LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE

Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

June 1997

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the Isle of Wight.

Members of the Commission are:

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman)

Helena Shovelton (Deputy Chairman)

Peter Brokenshire

Professor Michael Clarke

Robin Gray

Bob Scruton

David Thomas

Adrian Stungo (Chief Executive)

©Crown Copyright 1997 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS

page

LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v

SUMMARY vii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3

3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 9

4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 11

5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 15

6 NEXT STEPS 31

APPENDICES

A Final Recommendations for the Isle of Wight: Detailed Mapping 33

B Draft Recommendations for the Isle of Wight (October 1996) 43

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England

24 June 1997

Dear Secretary of State

On 19 March 1996 the Commission commenced a periodic electoral review of the Isle of Wight under the Local Government Act 1992. It published its draft recommendations in October 1996 and undertook a nine- week period of consultation.

The Commission has now formulated its final recommendations in the light of the consultation. It has modified its initial warding proposals in the light of further evidence. This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in the area.

The Commission is recommending to you that the Isle of Wight should continue to be served by 48 councillors but that some changes should be made to the boundaries of electoral divisions in order to improve electoral equality, having regard to the Commission’s statutory criteria.

I would like to thank members and officers of the Isle of Wight Council and other local people who have contributed to the review. Their co-operation and assistance have been very much appreciated by Commissioners and staff.

Yours sincerely

PROFESSOR MALCOLM GRANT Chairman

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY

The Commission began a review of the Isle of These recommendations seek to ensure that the Wight on 19 March 1996. It published its draft number of electors represented by each councillor recommendations on electoral arrangements on 31 is as nearly as possible the same, having regard to October 1996, after which it undertook a nine- local circumstances. week period of consultation. ● In 30 of the 48 divisions the number of ● This report summarises the submissions electors would vary by no more than 10 per received by the Commission during cent from the Island average. consultation on its draft recommendations, and offers its final recommendations to the ● This level of electoral equality is expected to Secretary of State. continue to 2001.

The Commission found that the existing electoral Recommendations are also made for changes to arrangements provide unequal representation of town and parish council electoral arrangements. electors in the Isle of Wight because: ● The parishes of , Lake and ● in 30 of the 48 single-member electoral should be warded to reflect divisions, the number of electors represented proposed electoral divisions of the Isle of by each councillor varies by more than 10 Wight Council, as required under the 1972 per cent from the average for the Island; Local Government Act.

● in 16 of the divisions, the number of electors ● The parishes of , and varies by more than 20 per cent from the should be re-warded. average for the Island; and in one of these, St Helens, it varies by more than 50 per ● The Thorley parish ward of Yarmouth Parish cent; Council should be served by an additional (second) councillor. ● electoral equality is not expected to improve by 2001, in the light of the relatively low ● The two parish wards of parish projected growth in electorate. should be abolished.

The Commission’s final recommendations for the Island’s electoral arrangements (Figure 1) are that: All further correspondence on these recommendations and the matters ● the Isle of Wight Council should comprise discussed in this report should be 48 councillors, each representing a single- addressed to the Secretary of State for the member division, as at present; Environment, Transport and the Regions, who will not make an Order implementing ● the boundaries of 36 of the existing divisions the Commission’s recommendations should be modified, while 12 divisions before 6 August 1997. should retain their existing boundaries;

● the whole Council should be elected every four years, subject to the provisions of the 1994 Order which provide for the next two elections to take place in May 1998 and May 2001.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii Figure 1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Division name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

1 1 Ashey division; South West Map 2 and A7 division (part)

2 Bembridge North 1 Bembridge 1 division (part) Map 2 and A6

3 Bembridge South 1 Bembridge 1 division (part); Map 2 and A6 Bembridge 2 division

4 1 Unchanged (the division of Binstead) Map 2

5 and St Helens 1 Brading division (the parish of Brading); Map 2 St Helens division (the parish of St Helens)

6 and 1 Brighstone and Shorwell division Map 2 (part - the parish of Brighstone); Calbourne, and Yarmouth division (part - the parish of Calbourne)

7 East 1 Carisbrooke East division (part); Large map Mount Joy division (part); Carisbrooke West division (part)

8 Carisbrooke West 1 Carisbrooke West division (part) Large map

9 Central Rural 1 Brighstone and Shorwell division Map 2 (part - the parish of Shorwell); , and division (part - the parishes of Gatcombe and Rookley); and Newchurch division (part - the parish of Arreton)

10 , 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Chale, and Map 2 and Whitwell Niton and Whitwell)

11 Cowes Castle East 1 Cowes Castle 1 division; Cowes Central Map 2 and A8 division (part); Cowes Castle 2 division (part)

12 Cowes Castle West 1 Cowes Castle 2 division (part); Cowes Map 2 and A8 Central division (part); Cowes Medina division (part)

13 Cowes Central 1 Cowes Central division (part); Map 2 and A8 Cowes Medina division (part)

14 Cowes Medina 1 Cowes Medina division (part) Map 2 and A8

15 North 1 East Cowes 1 division (part) Map 2 and A9

viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Summary

Division name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

16 East Cowes South 1 East Cowes 1 division (part); East Cowes Map 2 and A9 2 division; Osborne division (part)

17 Fairlee 1 Unchanged (the division of Fairlee) Map 2

18 Freshwater Afton 1 Unchanged (the Freshwater Afton parish Map 2 ward of Freshwater parish)

19 Freshwater Norton 1 Unchanged (the Freshwater Norton Map 2 parish ward of Freshwater parish)

20 Gurnard 1 Unchanged (the parish of Gurnard) Map 2

21 Lake North 1 Lake 1 division (part) Map 2 and A4

22 Lake South 1 Lake 2 division; Lake 1 division (part) Map 2 and A4

23 Mount Joy 1 Mount Joy division (part); Newport Large map Central division (part)

24 Newchurch 1 Arreton and Newchurch division (part - Map 2 the parish of Newchurch)

25 Newport North 1 Parkhurst division (part); Newport Large map Central division (part); Carisbrooke East division (part)

26 Newport South 1 Mount Joy division (part); Newport Large map Central division (part)

27 Northwood 1 Unchanged (the division of Northwood) Map 2

28 Osborne 1 Osborne division (part) Map 2 and A9

29 Pan 1 Unchanged (the division of Pan) Map 2

30 Parkhurst 1 Parkhurst division (part) Large map

31 Ryde North East 1 Ryde North East division (part) Map 2 and A7

32 Ryde North West 1 Unchanged (the electoral division of Map 2 and A7 Ryde North West)

33 Ryde South East 1 Ryde South East division; Ryde North Map 2 and A7 East division (part)

34 Ryde South West 1 Ryde South West division (part) Map 2 and A7

35 St Johns East 1 St Johns 2 division (part) Map 2 and A7

Continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Summary

Division name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

36 St Johns West 1 St Johns 1 division; St Johns 2 Map 2 and A7 division (part)

37 Sandown North 1 Sandown 1 division (part) Map 2 and A5

38 Sandown South 1 Sandown 1 division (part); Sandown 2 Map 2 and A5 division

39 Seaview and 1 Unchanged (the parish of Map 2 )

40 Shalfleet and 1 Calbourne, Shalfleet and Yarmouth division Map 2 Yarmouth (part - the parishes of Shalfleet and Yarmouth)

41 Shanklin Central 1 Shanklin North division (part); Shanklin Map 2 and A3 Central division (part); Shanklin South division (part)

42 Shanklin North 1 Shanklin North division (part); Shanklin Map 2 and A3 Central division (part)

43 Shanklin South 1 Shanklin South division (part) Map 2 and A3

44 1 Unchanged (the parish of Totland) Map 2

45 Ventnor East 1 Ventnor 1 division; Ventnor 2 division (part) Map 2 and A2

46 Ventnor West 1 Ventnor 2 division (part) Map 2 and A2

47 Wootton 1 Unchanged (the parish of Wootton Bridge) Map 2

48 Wroxall and Godshill 1 Wroxall division (the parish of Wroxall); Map 2 Gatcombe, Godshill and Rookley division (part - the parish of Godshill)

x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1. INTRODUCTION

1 This report contains the Commission’s final ● the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral recommendations on the electoral arrangements Arrangements contained in Schedule 11 to the for the Isle of Wight. Local Government Act 1972.

