fulwood. It also has the effect of ironing out a minor anomaly in the Limb Valley.

Ecclesall Electorate 2013: 15,581 (10%) Electorate 2020:16,064 (8%)

4.26. We believe that the Ecclesall Woods should continue to be split between Dore & Totley and Ecclesall, and not contained exclusively within Ecclesall simply because the woods share the name with the ward. There is access to the woods from both Dore and Totley and Ecclesall, the wood is used by each ward equally and most importantly for effective governance and democracy, there are houses which back directly onto the woods from both wards and any issues in the woods affecting these properties has the potential to lead to casework from residents of both wards. We believe the most logical boundary between the two wards is Abbey Lane as at present. This would also have the benefit of producing a tidier boundary.

4.27. We recommend a small alteration at the boundary with Dore and Totley, at Ringinglow Gardens, which is a new development of houses, be included in Ecclesall as it has more in common with the more urban nature of Ecclesall (in contrast to the neighbouring farm which would be better served by being linked with other farms in Dore and Totley).

5. Conclusion 5.1. Although we are broadly supportive of the Commission’s proposals, we believe that it is imperative that the proposals are future-proofed. We believe that the proposals submitted here are the best attempt to meet the Commission’s statutory criteria and to future-proof wards to minimise the risk of a further review.

–

The Green Group is broadly in favour of the Council's proposals. We do however propose a small number of amendments to accommodate the wishes of the residents and communities of Highfield and Broomhall that have responded to consultations by the Commission and the Council.

The Green Group originally proposed that the new City Ward should use the inner ring road as an easily identifiable main boundary. Due to representations to the consultations by communities that span the ring road we are now withdrawing that proposal. Although we still feel that it is important that city centre residents are given a collective voice, we understand that some communities at the periphery of the city centre identify themselves with communities outside of the Inner Ring Road and vice versa.

Broomhill and Botanicals

Electorate 2013: 14,803 (4%) Electorate 2020: 15,633 (5%).

We support the Commission's proposal to unite the Broomhall communities that span the ring road. But we believe this area and its residents have stronger links with the Broomhall Park area (from which it was split during the last boundary review) than the rest of the city centre.

We are proposing the Broomhall and the Springfield estate/Gell Street area are added to the Commission's proposed Broomhill and Botanicals Ward.

Respondents to the consultation have highlighted community links in this area, in addition the housing tenure in Broomhall has more in common with the other areas of Broomhill and Botanicals Ward as opposed to the 'city living' flats of which this area has none. Finally this would bring the whole of the Broomhall Conservation Area into the same council ward.

Our suggestion for a name for this ward which would now include all the areas of Broomhill, Broomhall, Broomhall Park, Broomspring and Broomfield is Sharrow Vale and Broom .

To keep electoral equality we would then revert to the Commission's original intention to have the ward boundary with Walkley along Barber Road, Draft recommendations (42).

City Ward

Electorate 2013: 10,970 (-23%) - Electorate 2020: 13,824 (-7%)

We oppose the proposals to move Highfield from the current Central Ward into the new Park and Arbourthorne Ward. After representing the Highfield area for 10 years we are unaware of any community groups or local facilities that serve these two distinct communities. The significant physical barriers of a main arterial road, railway line and industrial/commercial estate coupled with poor public transport links (one direct bus) mean that community ties are unlikely to flourish in the new ward and residents fear isolation.

A very significant proportion of Highfield residents are students, living in flats (Charlotte Court , Bramall Court, The Anvil), Houses of Multiple Occupation and shared housing.

The majority of the students in the area attend Hallam University and are served by the Union building both of which are a short distance away across the Inner Ring Road. Highfield also has a growing number of city living style flats (Anchor Point, Edmund Court).

There are excellent public transport, pedestrian and cycle links to the city centre which is mostly within easy walking distance.

Significant issues regarding private rented housing, and parking problems due to the close proximity to the city centre and Sheffield United's Bramall Lane stadium, are not replicated in other areas of the proposed Park and Arbourthorne ward.

Due to our proposed removal of Broomhall from City ward, the ward would be significantly undersized. To rectify this situation we propose that the Highfield area is brought into City Ward.

This proposal deals with many of the concerns acknowledged by the Commission in its Draft recommendations (61) whilst also ensuring good electoral equality.

Park and Arbourthorne Ward

Electorate 2013: 13,035 -8% Electorate 2020: 13,695 (-8%)

We propose that this ward returns to the original boundaries of Arbourthorne Ward. This has the benefit of no longer needing an enclave of Richmond Ward split from the rest by the outer ring road.

Walkley Ward

Electorate 2013: 15,322 (8%) Electorate 2020: 16,307 (10%).

We propose that Walkley Ward takes the area to the east of Barber Road from Broomhill and Botanicals Ward. This makes a clearer boundary between the two wards and agrees with the Commissions original suggestion.

To deal with the resulting electoral inequality of this change we propose to include the areas to the east of Langsett Road and Infirmary Road in Hillsborough Ward.

The north end of this area around Rudyard Road already has close ties with Hillsborough. The shopping centre and local facilities are within easy walking distance.

Further south there are excellent public transport links to Hillsborough shopping centre with numerous bus routes and the tram line. Because of this residents along this part of the Upper Don Valley relate more to Hillsborough centre than Walkley centre, which is up a very steep hill and has very few public transport links.

The main population concentration on the southernmost part of this area, to the east of Infirmary Road, consists of student and private flats which have more in common with the city centre / Kelham Island areas. This is in keeping with the Council's proposal for Hillsborough Ward to extend down to the Kelham Island area to absorb future growth in this area.

Langsett/ Infirmary Road is an easily identifiable border that has tramlines running the full length of the road.

Hillsborough Ward

Electorate 2013: 14,914 (5%) Electorate 2020 15,514 (4%)

Our proposal contains the changes outlined above regarding Walkley Ward.

We believe our proposals balance the requirements to reflect the interests of local communities with the need to obtain electoral equality. They also introduce more easily identifiable boundaries in some areas, particularly Broomhill and Botanicals and Park and Arbourthorne.

–

Following consideration of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s draft recommendations for warding arrangements in Sheffield, the Liberal Democrat Group has the following comments:

City

The Liberal Democrat group recognise that the current proposals for City are problematic and agree that there is a pressing concern to keep City ward small to account for future potential growth.

The Liberal Democrat group are supportive of the Council proposal to include Edward Street flats and surrounding housing in Walkley.

Crookes The Liberal Democrat group maintains its previous position that the current boundary between Crookes and Fulwood should be maintained with the electors at Sandygate included who are proposed to be included in Fulwood remaining in Crookes. In order for this to be numerically favourable, they suggest that the area around Conduit Road should remain in Broomhill.

Beauchief and Greenhill/Dore and Totley /Fulwood/Ecclesall

The Liberal Democrat group is strongly supportive of the Commission’s proposal to include the housing at the junction of Abbey Lane and Abbeydale Road in Beauchief and Greenhill. They strongly oppose the Council proposal to include this area in Dore and Totley on the grounds that the area has a shared history with Beauchief & Greenhill, and brings both the Beauchief Hotel and Beauchief Gardens into Beauchief & Greenhill Ward. There is continuous housing down Abbey Lane linking the area to Beauchief & Greenhill Ward, whilst the nearest housing in Dore & Totley Ward is considerably further up Abbey Lane or further down Abbeydale Road South. They are also concerned that the Council proposal increases the size of Dore and Totley, making the ward almost 5% over the city ward average whilst Beauchief and Greenhill is -3% smaller than the ward average.

The Liberal Democrat Group recognises the wishes of the Bradway residents to want to re-unite all of historic Bradway and supported the original submission of the Council. The Boundary Commission proposes that the existing boundary should remain and that does have the merit of continuity and increased electoral equality as including the area in Dore and Totley would increase the size of the ward and decrease the size of Beauchief and Greenhill.

It is preferred to include the clubhouse at Abbeydale Golf Course in Dore and Totley instead of Beauchief if a suitable boundary can be found as there is an anomaly where currently one dwelling is separated from the remainder of the ward.

The Liberal Democrat group remains unhappy with the boundary at Parkhead, but recognises that the size of Ecclesall does not allow for more electors to be included.