2 The Commission has now reviewed the Island 5 The Commission has also had regard to its own as part of its programme of periodic electoral Guidance and Procedural Advice for Local Authorities reviews of all principal local authority areas in and Other Interested Parties (published in March England. The present unitary authority for the 1996 and supplemented in September 1996). This Island was established in 1995 and the electoral sets out its approach to the reviews. arrangements have been in place since the elections in May that year. This is the Commission’s first 6 The review of the Isle of Wight was in four periodic electoral review of the Island. The last stages (Figure 2). such review was completed by the Commission’s predecessor, the Local Government Boundary 7 Stage One commenced on 19 March 1996. The Commission (LGBC) in 1980 (Report No. 388). Commission wrote to the Isle of Wight Council The Commission’s review of local government inviting it to make proposals for its future electoral structure which preceded the establishment of the arrangements. Copies of that letter were sent to the present Isle of Wight Council did not remove the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police Authority, the statutory obligation on the Commission to local authority associations, the Isle of Wight undertake a periodic electoral review of the Island Association of Parish and Town Councils, parish every 10 to 15 years. and town councils in the area, the Member of Parliament, the Member of the European 3 As part of this review the Commission can Parliament, and the headquarters of the main make recommendations for the future electoral political parties. The Commission also placed a arrangements for the Island. It cannot, however, notice in the local press, issued a press release and make recommendations on the external boundaries, invited the Isle of Wight Council itself to publicise either of parishes or of the unitary authority itself the review further. (including the seaward boundary) as part of this review. 8 At Stage Two the Commission considered all the representations received during Stage One and 4 In undertaking these reviews, the Commission formulated its draft recommendations. is required to have regard to: 9 Stage Three began on 31 October 1996 with ● the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) the publication of the Commission’s report, Draft of the Local Government Act 1992: Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements (a) to reflect the identities and interests of local for The Isle of Wight. Copies were sent to all those communities; and to whom the Commission wrote at the start of the review as well as to those who had written to the (b) to secure effective and convenient local government; Commission during Stage One, inviting comments

Figure 2: Stages of the Review

Stage Description One Submission of proposals to the Commission Two The Commission’s analysis and deliberation Three Publication of draft recommendations and consultation Four Final deliberation and report to the Secretary of State

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1 on the Commission’s preliminary conclusions. Again the Commission placed a notice in the local press, issued a press release and invited the Isle of Wight Council to publicise the report more widely.

10 Finally, during Stage Four, the Commission reconsidered its draft recommendations in the light of the Stage Three consultation. The Commission also held a public meeting on the Island in order to seek further information from interested parties. An independent assessor, Mr Stewart Titchener, was appointed to chair the meeting, which was held at St George’s Park on 17 March 1997. A note of the proceedings is available from the Commission on request. Mr Titchener reported his findings to the Commission, which took account of them in its deliberations.

2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 2. CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

11 The Isle of Wight measures 37 kilometres from 15 There are also 26 parish and town councils, 10 east to west and 21 kilometres from north to south, of which are warded. The majority of the southern with an area of over 38,000 hectares. It has many and western part of the Island is parished, although separate and distinct communities, although the a significant proportion of the population is majority of the population resides in settlements on unrepresented at parish and town council level, the northern and eastern coasts. The largest towns most notably in East Cowes, Newport and Ryde. are Cowes, East Cowes, Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin, Ventnor and the administrative centre of Newport. Its population is some 125,000.

12 As the Isle of Wight is legally a county area, it is a statutory requirement that the council must comprise single-member electoral divisions. The current electoral arrangements provide for a total of 48 councillors, each representing a division (Map 1 and Figure 3). The 1994 Order1, which established the new unitary Isle of Wight Council, stated that the councillors elected on 4 May 1995 should serve a three-year term, with the next elections taking place in May 1998. A further election for the whole council would take place in May 2001 in order to bring the electoral cycle into line with shire county elections in the rest of England. After this date, elections would take place every four years.

13 In order to compare levels of electoral inequality between divisions, the Commission calculated the extent to which the number of electors in each division (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the average for the Island in percentage terms. In the text which follows this calculation may also be described using the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’.

14 The electorate of the Island in February 1996 was 101,852. This is projected to increase to 104,847 by 2001. Each councillor in February 1996 therefore represented an average of 2,122 electors, which would increase to 2,184 by 2001. There are currently 30 divisions in which the number of electors varies from the average for the Island by over 10 per cent and 16 which vary by more than 20 per cent. This disparity is illustrated by the fact that the member for the Wootton division represents nearly three times as many electors (2,911) as the member for St Helens (1,027).

1The Isle of Wight (Structural Change) Order 1994, SI 1994, No. 1210.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3 Map 1: Existing Electoral Divisions on the Isle of Wight

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 3: Existing Electoral Arrangements

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Arreton and 1 2,845 2,845 34 2,927 2,927 34 Newchurch

2 Ashey 1 2,109 2,109 -1 2,109 2,109 -3

3 Bembridge 1 1 1,770 1,770 -17 1,882 1,882 -14

4 Bembridge 2 1 1,448 1,448 -32 1,478 1,478 -32

5 Binstead 1 2,510 2,510 18 2,638 2,638 21

6 Brading 1 1,574 1,574 -26 1,574 1,574 -28

7 Brighstone and 1 2,053 2,053 -3 2,105 2,105 -4 Shorwell

8 Calbourne, Shalfleet 1 2,683 2,683 26 2,781 2,781 27 and Yarmouth

9 Carisbrooke East 1 1,755 1,755 -17 1,927 1,927 -12

10 Carisbrooke West 1 2,500 2,500 18 2,526 2,526 16

11 Chale, Niton 1 2,353 2,353 11 2,353 2,353 8 and Whitwell

12 Cowes Castle 1 1 1,459 1,459 -31 1,489 1,489 -32

13 Cowes Castle 2 1 1,748 1,748 -18 1,780 1,780 -19

14 Cowes Central 1 1,902 1,902 -10 2,017 2,017 -8

15 Cowes Medina 1 2,447 2,447 15 2,633 2,633 21

16 East Cowes 1 1 1,703 1,703 -20 1,823 1,823 -17

17 East Cowes 2 1 1,294 1,294 -39 1,294 1,294 -41

18 Fairlee 1 2,212 2,212 4 2,220 2,220 2

19 Freshwater Afton 1 2,225 2,225 5 2,303 2,303 5

20 Freshwater Norton 1 2,230 2,230 5 2,250 2,250 3

21 Gatcombe, Godshill 1 2,060 2,060 -3 2,190 2,190 0 and Rookley

Continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5 Figure 3 (continued): Existing Electoral Arrangements

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

22 Gurnard 1 1,470 1,470 -31 1,470 1,470 -33

23 Lake 1 1 2,086 2,086 -2 2,086 2,086 -5

24 Lake 2 1 1,752 1,752 -17 1,752 1,752 -20

25 Mount Joy 1 2,467 2,467 16 2,467 2,467 13

26 Newport Central 1 2,734 2,734 29 2,734 2,734 25

27 Northwood 1 1,659 1,659 -22 1,703 1,703 -22

28 Osborne 1 2,334 2,334 10 2,656 2,656 22

29 Pan 1 2,151 2,151 1 2,151 2,151 -2

30 Parkhurst 1 2,624 2,624 24 2,624 2,624 20

31 Ryde North East 1 2,704 2,704 27 2,789 2,789 28

32 Ryde North West 1 2,301 2,301 8 2,329 2,329 7

33 Ryde South East 1 1,903 1,903 -10 1,923 1,923 -12

34 Ryde South West 1 2,342 2,342 10 2,506 2,506 15

35 St Helens 1 1,027 1,027 -52 1,049 1,049 -52

36 St Johns 1 1 1,906 1,906 -10 2,023 2,023 -7

37 St Johns 2 1 2,195 2,195 3 2,211 2,211 1

38 Sandown 1 1 2,378 2,378 12 2,424 2,424 11

39 Sandown 2 1 1,968 1,968 -7 2,216 2,216 1

40 Seaview and 1 2,787 2,787 31 2,787 2,787 28 Nettlestone

41 Shanklin Central 1 2,556 2,556 20 2,556 2,556 17

42 Shanklin North 1 1,756 1,756 -17 1,756 1,756 -20

43 Shanklin South 1 2,348 2,348 11 2,416 2,416 11

44 Totland 1 2,265 2,265 7 2,541 2,541 16

6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 3 (continued): Existing Electoral Arrangements