In order to address minor anomalies, it is suggested that the boundary between Dore and Totley and Fulwood be drawn along Ringinglow Road, with Ringinglow village also included in Dore and Totley. This would also address a number of minor niggles with the current proposals, including Colt Lane which is currently isolated from the rest of Fulwood, and Whirlow Farm which should be in Dore and Totley. This has been implemented in the Council’s main submission.

The boundary between Dore and Totley and Ecclesall to include Thryft Farm and the new housing development (Ringinglow Gardens) next to it in Ecclesall as this community has more in common with Ecclesall than with Dore and Totley. This has been implemented in the Council’s main submission.

Walkley/Hillsborough The Liberal Democrat group is strongly supportive of the Commission’s proposal to take the boundary between Hillsborough and Walkley along the river.

Gleadless Valley/Graves Park The Liberal Democrats note that the houses on Ivy Court and Backmoor Crescent, currently in , have open woodland directly behind them, isolating them from Gleadless Valley and would fit better with Graves Park. As Gleadless Valley is currently over the ward average and Graves Park under, they ask that the Commission reconsiders the decision to include Backmoor Crescent, Backmoor Road, Ashbury Lane, Ashbury Drive, Ivy Court, and the east side of Hemsworth Road from the Lees Hall Golf Club to Norton Water Tower Roundabout in Graves Park rather than Gleadless Valley.

The Liberal Democrat group are content with the remaining minor changes affecting Graves Park, Beauchief and Greenhill; Ecclesall and Fulwood.

–

Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

Meeting held 26 November 2014

PRESENT: Councillors Chris Weldon (Chair), Sue Alston, Ian Auckland, Steve Ayris, Gill Furniss, Alan Law, Bryan Lodge, Cate McDonald, Pat Midgley, Mick Rooney, Sarah Jane Smalley and Cliff Woodcraft

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1.1 An apology for absence was received from Councillor Denise Fox.

2. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

2.1 No items were identified where resolutions may be moved to exclude the public and press.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3.1 There were no declarations of interest.

4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

4.1 The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 th September 2014, were approved as a correct record, subject to:-

(a) the removal of Councillor Cate McDonald from the list of Members present at the meeting; and

(b) the amendment of the resolution under paragraph 8.4 in Item 8 – Performance Management for Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee – Quarter 1 2014/15, as follows:-

“RESOLVED: That the Committee:- (a) notes the contents of the report now submitted; and

(b) requests that external contractors, to be considered as part of performance and budget monitoring, be included on the Committee’s Work Programme 2014/15.”

5. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS

5.1 Public Question regarding Local Area Partnership Working

Mr Nigel Slack raised a question with regard to the validity and effectiveness of the new engagement arrangements with regard to Local Area Partnerships.

The Chair stated that, due to the nature of the question, it would be more pertinent for Mr Slack to raise this at the meeting of the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee on 27 th November 2014.

5.2 Public Question in respect of the Scrutiny Review

Mr Alan Kewley referred to questions he had raised at the last meeting of the Committee on 24 th September 2014, expressing his concern at the delay in receiving a formal, written response to the questions, which he had only received the previous day. Mr Kewley indicated that responses to questions raised by members of the public should be provided within a reasonable timescale, following the meeting, particularly as he was acting on behalf of other residents, and needed to share the information with them.

The Chair apologised for the delay and suggested that where formal, written responses to questions raised by members of the public were to be provided, officers should ensure that responses were produced within a more reasonable timescale, such as 10 days following the meeting or as soon after as possible.

5.3 Public Question in respect of Webcasting

Mr Alan Kewley asked whether the City Council was considering introducing webcasting in terms of its public meetings, as being operated by MBC.

The Chair stated that, whilst there had been a number of changes in connection with increasing public involvement at meetings, such as members of the public being entitled to carry out recordings of meetings, a response would be provided in terms of the issue of webcasting at the earliest possible opportunity.

6. ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SHEFFIELD - UPDATE

6.1 The Director of Policy, Performance and Communications submitted a report providing an update on the Electoral Review of Sheffield being carried out by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, focusing specifically on the consultation on the draft recommendations, which was currently in progress. The report contained, as appendices, details of the comparison of the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations with the City Council’s proposals, evidence submitted by members of the public to this Committee, concerning the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations for Sheffield, and the Boundary

Commission’s report – ‘New Electoral Arrangements for Sheffield City Council – October 2014’. Additional evidence from members of the public was circulated to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting.

6.2 In addition to the report, James Henderson, Director of Policy, Performance and Communications, and Victoria Penman, Policy and Improvement Officer, gave a presentation on the current position with regard to the review, reporting on the reasons for the review and an overview of the Boundary Commission’s proposals and approach to consultation. It was noted that the Boundary Commission had been invited to attend this meeting, but had declined to do so.

6.3 The Committee considered representations from members of the public, as part of the consultation on the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations, as follows:-

6.3.1 Jack Carrington, Sheffield for Democracy

• An additional element of the Philadelphia box should be moved from the Walkley Ward into the City Ward, namely the Opal 3 Development (primarily international student accommodation), some commercial properties and another nearby residential development with greater ties to Kelham Island

• The 1,760 electors at The Forge should remain in the new City Ward. The primary characteristic of the City Ward was likely to be its relative-transient population, which was a commonality that could form the basis of a community identity although, for obvious reasons, this was harder to be built upon, but should still be recognised. The other end of the proposed Arbourthorne and Park Ward was 2.5 miles away and was itself, 800 metres from Derbyshire. This would not be an appropriate ward to place an incredibly large community of students, in consideration of both the residents and the remainder of the electors in the Arbourthorne and Park Ward, as well as the 1,760 students.

• The Highfield area should not be moved into Arbourthorne and Park, with the City Ward remaining as the likely ‘least worst’ of its alternative locations. If the Highfield area was moved, the principles of ‘natural communities’ and ‘clear and definable boundaries’ would be heavily violated by the Arbourthorne and Park proposals. In addition to the train line (in which there were only two crossings in over a kilometre of boundary, both traffic- orientated) as a clear natural barrier there was also a major road running parallel and a wide boarder of traffic-orientated industrial/commercial estates in-between.

• A unified Broomhall should be created, and moved in with Broomhill. The Springfield estate does have characteristics, community and a catchment area that crosses, what was in context, given the ease and frequency of movement between, a very arbitrary ring-road boundary. However, in order to negate the extent of the above first and third changes, this re-unified Broomhall should be located within the Broomhill and Broomhall Ward to maintain broad parity in elector numbers.

6.3.2 Chris Morgan, Chair of Bradway Action Group

Residents in Bradway, particularly those that had lived in the area for a number of years, felt very strongly that Bradway should be united, in the Dore and Totley Ward, as in the Council’s original proposals.

6.3.3 The Reverend Julian Sullivan, St Mary’s Church, Bramall Lane

• There had been a lack of consultation on the changes in the Highfield area, which had resulted in the feeling that the wishes of local, long-term residents of the area had been disregarded.

• A sample of local organisations opposed to the changes include Sharrow Community Forum, Creative Industry section of Sharrow, including Portland Works, Harland Café in the John Street triangle, Wolseley Road Mosque, St Mary’s Church and Centre, Roshni, Chinese Community Centre and New Era Development Project, and the Shoreham Street Tenants’ and Residents’ Association. Reference was made to the fact that proposals for boundary change were governed by the principles set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, where it was expected that local authorities should:-

(a) respect existing boundaries – this was not the case as Highfield was separated from Arbourthorne by the railway, Queens Road and a wide industrial corridor; (b) secure, effective and convenient local government – this would not be the case as Highfield belonged as part of Sharrow, where its concerns were shared by the wider community; (c) ensure equality of representation – this would not be the case as Highfield would be a minority interest in a relatively monochrome region; (d) reflect identities and interests of local communities – it would not as local people and organisations were unanimous in their opposition to the proposals; (e) set boundaries that were easily identifiable – it has not as it had chosen an arbitrary set of boundaries, which simply divided the community; (f) fix boundaries so as not to break any local ties – this would be the case as many have connections with schools and places of worship, including the Mosque and St Mary’s Church; (g) recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the Ward we put forward – this would not be the case as strong, natural boundaries were being ignored completely; and (h) make adjustments to reflect relevant factors, such as community identity and interests – it has not as it has not consulted on the interests in this area and when invited, had shown no interest in doing so.