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

45 Ventnor 1 1 2,342 2,342 10 2,374 2,374 9

46 Ventnor 2 1 2,602 2,602 23 2,602 2,602 19

47 Wootton 1 2,911 2,911 37 2,943 2,943 35

48 Wroxall 1 1,404 1,404 -34 1,460 1,460 -33

Totals 48 101,852 --104,847 --

Averages -- 2,122 -- 2,184 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by the Isle of Wight Council during Stage Four and differ from those set out in the Commission’s report ‘Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for The Isle of Wight’.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the Island. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in 1996 electors in St Helens division were relatively over-represented by 52 per cent, while electors in Wootton division were relatively under-represented by 37 per cent. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 7 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

16 During Stage One, the Commission received were so significant (30 out of 48 varying by more submissions from the Isle of Wight Council, the than 10 per cent from the average) that it would be Constituency Labour Party, two local councillors, doing a disservice to the residents of the Island - five parish councils, and from five other local and to the Council itself - if matters were left more groups or residents. or less as they were. The Commission was unlikely to be able to reconsider electoral arrangements on the Island for another 10 to 15 years and the issue The Commission’s Approach needed to be confronted if the new Council were to be brought into line with other authorities, 17 In formulating draft recommendations, the including those other new unitary authorities Commission had to take into account a number of which the Commission was at that time reviewing. considerations which were particular to the Isle of Wight. 22 In the absence of local proposals for significant change, the Commission therefore formulated its 18 First, the current electoral arrangements were own electoral scheme for consultation. This sought reviewed as recently as 1993 and implemented in to achieve the Commission’s stated objective in 1995. The Council and some other respondents undertaking electoral reviews, to ensure that the expressed the view that further changes were number of electors represented by each councillor unnecessary and that there needed to be a period of is as nearly as possible the same, taking into stability. account local circumstances.

19 Second, the most significant electoral imbalances presently exist in divisions which are The Commission’s Draft coterminous with parishes. Hence, although the Recommendations interests and identities of these local communities are well reflected in the current arrangements, they 23 The Commission’s preliminary conclusions nevertheless result in the significant over- were set out in the report, Draft Recommendations representation of certain parishes, such as St on the Future Electoral Arrangements for The Isle of Helens and Wroxall, and the equally significant Wight. It proposed that the Island be represented under-representation of others, such as Wootton, by 47 councillors, one fewer than at present. and Seaview and Nettlestone. It was argued by many respondents that the separate communities 24 The Commission also proposed changes to the on the Island justified separate representation, majority of electoral divisions. In some cases this notwithstanding the electoral imbalances which would have involved reconfiguring parishes would result. between divisions or warding the parishes - Bembridge, Lake, Sandown and Wootton Bridge - 20 Third, the Commission is constrained by the so that parish wards could be allocated to more requirement that the Council, as a county council, than one electoral division. The parishes of Cowes, must be served by single-member divisions. In Nettlestone and Seaview, Shanklin and Ventnor seeking to correct electoral imbalances, therefore, would be re-warded. the Commission was not able to move to multi- member wards, or merge divisions, as it is able to 25 The draft recommendations would have do in reviews of most other authorities. provided for a very significant improvement in electoral arrangements. The number of divisions in 21 Thus the Commission was faced with which the number of electors varied by more than opposition to the review and constraints to 10 per cent from the Island average would have achieving electoral arrangements which would declined from 30 to four, and none would have both reflect local communities and secure electoral varied by over 20 per cent. It was expected that a equality. However, the Commission took the view similar level of electoral equality would exist in the that the electoral imbalances between the divisions year 2001.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 9 26 The Commission’s draft recommendations are summarised in Appendix B.

Draft Recommendations The Isle of Wight Council should comprise 47 councillors serving 47 single-member divisions. The whole council should be elected together every four years, subject to the provisions of the 1994 Order which provided for the next two elections to take place in May 1998 and May 2001.

10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 4. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

27 During the consultation on the Commission’s Wootton, and the proposed boundary between draft recommendations report, 47 submissions Shanklin Central and Shanklin North. were received. A list of all respondents is available on request from the Commission. Isle of Wight Conservative Association Isle of Wight Council 32 The Isle of Wight Conservative Association 28 The Council reiterated its support for no considered that the Commission had placed change to the existing electoral arrangements, on insufficient emphasis on the need to reflect local the grounds that the existing boundaries reflected communities and argued that the review was taking community identities. It argued that in order to place too soon after the establishment of the achieve electoral equality the proposals would unitary authority. It drew the Commission’s divide and separate local communities and parish attention to the Local Government and Rating Bill, and town areas, thereby “contravening the which would enable the Council to review and Commission’s own guidance and damaging the modify its own parish boundaries, arguing that it close working arrangements that have been “would seem unwise to amend the present electoral developed between unitary county councillors and boundaries in advance of this process”. It parish councillors on the Island”. contended that the creation of different boundaries for parishes and the Isle of Wight Council would 29 The Council asked the Commission to consider cause confusion to the electorate. the postponement of the review, given the introduction of the Local Government and Rating Bill which would enable the Council to undertake Member of Parliament a parish review, and requested that a public meeting be held “to provide further evidence ... of the 33 Barry Field, Member of Parliament for the Isle overwhelming support throughout the Island for of Wight during the consultation period, opposed the retention of the status quo”. the draft recommendations on the grounds that some divisions crossed parish boundaries. He expressed support for retaining the current Isle of Wight Association of arrangements. Parish and Town Councils

30 The Isle of Wight Association of Parish and Island Councillors Town Councils supported the retention of the current arrangements and opposed the Commission’s 34 Councillor Fuller proposed modifications to the draft recommendations in which electoral divisions boundaries between Ryde North East, Ryde South would cross parish boundaries. East and St Johns 1. He contended that such boundaries would better reflect projected electorate growth in Ryde and would provide clear Isle of Wight Constituency boundaries, reducing confusion amongst the Labour Party electorate.