• It is the view of the local community that the Council’s aims to ensure that each Councillor represented roughly the same number of voters, and that

ward boundaries reflected the interests and identities of local communities, has not been achieved. The total number of electors in Highfield was 2,783, of which the majority were students, with 1,156 living in The Forge alone. Students related to the City Centre and certainly not to the Park and Arbourthorne area. An earlier proposal included The Forge in the Central Ward, leaving a total of 1,627 electors in Highfield, of which the majority were students, with a minority host community. Charlotte Court, Anchor Point and The Anvil accounted for a further 200 electors, and a close analysis will show the majority of dwellings were occupied by students.

• Further work was needed but, if the original proposal to include The Forge was taken into account, with some changes along Cemetery Road and the boundary between Botanical and Broomhill, the proposed inclusion into Arbourthorne may prove unnecessary.

6.3.4 Jean Cromar

• Note and support the Council’s concerns regarding the size of the proposed City Ward, but not able to understand why the Commission only took on board the submissions from Broomhall to be kept together, when those of Highfield were ignored, when the arguments were practically identical.

• Support the Council’s submission for the student community, especially in The Forge, which accounts for about 40% of the Highfield residents, to be included in the City Ward because of their links with predominantly Hallam University. They have no links with Park and Arbourthorne.

• A number of local community groups in the area knew nothing about the proposal to include Highfield in the proposed Park and Arbourthorne Ward.

• Sharrow Community Forum covered the Highfield area, which was probably about a third of their patch, and they have no connections whatsoever with Arbourthorne. The Forum considered the issue, at short notice, at their AGM last week, where about 40 people were present and not one person Ms Cromar spoke to was in favour of the proposal. The Forum Director requested Ms Cromar to make it clear to the Council that the Forum was against this proposal.

• Reference was made to a message Ms Cromar received from Alan Deadman, former Chair of the Sharrow Community Forum, and organiser of the Sharrow Festival and Sharrow Fringe, which covered Highfield. Mr Deadman felt it was critical for the Creative Industry, based in the John Street triangle, to be included in Sharrow as it had a dynamic relationship to London Road, supporting the music shops in this area.

• Roshni, a support centre for Asian women based on London Road, and who supported many women living in Highfield, was against the proposal.

• In addition, the Wolseley Road Mosque, who had many members in Highfield, were also in objection to this proposal.

• The strong feeling in the community was that they had no connections whatsoever with Park and Arbourthorne, and the main railway line, Queens Road and the industrial corridor, acted as a huge barrier between the communities. Also Park and Arbourthorne were predominantly mono-cultural areas, whereas Highfield has a very diverse community.

• Alternatives being pursued by local residents included looking at the possibility of having Cemetery Road as a boundary and not the river Porter, which stretches from Frog Walk to the ring-road, which would transfer into the proposed Broomhill and Botanicals Ward, which had a variance of -8%. Residents were also looking at working on the southern end of Nether Edge and were working on the numbers to see if there could be movement here to keep Highfield in the proposed Sharrow and Nether Edge Ward.

• The current proposals would result in community groups having to liaise with six Councillors, as opposed to three, when raising any issues of concern.

6.3.5 Eunice Batty, Shoreham Street TARA

• Endorsed the comments made by the Reverend Julian Sullivan and Jean Cromar.

• In her role in the local community, and as a resident in the area for 65 years, she was well aware of the strength of feeling against the proposal, mainly on the basis that the area had no links at all with Park and Arbourthorne.

• It would result in a number of people having a different Member of Parliament.

• It would result in some residents having been in five different Council wards over the years.

6.3.6 Mohammed Nazir

• A number of the Muslim residents in the area had complained that they had not been consulted on the proposals.

• All the links and contacts of the Muslim community were with Sharrow and Nether Edge, and there were no links at all with Park and Arbourthorne.

6.3.7 Councillor Jillian Creasy

Referred to representations submitted direct to the Boundary Commission by Mike Fitter, resident of Broomhall, indicating that due to similarities in housing tenure and population mix, as well as sharing the same school as the rest of Broomhall, the main aim of the Broomhall Group of Groups was to keep the Springfield estate and Springfield School as part of the ward that includes Broomhall.

6.3.8 Alan Kewley, Bradway Action Group

• There had not been sufficient consultation in terms of the proposed changes affecting Bradway in the last electoral review.

• Concerned at the Boundary Commission’s refusal to accept the Council’s draft proposals regarding Bradway.

• Concern that Bradway would not only be in two Council wards, but also in two different Local Area Partnership areas, and that representatives of community groups and local residents would need to discuss any issues of concerns with two sets of Ward Councillors.

• Will the Council be making representations to the Boundary Commission on the draft proposals?

6.4 Members of the Committee raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

• The number of electors in Council wards was based on the electoral register.

• Whilst the Council aimed for a tolerance level for Council wards of plus or minus 5% in order to futureproof the boundaries, based on the City ward average, the Boundary Commission used a statutory tolerance level of plus or minus 10%. They sought to develop wards which had an electorate as close as possible to the ward average.

• In terms of the proposed Park and Arbourthorne Ward, it had not been easy to find a suitable solution. The Council had considered representations made by residents of Highfield and was well aware of their concerns with regard to the proposed changes. Every effort had been made in terms of looking at alternative options, but there had been significant constraints in terms of what changes could be made. The Council had asked if it would be possible to create two, two Member wards, but this had not been considered possible. The Council was only a consultee in this process, and not the decision- maker. The final decision was to be made by the Boundary Commission, and the Council would continue to make representations to the Commission, and continue dialogue with the local community.

6.5 Members of the Committee also made the following comments:-

• Although not the decision-maker in this process, the Council was a very powerful consultee and should emphasise the proposals made and put forward strong recommendations to the Boundary Commission.

• All boundary reviews involved change, and communities were always concerned about this change. It was not always possible to find a solution that suited everyone.

• The Council put forward a proposal in terms of the Bradway area, which had

been rejected by the Boundary Commission. Whilst no consolation to the residents of Bradway, there were a number of communities which had been split across different Council wards, as part of the Boundary Commission’s recommendations, which the Council would have to work with.

• Councillors often found themselves in the position of having wards with different communities and sought to represent all their communities.

6.6 RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a) notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made and the responses provided to the questions raised;

(b) approves the contents of the report now submitted; and

(c) requests that:-

(i) the Council’s draft recommendations, as set out in the report now submitted, and incorporating the comments and views made at this meeting, be forwarded to the Boundary Commission; and

(ii) arrangements be made for officers to meet with representatives of the Highfield community and local Councillors for the affected Wards, to look further at the possibility of Sharrow and Highfield remaining with Sharrow and, if this was not a possibility, to provide a clear explanation to the local community on the reasons why.

7. ANNUAL SCRUTINY REPORTING PROCESS

7.1 The Head of Elections, Equalities and Involvement submitted a report on a proposed change to the annual scrutiny reporting process.

7.2 The report indicated that, as the six-monthly scrutiny update had historically been presented to the January full Council meeting, details on scrutiny activity for the period January to April were currently not reported anywhere. It had therefore been proposed that, a more appropriate way to comprehensively report scrutiny activity and achievements was to produce an annual scrutiny report at the end of each Municipal Year, to be presented to full Council, at its first appropriate meeting of the new Municipal Year.

7.3 RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a) notes the contents of the report now submitted; and

(b) approves the proposed change in terms of the annual scrutiny reporting process, as detailed in the report now submitted.

8. WORK PROGRAMME 2014/15

8.1 The Head of Elections, Equalities and Involvement submitted a report containing

the Work Programme for the Committee for 2014/15.

8.2 The Policy and Improvement Officer, Emily Standbrook-Shaw, stated that, following comments raised at the last meeting, she would be writing to Members of the Committee, inviting comments on the format and contents of the budget monitoring report to be submitted to the meeting of the Committee in January 2015.