31 The Isle of Wight Constituency Labour Party 35 Councillor Humby opposed the Commission’s preferred a council size of 60, as it considered this draft recommendation that be would “allow for fuller representation and give transferred to the Brading electoral division. She councillors enough time to do a proper job”. contended that Yaverland was an integral part of However, if this were not acceptable, it expressed Sandown, as shown by the membership and general support for the Commission’s draft involvement of Yaverland residents in Sandown recommendations although with reservations groups and organisations. about the proposals for Arreton with Mount Joy,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 11 Parish and Town Councils recommendation for a councillor to represent St Helens and part of Bembridge. Bembridge Parish 36 The Commission received submissions from ten Council concurred with this view and contended parish councils and five town councils. Gatcombe that “no useful purpose would be achieved by and Rookley parish councils opposed the combining the two communities”. Commission’s proposal for a reduction in the number of councillors. They also opposed 41 Cowes Town Council contended that it is too proposals to join Arreton with the Mount Joy soon after the structural review to undertake an division of Newport which they contended would electoral review and that differing parish and “conflict with the need to reflect the identities and electoral division boundaries would confuse the interests of local communities”. electorate. It therefore supported retaining the current arrangements. These points were echoed by 37 Shalfleet Parish Council stated that it “would be Gurnard Parish Council, which “did not consider preferable to have a 41-member unitary council, that it is important to even out the numbers of rather than see existing parish and town council electors in electoral divisions”. areas divided”. Calbourne Parish Council opposed the transfer of to Northwood division, 42 Sandown Town Council opposed the transfer of on the grounds that Porchfield was a “rural village Yaverland to Brading division as this proposal was with strong farming connections and country “totally against the wishes of the residents of preservation interests, whereas Northwood is an Yaverland”. It noted that Yaverland was an integral urban area with some industrial areas”. The Parish part of Sandown, given the proximity to Sandown, Council accepted that the current arrangements did poor road links and the lack of public transport to not meet the Commission’s statutory criteria but Brading, and the use of Sandown facilities by requested that alternative proposals for the area Yaverland residents. should be considered. 43 Following further consultation locally on the 38 Wroxall Parish Council and Ventnor Town Commission’s draft recommendations, Yarmouth Council both opposed the proposal that the Town Council proposed an increase in the number Lowtherville area of Ventnor be transferred to of town councillors representing the Thorley ward Wroxall division. Wroxall Parish Council stated that from one to two. the area had no allegiance to Lowtherville and that alternative proposals to include the Whitely Bank and Sandford area with Wroxall “would retain the Other Representations rural aspects of the village”. Ventnor Town Council argued that Lowtherville is part of the community 44 The Commission also received submissions of Ventnor and that joining it with Wroxall, from from a five further five organisations. The which it is physically separated by green belt, Yaverland Residents’ Association opposed the area would involve crossing parish boundaries and being including in Brading division and enclosed a would not be in the interests of the rural petition signed by 205 residents and 12 letters also community. opposing the draft recommendation.

39 Wootton Bridge Parish Council, Brading Town 45 The Residents’ Association opposed Council and Nettlestone and Seaview Parish the draft recommendations and supported the Council supported the retention of the current retention of Pondwell in the current Seaview and arrangements. In addition, Nettlestone and Nettlestone division. However, the Gregory Seaview Parish Council opposed the transfer of Avenue Residents’ Association and another local Pondwell into Ryde arguing in favour of coterminous Pondwell group, Council Watch, expressed support parish and electoral division boundaries. for proposals for Pondwell becoming unparished as part of a Ryde division. The Calbourne and 40 St Helens Parish Council acknowledged the Shalfleet branch of the Isle of Wight Liberal significant electoral imbalance in the area but Democrats’ Association requested that Porchfield supported retaining the current arrangements, be retained within the Calbourne and Shalfleet noting that a period of stability was needed electoral division arguing that Porchfield has following the structural review. It further argued always been an integral part of the rural that St Helens is a distinct community which community. would be disadvantaged by the Commission’s draft

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 46 A further 20 submissions were received from individuals from a number of areas across the Island. Seven of these supported the retention of the current arrangements in Seaview and Nettlestone, while two supported transferring Pondwell to Ryde. Two respondents opposed the transfer of Yaverland to Brading division. One respondent commented on the proposal for St Helens and Bembridge, arguing that “consideration must be given to the two communities especially as they differ so much”. A number of respondents considered that it was too soon after the structural review, and contended that electoral boundaries should not cross parish boundaries, while one respondent proposed a reduction in council size to 24 members. A submission was also received from a resident of Thorley concerning the parish warding of Yarmouth parish.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 13 14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5. ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

47 As indicated previously, the Commission’s electoral arrangements should therefore be based prime objective in considering the most on variations in each ward of no more than plus or appropriate electoral arrangements for the Isle of minus 10 per cent from the average Wight was to achieve electoral equality, having councillor:elector ratio for the authority, having regard to the statutory criteria and to Schedule 11 regard to five-year forecasts of changes in to the Local Government Act 1972, which refers to electorates. Imbalances in excess of plus or minus the ratio of electors to councillors being “as nearly 20 per cent may be acceptable, but only in highly as may be, the same in every ward of the district or exceptional circumstances...and will have to be borough”. justified in full”. However, as the Commission emphasised in its September 1996 supplement to 48 However, the Commission’s function is not the Guidance: “While the Commission accepts that merely arithmetical, for three reasons. First, its absolute equality of representation is likely to be recommendations are not intended to be based unattainable, it considers that, if electoral solely on existing electorate figures, but also on imbalances are to be kept to the minimum, such assumptions as to changes in the number and equality should be the starting point in any distribution of local government electors likely to electoral review”. take place within the ensuing five years. Second, it must have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiable boundaries, and to maintaining local Electorate Projections ties which might otherwise be broken. Third, the Commission must consider the need for effective 52 During Stage Three, the Council submitted and convenient local government, and reflect the updated electorate forecasts for the year 2001, interests and identities of local communities. projecting an increase in the electorate of just under 3 per cent over the five-year period from 1996, 49 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral from 101,852 to 104,847. This amounted to some scheme which provides for exactly the same 2,000 more electors than was forecast at the start of number of electors per councillor in every ward of the review. The Commission accepts that this is an an authority. There must be a degree of flexibility. inexact science and, having given consideration to In conducting its electoral reviews, the Commission’s the Council’s revised projected electorates, is predecessor, the LGBC, considered that variations content that they represent the best estimates that from the average number of electors per councillor can reasonably be made at this time. for an authority as a whole should be kept to the absolute minimum: a variation of up to plus or minus 10 per cent in a particular ward may be Council Size regarded as being “acceptable”, although variations in excess of plus or minus 20 per cent were 53 The Commission indicated in its March 1996 generally accepted only in very exceptional Guidance that it would normally expect the number circumstances. of councillors serving a unitary authority to be in the range of 40 to 80. The Isle of Wight Council is 50 The Commission’s view is that the LGBC’s at present served by 48 councillors. approach to this issue had merit insofar as it combined a clearly defined tolerance threshold 54 In Stage One, the Commission received with the degree of flexibility necessary to achieve conflicting evidence as to the appropriate size for reasonable levels of electoral equality across a local the Isle of Wight Council. The Council itself authority’s area. Accordingly, the Commission has expressed a preference for the retention of 48 decided to adopt this approach for the purposes of members. The Constituency Labour Party argued its reviews. for a council size of 60 based upon the district wards of the former Medina and South Wight 51 In its March 1996 Guidance, the Commission district councils. Councillor Harris preferred a expressed the view that “proposals for changes in council of 41 members, while the Gregory Avenue

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 15 Residents’ Association proposed that the 43 former of parishing issues (both the establishment of new County Council divisions should be reinstated. parishes and the revision of existing parish boundaries) need to be resolved so that they can be 55 In its draft recommendations the Commission taken into account in the formulation of the proposed a council of 47 members. At Stage Three Council’s electoral arrangements. the Council remained of the view that there should be no change in the size of the council. In the light 60 Second, respondents generally opposed the of the further evidence submitted, the Commission Commission’s proposals for warding parishes in proposes significant modifications to its draft order that they can be divided more equitably recommendations. It has further considered the between electoral divisions. Parishes play an size and distribution of the electorate, the important part in the life of the Island and there geography and other characteristics of the area, was strong resistance to splitting them into two or together with the representations received and has more parts. Respondents generally considered that concluded that the statutory criteria and the the draft recommendations ran counter to local achievement of electoral equality would best be community identities as are currently reflected by served by retaining a council of 48 members. parish and town councils on the Island. Further, they considered that it would be confusing to electors if the pattern of divisions and the pattern The Commission’s Approach of parishes were not coterminous.