8.3 RESOLVED: That the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made, be noted.

9. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

9.1 It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Wednesday, 28 th January 2015, at 4.00 pm, in the Town Hall.

–

Mr Jonathan Harston Walkley/Broomhill: At Sydney/Roebuck triangle, consider either: • running boundary consistently so both sides of Roebuck Road are in Walkley or • running boundary consistently along centre of road from Roebuck Road via Sydney Road to Commonside

Crookes/Fulwood: At Carsick Hill top: • As per my first submission, tweek the boundary between Snaithing Lane and Pitchford Lane so that the properties on Sandygate Road are in Crookes ward.

Fulwood/Ecclesall: At High Storrs the boundary can be a lot tidier, Highcliffe Road bridge to Bents Green: either: • run boundary along Porter Brook and then stream running through Bluebell Wood to junction of Common Lane and Cottage Lane or • run boundary along Porter Brook to Ivy Cottage Lane bridge, then via Ivy Cottage Lane to join proposed boundary along stream through Whiteley Wood.

Fulwood/Dore & Totley: Should Whirlow Hall Farm be in Dore & Totley along with the rest of Whirlow?

Dore & Totley/Ecclesall: Ecclesall Woods boundary is unnecessarily weird. It should run along Abbey Lane between Whirlow and Abbeydale

Ecclesall/Sharrow & Nether Edge: Boundary along Brincliffe Edge should run along northern boundary wall of allotments/boundary wall of Brincliffe Edge Road as this is a much harder boundary (steep cliff) than the back of the houses on Bannerdale Road (pierced by many footpaths to allotments)

Park & Arbourthorne/Gleadless Valley: Derby Street: boundary should continue along footpath between Litchford Road and Green, putting all of Derby Street properties in Gleadless Valley

Should examine putting Olive Grove in Park & Arbourthorne, though the addition of the student flats at Boston Street probably now makes this numerically impossible.

Richmond/Woodhouse Between Handsworth Road and A57: follow rear of properties on Richworth Road to subway under A57 to make a neater shape.

Foxhill & Chaucer/Burngreave: Between Herries Road and railway, run boundary along rear of properties on Penrith Road to footpath opposite Teynham Road south-west to railway line, to make a neater shape

Names: • Sharrow & Nether Edge - should be Nether Edge & Sharrow • Park & Arbourthorne - should be Arbourthorne & Park or Arbourthorne & Highfield • Foxhill & Chaucer - should be Southey & Foxhill or Southey & Chaucer. This preserves the ward name sorting order, preserves statistical continuity, and avoids problems that occurred in 2004 when some electors were sent incorrect polling cards for the ward that used to have their new ward's prefix code.(As I remember it, electors in ward T (Shiregreen) were sent polling cards for the old ward T (Sharrow).)

Mr Anthony Smith My name is Anthony V. Smith, and I am a resident of Bradway, Sheffield.

My comments are in regard to Bradway. Bradway is an ancient community, first mentioned in 1200. It is a linear community along an ancient highway and consists mainly of Upper Bradway and Lower Bradway. I attach an extract from the 1898 Ordnance Survey showing Bradway at that time. This illustrates how Bradway was one community, the nearest settlement was Greenhill, separated be nearly a mile of green fields. In the 1930s there was ribbon housing development along Hemper Lane which disguised the division between the two communities. It is understandable today that anyone without historical knowledge of the area will not appreciate that Bradway and Greenhill are still two separate areas, and Lower Bradway is still very much part of the rest of Bradway. The whole of Bradway was in the same Dore Ward until about 10 years ago. When without any effective public consultation we found that Bradway had been split apart, with the smaller section, Lower Bradway, being put into Beauchief. Two or three of us found out at the last minute and wrote objecting, I received a reply that it was too late to comment.

Recently I and a few other people wrote to the Council, urging that Bradway be united once again into the same Ward. I was grateful to the Council for understanding the request and recommending that Bradway should again be united.