56 The Commission’s draft recommendations 61 Although the Commission fully acknowledged would have resulted in a very significant that little time had elapsed since the present improvement in electoral equality, reducing the arrangements were put in place, it is required by number of divisions in which the number of law to undertake such a periodic electoral review electors varies by more than 10 per cent from the and it was anxious that the Island should be average from 30 to only four, with none varying by reviewed alongside other authorities, including more than 20 per cent. some that have also recently achieved unitary status. It remains unwilling to recommend no 57 The Commission welcomed the willingness of change: such are the electoral imbalances on the local interests to participate in an open debate Island that they do not provide for equality of about its draft recommendations. As indicated representation in the Council’s elections. The earlier, the Commission held a public meeting in Commission has a statutory duty to correct this, Stage Four in which representatives of parish and taking account of local circumstances. town councils and others contributed to the discussion. The meeting was chaired by an 62 However, in the light of the representations it independent assessor who subsequently visited received at Stage Three, the Commission proposes some of the areas discussed at the meeting in significant modifications to its draft recommendations, company with those local interest groups which so which it hopes will go some way towards meeting requested. The Commission much valued the respondents’ concerns. In formulating its final contribution of those who attended the meeting. recommendations, the Commission has been informed by five particular considerations. 58 In addition, officers of the Commission held separate meetings during Stage Four in order to 63 First, although the Commission has adhered to develop a clear understanding of the nature of the the procedures and policies set out in its Guidance, communities on the Island. The Commission is it has accepted that there are a number of most grateful to all whom it met and to officers at exceptional circumstances that apply on the Island. the Island Council, who at all times assisted the The constraint of single-member divisions applies Commission’s officers with great efficiency and in no other authority, apart from the county courtesy. councils and one other new shire unitary council. The historical place of parish and town councils in 59 The Commission has paid close regard to the their close working relationship with the Island views expressed on its draft recommendations. Council, the particular configuration of Respondents who opposed the draft recommendations communities on the Island, the evidence put to the made two main points. First, it was argued that the Commission about effective and convenient local timing of the review was inappropriate - that the government, and the short period since the present present arrangements need time to settle down electoral arrangements were put in place, have also since their introduction in 1995 and that a number been taken into account.

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 64 Second, there is considerable, though not (d) Lake (two divisions); unanimous, support for the retention of the present (e) Sandown (two divisions); council size of 48 members. In the light of this, the Commission has reconsidered its proposal for a (f) Bembridge (two divisions), Brading and St Helens; reduction in council size and now recommends that (g) Seaview and Nettlestone; the number of councillors remains unchanged. (h) Ryde (four divisions), St Johns (two divisions) 65 Third, many respondents argued against change and Ashey; to division boundaries. As indicated earlier, the (i) Newport (seven divisions); Commission concluded that some change was unavoidable, but it has sought to retain the overall (j) Cowes (four divisions), Gurnard and Northwood; integrity of the present arrangements wherever (k) East Cowes (two divisions), Osborne, Wootton possible. and Binstead;

(l) Totland, Freshwater Afton, Freshwater Norton 66 Fourth, although many respondents would prefer no change, there was some and Chale, Niton and Whitwell. acknowledgement locally that an alternative configuration of whole parishes into a revised pattern of electoral divisions would not necessarily cut The Central and Southern parishes across perceptions of local identity. The strong (five divisions) concern which emerged at the public meeting was with the proposed warding or splitting of parishes in 70 Three of these five divisions suffer very order to facilitate the allocation of parish wards to substantial electoral imbalances; Arreton and different electoral divisions. Many respondents Newchurch, and Calbourne, Shalfleet and considered this to run counter to local identities Yarmouth having 34 per cent and 26 per cent and be potentially confusing to electors. In its final above the average number of electors respectively; recommendations, the Commission has withdrawn and Wroxall having 34 per cent below the average. all proposals to ward parishes except where Of particular concern to respondents in Stage necessary to reflect the current (or modified) Three was the proposal to transfer the Porchfield arrangements, and has limited its reconfiguration area of Calbourne parish to Northwood division. to whole-parish areas. In the light of further evidence, the Commission proposes an alternative configuration of divisions which would combine whole parishes of similar 67 Finally, the Commission noted that there was general acknowledgement that improvements interests while still securing an improvement in could be made to electoral equality in the electoral equality (Figure 4). The proposed unparished areas of Newport, East Cowes and divisions would generally reflect rural communities Ryde, without an adverse impact on the statutory while the provision of separate divisions for the criteria. This the Commission has sought to do. parishes of Arreton and Newchurch would reflect the latter’s more developed nature.

68 The Commission’s final recommendations are for: 71 The Commission remains concerned about the level of electoral equality which would remain in ● the retention of the present council size of the the proposed Wroxall and Godshill division. present council size of 48 members; However, the overall improvement in the area ● modifications to boundaries of 13 divisions in would be considerable and the Commission has the unparished areas of Newport, East Cowes concluded that further improvement may not be and Ryde; possible without an adverse impact on the statutory criteria. ● a reconfiguration of parishes to form 23 divisions on modified boundaries; and ● no change to the boundaries of 12 existing Ventnor (two divisions) divisions. 72 The parish of Ventnor is currently covered by 69 The following areas are considered in turn: two electoral divisions, Ventnor 1 and Ventnor 2, in which the number of electors is 10 per cent and (a) the central and southern parishes (five divisions); 23 per cent above the Island average respectively. (b) Ventnor (two divisions); The Commission’s draft recommendation was for the transfer of the Lowtherville area, currently in (c) Shanklin (three divisions);

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 17 Figure 4: The divisions of Calbourne, Shalfleet and Yarmouth, Brighstone and Shorwell, Gatcombe, Godshill and Rookley, Arreton and Newchurch, and Wroxall Present divisions Proposed divisions Parishes Electoral Name Constituent Electoral variances (1996) parishes variances (1996)

Calbourne 26 Shalfleet and Shalfleet -5 Shalfleet Yarmouth Yarmouth Yarmouth

Brighstone -3 Brighstone and Brighstone 2 Shorwell Calbourne Calbourne

Gatcombe -3 Central Rural Gatcombe 1 Godshill Shorwell Rookley Rookley Arreton

Arreton 34 Newchurch Newchurch -1 Newchurch

Wroxall -34 Wroxall and Wroxall 23 Godshill Godshill

Ventnor 2 division, to Wroxall division. During represented, with 20 per cent and 11 per cent Stage Three the Commission received submissions above the average number of electors respectively, from Wroxall Parish Council and Ventnor Town while the number of electors in Shanklin North is Council opposing the re-warding, the latter 17 per cent below the Island average. arguing that Lowtherville was an integral part of Ventnor and had no community ties with Wroxall. 75 The draft recommendation for Shanklin involved a realignment of the boundaries between 73 The Commission, having considered the further these three divisions, but did not involve evidence of community identity on the Island, has transferring part of the parish area to another concluded that although Ventnor parish is divided electoral division. The number of electors in the between two electoral divisions, the integrity of the proposed divisions would have varied from the parish area should be retained, with Lowtherville Island average by 1 per cent in Shanklin Central, 2 continuing to form part of a Ventnor electoral per cent in Shanklin North and 4 per cent in division. It is, however, proposing a more equitable Shanklin South based on a 47-member council. split between the two Ventnor divisions (Map A2 The Commission did not receive any submissions in Appendix A). It is also proposing that Ventnor 1 which specifically referred to Shanklin. be renamed Ventnor East and Ventnor 2 be renamed Ventnor West. This re-warding would 76 While the Commission is content that the result in the number of electors being 17 per cent boundaries proposed in the draft recommendations above the Island average in the proposed Ventnor would not appear to have a deleterious effect on East division and 16 per cent above in the the communities within Shanklin, minor proposed Ventnor West division. modifications to the boundaries would be required were a 48-member council to be established. The Commission proposes realignments to the Shanklin (three divisions) boundaries of all three divisions as shown in Map A3. This would result in the number of electors in 74 The parish of Shanklin is currently divided into the divisions of Shanklin Central and Shanklin three electoral divisions: Shanklin Central, South varying from the average by 5 per cent and Shanklin North and Shanklin South. Shanklin 9 per cent respectively, while the number in Central and Shanklin South are both under- Shanklin North would equal the average.

18 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Lake (two divisions) Bembridge (two divisions), Brading and St Helens 77 The parish of Lake is currently divided between two divisions, Lake 1 and Lake 2, in which there is 81 There are currently four electoral divisions an electoral variance of 2 per cent and 17 per cent covering these three parishes, and all four are respectively. Both divisions are relatively over- relatively over-represented, Bembridge 1 by 17 per represented. The Commission’s draft recommendations cent, Bembridge 2 by 32 per cent, Brading by 26 for Lake would have realigned the boundary per cent and St Helens by 52 per cent. In other between the two divisions to transfer some electors words, with a total of 5,819 electors, the three from Lake 1 to Lake 2, and would have resulted in parishes are entitled to just 2.7 councillors rather the number of electors in the two divisions varying than four. As outlined above, the Commission’s from the average by 12 per cent and 11 per cent. draft recommendation was for Yaverland to be transferred from Sandown 1 division to Brading, 78 When taken as part of a 48-member council the and for the two Bembridge divisions to be number of electors in each division would vary by combined with St Helens into two electoral 10 per cent and 9 per cent. This proposal would divisions. This recommendation would have not, in the Commission’s opinion, have a significantly improved electoral equality, so that the detrimental effect on community identities in the number of electors in all three proposed divisions parish, as the integrity of the external parish would vary from the average by 10 per cent or less. boundary would not be affected. Given this fact, and the resulting improvements to electoral 82 Most representations received about this area equality, the Commission is recommending this opposed the Commission’s draft recommendation. proposal. The Commission also confirms its Brading Town Council and Bembridge and St proposal that the modified Lake 1 division be Helens parish councils all argued that they renamed Lake North, and the modified Lake 2 represented distinct communities. There was also a division be renamed Lake South. This proposal is strong feeling expressed at the public meeting that shown on Map A4. there was little community of interest between Bembridge and St Helens.

Sandown (two divisions) 83 The Commission, as indicated, has judged that it should not propose any further warding of 79 The two electoral divisions of Sandown 1 and parishes in order to construct new electoral Sandown 2 cover the parish of Sandown. The divisions and it no longer proposes the transfer of number of electors in these two divisions is Yaverland from Sandown to Brading. However, it currently 12 per cent above the Island average and is unable to justify the degree of electoral over- 7 per cent below the average respectively. The representation which presently exists. It therefore Commission’s draft recommendation for the area, proposes that a single division be established to which was for the transfer of Yaverland from represent the two parishes of Brading and St Sandown 1 to the existing Brading division, was Helens. The number of electors in the proposed opposed by the Town Council, Yaverland Brading and St Helens division would be 23 per Residents’ Association, Brading Parish Council and cent above the average - still high but unavoidable, a number of other respondents. and a considerable improvement on the present arrangements. 80 In light of the further evidence of community identity received through the submissions, and by 84 The Commission also proposes the transfer of further visits to the area by Commission officers some 210 electors from Bembridge 1 to and the independent assessor, the Commission Bembridge 2 (Map A6), which it recommends proposes to modify its recommendation. The should be renamed Bembridge North and Commission proposes a realignment between the Bembridge South respectively. Again, although the two Sandown electoral divisions so that 160 number of electors would vary from the average by electors from Sandown 1 division would be 27 per cent and 22 per cent respectively, the transferred to Sandown 2. It also proposes that Commission has concluded that these proposed Sandown 1 be renamed Sandown North and divisions provide the best balance between the Sandown 2 be renamed Sandown South. This statutory criteria. would result in the number of electors in Sandown North varying by 5 per cent and equalling the average in Sandown South. This proposal is shown on Map A5.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 19 Seaview and Nettlestone Seaview and Nettlestone, as noted above. In view of the proposal that the current armmiss5.0Tw [(of thesc)c T* 0 356.5ruckpool9 ose 9t ar.a91lfrom 5ance2632 Tw [(trouth oissgw1(siviseded.nt)Tommission has 10estone .10blefis5.)17.-1.2e 85 Seaview and Nettlestone electoral division is coterminous with the parish of Nettlestone and Seaview and, with an electorate of 2,787, is under- represented by 31 per cent. The Commission’s draft recommendation for this area was for the transfer of electors in the Pondwell and areas of the parish to St Johns 2 division (in Ryde). The number of electors in the revised Seaview and Nettlestone division would have been 18 per cent above the average.

86 The Commission received a number of conflicting submissions concerning this area, although the majority were opposed to the proposal, as were the majority of those who spoke on the issue at the public meeting. Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council argued that the Pondwell area did not look to Ryde. On balance the Commission has concluded that the present Seaview and Nettlestone division should remain unchanged. In other, non-county settings, a simple merger with one of the adjacent divisions to form a multi-member ward would have been a possibility. However, this option is not available to the Commission. Continuing electoral imbalance is unavoidable if the present parish is not to be divided.

Ryde (four divisions), St Johns (two divisions) and Ashey

87 The urban area of Ryde and St Johns is served by six councillors. While overall this is close to the correct level of representation (for a 48-member council), there are considerable imbalances within the town. In Ryde North East, Ryde North West, Ryde South West and St Johns 2 divisions the number of electors is above the Island average (by 27 per cent, 8 per cent, 10 per cent and 3 per cent respectively) while in both Ryde South East and St Johns 1 divisions the number of electors is 10 per cent below average. The adjacent Ashey division is largely rural although it includes a built-up area in north /south Ryde which abuts Ryde South West division; it has a good level of electoral equality, the number of electors varying by only 1 per cent from the Island average. The whole area is unparished.

88 The Commission’s draft recommendation for these divisions would have involved some minor modifications to the boundary between Ryde North East and Ryde South East and between St Johns 1 and St Johns 2 divisions, together with the transfer of the Puckpool and Pondwell areas of

20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 92 The Commission’s draft recommendation for Gurnard are parishes while Northwood is these divisions was for the retention of Fairlee and unparished. Pan divisions, the creation of a new Newport South division and a number of boundary modifications 96 The Commission’s draft recommendations were between the other divisions. The Commission for the re-warding of Cowes, with the disbandment received a number of representations opposing its of Cowes Castle 1 division, and would have draft recommendations as they would affect involved joining part of the existing Cowes Castle Arreton, the adjacent parish, arguing that joining 2 division with Gurnard division. This was the parish with part of Mount Joy division did not opposed by Gurnard Parish Council on the reflect the differing nature of the areas. grounds that its area was distinct from Cowes. Cowes Town Council did not comment on the 93 In view of the good level of electoral equality in specific proposals but opposed the review generally. Fairlee and Pan, the Commission proposes to confirm its draft recommendation for no change to 97 The Commission has judged that it should not these two divisions. In order to improve electoral propose the combination of parts of parishes in this equality in the remaining area the Commission review. As a consequence, some electoral inequality proposes the following modifications to division in Cowes is unavoidable: with an electorate of boundaries in Newport: 7,556, it is entitled to mid-way between three and four councillors. Nevertheless, by modifying (a) the transfer of an area of Parkhurst roughly division boundaries in the town, some south of, and including, Hunny Hill to a new improvement to the present arrangements can be Newport North division, based on the existing achieved. The Commission therefore proposes the Newport Central division; following modifications to division boundaries and (b) the transfer of the CJ1 polling district from names in Cowes: Carisbrooke East to Newport North; (a) transferring the area west of Egypt Hill and (c) the creation of a new Newport South division, north of Baring Road from Cowes Castle 2 to covering parts of the existing divisions of Cowes Castle 1; Newport Central and Mount Joy; (b) transferring the area of Cowes Medina west of (d) the transfer of part of the existing Mount Joy Love Lane to Cowes Castle 2; division to Carisbrook East; (c) transferring the area of Cowes Medina north of (e) boundary modifications between the divisions St Faiths Road and west of Newport Road to of Carisbrooke East and Carisbrooke West. Cowes Central; (d) transferring the area of Cowes Central east of 94 These boundary modifications would result in Gordon Road and north of Beckford Road to the number of electors varying by 11 per cent or Cowes Castle 2; less from the average in all six divisions: (e) Cowes Castle 1 should be renamed Cowes Carisbrooke East (11 per cent), Carisbrooke West Castle East; (1 per cent), Mount Joy (6 per cent), Newport North (8 per cent), Newport South (4 per cent) (f) Cowes Castle 2 should be renamed Cowes and Parkhurst (3 per cent). The proposed Castle West. boundaries are illustrated in the large map at the back of this report. 98 These boundary modifications would result in the number of electors varying from the average by 8 per cent in Cowes Castle East division, 10 per Cowes (four divisions), Gurnard and cent in Cowes Castle West division, 12 per cent in Northwood Cowes Central division and 13 per cent in Cowes Medina division. These proposed boundaries are 95 Three of the four divisions in Cowes are illustrated in Map A8. relatively over-represented, with the number of electors in Cowes Castle 1, Cowes Castle 2 and 99 Having concluded that Gurnard should not be Cowes Central varying from the average by 31 per joined with part of Cowes, and that the parish cent, 18 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. should be retained within a single electoral However, in Cowes Medina division the number of division, the Commission considered alternative electors is 15 per cent above the Island average. In warding arrangements for the area. Gurnard the adjacent divisions of Gurnard and Northwood, division is bounded to the west by Calbourne, the number of electors is 31 per cent and 22 per Shalfleet and Yarmouth division, which has been cent below the average respectively. Cowes and discussed above, and to the south by Northwood