It is with dismay therefore I find that the Boundary Commission states that there should be no change. It states that our links in Lower Bradway are to the east, that is Greenhill. This is utter rubbish, our links are with the rest of Bradway, I live in Lower Bradway. My children went to Bradway School. My wife is on the Committee of Bradway Community Hall. All our shopping is in the Bradway Shops only a short distance away. We are naturally members of BAG, (Bradway Action Group, which represents the people of Bradway). I have lived in Lower Bradway for 50 years , I know many people here and almost without exception they think that our connections are to the west, the rest of Bradway.

You will probably think that I am a fairly lone voice in writing about our Bradway, I don't think I am, it is because I ask other people in Lower Bradway if they have heard about these present boundary matters, no-one has heard anything about the review.

I do make a plea to the members of the Boundary Commission to think again and reunite all of ancient Bradway and have regard to our historical boundaries and not just look at these divisions as lines on a map. And to accept the recommendations the Council made with local knowledge.'

Jonathan Jordan, Crookes resident

I think the Conduit Road area (including also part of School Road and Glebe Road) does fit better with Crookes than with Broomhill as per the Council's original submission, but it seems the electorate numbers make it hard to make that change. I notice part of the Tapton area does still get moved to Crookes; does it help if that stays in Broomhill?

The boundaries in the Abbeydale area look quite messy. The dam of Abbeydale Industrial Hamlet appears to be in a finger of Dore & Totley ward, but the Hamlet itself is in Beauchief & Greenhill. I think moving the dam to the same ward as the Hamlet would make the map look neater.

I would suggest "Broomhill & Sharrow Vale" would be a better ward name than "Broomhill & Botanicals". "Botanicals" only suggests the small area around the Botanical Gardens, whereas "Sharrow Vale" suggests more of the south end of the proposed ward.

I think that if the Highfield-Arbourthorne link is going to happen the Highfield area should be recognised in the name, perhaps "Arbourthorne & Highfield" or "Arbourthorne & St. Mary's". "Park" is a bit too vague and covers areas in Manor Castle ward as well. I did wonder whether it might be an improvement to draw a ward along the Sheaf Valley linking the Highfield area with Heeley, and putting the Arbourthorne and Gleadless Valley areas proper together in another ward; has anything like that been considered?

Mike Fitter, Broomhall resident I am submitting a comment for consideration by the Scrutiny committee at its meeting on 26th November.

This matter was discussed at a meeting of Broomhall Group of Groups on 6th November, and the comments below reflect the views expressed there.

We are pleased that the Boundary Commissioners are proposing to keep Broomhall together (the parts on either side of the ring road) as several submissions from Broomhall community have requested. Our main objective is to keep the Springfield estate and Springfield School part of the ward that includes Broomhall - that is, the area in the Electoral Review Report referred to as 'Broomfield'. Springfield estate has similarities in housing tenure and population mix, and shares the same school as the rest of Broomhall. There is a case for including Gell and Victoria Streets because of housing similarites, though they also have concerns about city centre issues. Major developments such as are more connected to the city centre than Broomhall.

There is a question of which ward Broomhall should then be part of. The Boundary Commissioners recommend City ward. However, there are more similarities with Broomhill ward than the city centre - a residential neighbourhood, part of St Mark's parish. Broomhall is a neighbourhood that has made considerable efforts over many years to create resilience through a sense of shared community identity. If we were to be linked to Broomhill our recommendation would be for the new ward to be named 'Broomhill and Broomhall'.

Which brings me to the third point. The Electoral Review Report refers to what we call Broomhall as 'Broomfield' (change B, page 11). Historically, Broomfield was a small area around St Marks' church and Broomhall was a large area around Broom Hall. We do not know why this shift has occured

recently in Council and other official documents (e.g. Amey). It may be connected with 'Broomfield' being named on the Ordinance Survey map, but this is not a specifically defined area. If you or the Scrutiny Committee have any authority or influence in this matter we urge you to keep 'Broomhall' as the name of the neighbourhood - referred to locally as Broomhall and Broomhall Park. Indeed, we have a Heritage Lottery Fund project 'Our Broomhall', whose aim to the record the history and celebrate the diversity and vibrancy of Broomhall and its people. It would be most counter productive if when this project celebrates its achievements in 2015 Broomhall is disappearing from maps and council documents.

Yours sincerely, Mike Fitter (Broomhall resident and ex chair of Broomhall GoG)