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 21 division. However, merging Gurnard with west of Clarence Road be transferred from East Northwood would create a division which would Cowes 1 to East Cowes 2. The Commission is also be under-represented by 47 per cent. The proposing that East Cowes 1 be renamed East disbandment of Northwood division, distributing Cowes North and East Cowes 2 be renamed East the area between Gurnard to the north and Cowes South. The proposed boundaries are Parkhurst to the south, may have a deleterious illustrated in Map A9. The number of electors in effect on community identity, as Parkhurst is a the divisions of East Cowes North, East Cowes coherent part of the suburban fringe of Newport. South and Osborne would be 16 per cent, 14 per The Commission has concluded that, as alternative cent and 19 per cent below the average respectively. warding arrangements would in most cases worsen By 2001 the electoral variance in Osborne would electoral equality in the area as a whole, the current have reduced to 6 per cent due to forecast divisions of Northwood and Gurnard should be development. retained. 104 Having visited the area and met with local interests, the Commission is aware of Wootton East Cowes (two divisions), Osborne, Parish Council’s concern about recent Wootton and Binstead developments south of the High Street, creating two perceived centres of community. The Parish 100 The urban area of East Cowes is currently Council argued that the Commission’s draft covered by the divisions of East Cowes 1, East proposals, which would see a further split of the Cowes 2, and part of Osborne division. The parish, would have a deleterious effect on its efforts number of electors in East Cowes 1 and East to unite the parish into a single coherent Cowes 2 divisions is 20 per cent and 39 per cent community. The Commission has concluded that below the Island average respectively. The number the draft recommendations should be modified in of electors in Osborne division, covering part of order to retain parish units in a single electoral the East Cowes urban area and a large rural expanse division. It therefore proposes that Wootton to the south, is 10 per cent above the Island division should be retained on its current average. All three divisions are unparished. boundaries. The number of electors would continue to vary from the average by 37 per cent, 101 To the east of Osborne division is Wootton but, in the Commission’s view, this is unavoidable division, which is coterminous with the parish of if warding arrangements are to reflect the best Wootton Bridge. The number of electors in the balance of the statutory criteria. division is 37 per cent above the Island average. To the east of Wootton division, the unparished 105 Binstead division has boundaries with Ryde, Binstead division has 18 per cent above the average Ashey and Wootton. The Commission concludes number of electors. that any realignment of the boundaries of Binstead would have a detrimental effect on electoral 102 At Stage Three, the Commission proposed the equality in the surrounding divisions, and therefore disbandment of the East Cowes 2 division, with proposes that the division should be retained on its the area being distributed between East Cowes 1 existing boundaries. The number of electors would division (renamed East Cowes North) and a new continue to vary from the average by 18 per cent, East Cowes South and Osborne division, covering but the Commission considers this to be the best part of the current Osborne division. The available warding arrangement for the area in terms remainder of Osborne would have joined with part of the statutory criteria. of the current division of Wootton, while the remainder of Wootton would join with the Fishbourne area of Binstead division (which is Totland, Freshwater Afton, Freshwater unparished) to form a new division. The Norton, and Chale, Niton and Commission received a number of representations Whitwell opposing the proposal to split Wootton parish between two divisions. 106 The number of electors varies from the Island average by 7 per cent in Totland, 5 per cent in 103 In order to improve electoral equality in East Freshwater Afton, 5 per cent in Freshwater Norton Cowes the Commission proposes that the and 11 per cent in Chale, Niton and Whitwell. boundary between Osborne and East Cowes 2 divisions be realigned, transferring the 591 electors 107 The Commission’s draft recommendation was in Osborne division west of York Avenue and north for no change to the boundaries of these four of Victoria Grove to East Cowes 2 division. It divisions. No representations were received proposes that the area south of Ferry Road and specifically concerning these areas during Stage

22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Three. Given the location of the divisions, and the the evidence received, this would have been to the fact that electoral variances are among some of the detriment of the interests of local communities. lowest on the Island, the Commission confirms its Having considered all the evidence and draft recommendation for these areas. representations it has received on its draft recommendations, the Commission has concluded that there should be no change to the council size Parish and Town Council of 48 members; and that the boundaries of 36 of Electoral Arrangements the existing divisions should be modified.

108 Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 111 Figure 5 shows the impact of the Commission’s requires that where the boundary of a parish final recommendations on electoral equality, straddles an electoral division, that parish should comparing them with the current arrangements as normally be warded. It also requires that where a based on 1996 electorate figures, and with parish is warded each of those wards should lie projected electorates in the year 2001. wholly within a single electoral division. In the light of the Commission’s proposed electoral 112 As Figure 5 shows, the Commission’s arrangements, it would be necessary to alter the recommendations would result in a reduction from electoral arrangements of six parish and town 30 to 18 in the number of divisions where the councils (Bembridge, Cowes, Lake, Shanklin, number of electors would vary by more than 10 per Sandown and Ventnor). The Commission also cent from the Island average. This represents a proposes changes to the electoral arrangements of significant improvement on present arrangements. Shorwell Parish Council and Yarmouth Town The remaining imbalances are greater than have Council as a result of representations received. been put forward by the Commission in other reviews, for the reasons discussed earlier. By the 109 The Commission’s final recommendations on time of the next periodic electoral review, parishing these matters are set out at the end of this chapter. arrangements may well have been reviewed by the Isle of Wight Council. In the meantime it would be in the interests of the Council, and local residents, if Conclusions consideration be given locally to how its electoral arrangements can be improved further at a future 110 The Commission has sought to take account of periodic electoral review, taking any parish review the very specific circumstances on the Isle of Wight into account. In the meantime, the Commission has in formulating its final recommendations. It would concluded that its recommendations would best like to have seen an even greater improvement in meet the need for electoral equality, having regard electoral equality but accepts that, in the light of

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 23 Final Recommendation Final Recommendation The Isle of Wight Council should continue Sandown parish should be served by two to comprise 48 councillors serving 48 wards, Sandown North and Sandown single-member divisions, as detailed in South, to reflect the Island Council Figures 1 and 6, and illustrated in Map 2, electoral divisions, as illustrated in Map A5 Appendix A and the large map at the back in Appendix A. Each parish ward should be of this report. The whole Council should represented by six councillors. continue to be elected every four years subject to the provisions of the 1994 Order which provide for the next two elections to 114 The parishes of Cowes and Shanklin are already take place in May 1998 and May 2001. warded but it is necessary for the parish wards to be modified to be coterminous with those of the proposed Isle of Wight electoral divisions. 113 As indicated above, changes in parish electoral arrangements will be required as a consequence of the Commission’s final recommendations on the Final Recommendation electoral arrangements for the Isle of Wight Cowes Town Council should continue to Council. Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act requires that comprise 16 councillors representing four Isle of Wight divisions must be coterminous with wards, with each ward represented by four the boundaries of parishes or parish wards. Where councillors. However, the boundaries of more than one division is proposed for a parish, these four wards should be modified to therefore, the parish must be warded. The reflect the proposed electoral divisions, as Commission consequently recommends that the illustrated in Map A8 in Appendix A. parishes of Bembridge, Lake and Sandown be warded to reflect the proposed Isle of Wight electoral divisions. Final Recommendation Shanklin Parish Council should comprise Final Recommendation 15 councillors representing three wards, with each ward represented by five Bembridge parish should be served by two councillors. The three proposed parish wards, Bembridge North and Bembridge wards should be coterminous with the South, to reflect the Island Council proposed electoral divisions, as illustrated electoral divisions, as illustrated in Map A6 in Map A3 in Appendix A. in Appendix A. Each ward should be represented by six councillors.

115 The parish of Ventnor is currently covered by Final Recommendation two electoral divisions which the Commission proposes to modify and rename Ventnor East and Lake parish should be served by two Ventnor West. The parish is also divided into wards, Lake North and Lake South, to four parish wards, Lowtherville, , reflect the Island Council electoral St Lawrence and Ventnor. The boundary between divisions, as illustrated in Map A4 in the proposed electoral divisions of Ventnor East Appendix A. Each parish ward should be and Ventnor West would bisect the parish ward of represented by six councillors. Ventnor. The Commission therefore proposes that Ventnor parish ward be divided into two new parish wards named Ventnor Parish East and Ventnor Parish West. This would result in the electoral division of Ventnor West covering the parish wards of Lowtherville, St Lawrence and Ventnor Parish West, while the electoral division of Ventnor East would cover the parish wards of Bonchurch and Ventnor Parish East.

24 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Final Recommendation Ventnor Town Council should continue to be represented by 11 town councillors but should be divided into five wards as opposed to the current four. The wards of Lowtherville, Bonchurch and St Lawrence should continue to be represented by two, one and two councillors respectively. The present Ventnor parish ward should be divided into two new parish wards along the proposed boundary between the new Ventnor East and Ventnor West divisions, as illustrated in Map A2 in Appendix A. Ventnor Parish East and Ventnor Parish West would each be represented by three councillors

116 The Commission confirms its draft recommendations for the Shorwell Parish Council area.

Final Recommendation Shorwell Parish Council should continue to comprise six councillors but should cease to be warded for parish council elections.

117 The Commission confirms its draft recommendations for Yarmouth Town Council.

Final Recommendation The number of councillors serving the Thorley ward of Yarmouth Town Council should be increased from one to two. The number of councillors serving Yarmouth parish ward should remain unchanged at six.

118 The Commission also proposes that there should be no change to the electoral cycle of parish and town councils in the area.

Final Recommendation For parish and town councils, whole- council elections should continue to take place every four years, on the same cycle as that of the Isle of Wight Council.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 25 Map 2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

26 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 6: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Ashey 1 2,274 2,274 7 2,274 2,274 4

2 Bembridge North 1 1,559 1,559 -27 1,671 1,671 -23

3 Bembridge South 1 1,659 1,659 -22 1,689 1,689 -23

4 Binstead 1 2,510 2,510 18 2,638 2,638 21

5 Brading and St Helens 1 2,601 2,601 23 2,623 2,623 20

6 Brighstone and 1 2,161 2,161 2 2,213 2,213 1 Calbourne

7 Carisbrooke East 1 1,892 1,892 -11 2,064 2,064 -6

8 Carisbrooke West 1 2,151 2,151 1 2,177 2,177 0

9 Central Rural 1 2,148 2,148 1 2,208 2,208 1

10 Chale, Niton 1 2,353 2,353 11 2,353 2,353 8 and Whitwell

11 Cowes Castle East 1 1,951 1,951 -8 1,981 1,981 -9

12 Cowes Castle West 1 1,900 1,900 -10 1,932 1,932 -12

13 Cowes Central 1 1,858 1,858 -12 1,973 1,973 -10

14 Cowes Medina 1 1,847 1,847 -13 2,033 2,033 -7

15 East Cowes North 1 1,780 1,780 -16 1,900 1,900 -13

16 East Cowes South 1 1,826 1,826 -14 1,826 1,826 -16

17 Fairlee 1 2,212 2,212 4 2,220 2,220 2

18 Freshwater Afton 1 2,225 2,225 5 2,303 2,303 5

19 Freshwater Norton 1 2,230 2,230 5 2,250 2,250 3

20 Gurnard 1 1,470 1,470 -31 1,470 1,470 -33

21 Lake North 1 1,905 1,905 -10 1,905 1,905 -13

22 Lake South 1 1,933 1,933 -9 1,933 1,933 -12

23 Mount Joy 1 1,989 1,989 -6 1,989 1,989 -9

Continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 27 Figure 6 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

24 Newchurch 1 2,102 2,102 -1 2,124 2,124 -3

25 Newport North 1 1,949 1,949 -8 1,949 1,949 -11

26 Newport South 1 2,042 2,042 -4 2,042 2,042 -7

27 Northwood 1 1,659 1,659 -22 1,703 1,703 -22

28 Osborne 1 1,725 1,725 -19 2,047 2,047 -6

29 Pan 1 2,151 2,151 1 2,151 2,151 -2

30 Parkhurst 1 2,057 2,057 -3 2,057 2,057 -6

31 Ryde North East 1 2,290 2,290 8 2,375 2,375 9

32 Ryde North West 1 2,301 2,301 8 2,329 2,329 7

33 Ryde South East 1 2,317 2,317 9 2,337 2,337 7

34 Ryde South West 1 2,177 2,177 3 2,341 2,341 7

35 St Johns East 1 2,130 2,130 0 2,146 2,146 -2

36 St Johns West 1 1,971 1,971 -7 2,088 2,088 -4

37 Sandown North 1 2,218 2,218 5 2,262 2,262 4

38 Sandown South 1 2,128 2,128 0 2,376 2,376 9

39 Seaview and 1 2,787 2,787 31 2,787 2,787 28 Nettlestone

40 Shalfleet and Yarmouth 1 2,021 2,021 -5 2,119 2,119 -3

41 Shanklin Central 1 2,235 2,235 5 2,235 2,235 2

42 Shanklin North 1 2,122 2,122 0 2,122 2,122 -3

43 Shanklin South 1 2,303 2,303 9 2,373 2,373 9

44 Totland 1 2,265 2,265 7 2,541 2,541 16

45 Ventnor East 1 2,480 2,480 17 2,512 2,512 15

28 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 6 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

46 Ventnor West 1 2,464 2,464 16 2,464 2,464 13

47 Wootton 1 2,911 2,911 37 2,943 2,943 35

48 Wroxall and Godshill 1 2,613 2,613 23 2,799 2,799 28

Totals 48 101,852 --104,847 --

Averages -- 2,122 --2,184 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by the Isle of Wight Council.

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 29 30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 6. NEXT STEPS

119 Having completed its review of electoral arrangements on the Isle of Wight and submitted its final recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role under the Local Government Act 1992.

120 It now falls to the Secretary of State to decide whether to give effect to the Commission’s recommendations, with or without modification, and to implement them by means of an Order. Such an Order will not be made earlier than six weeks from the date that the Commission’s recommendations are submitted to the Secretary of State.

121 All further correspondence concerning the Commission’s recommendations and matters discussed in this report should be addressed to the Secretary of State at the following address:

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Local Government Review Department of the Environment Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 31 32 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX A

Final Recommendations for the Isle of Wight: Detailed Mapping

The following maps illustrate the Commission’s proposed division boundaries for the Isle of Wight.

Map A1 acts as a location map to Maps A2 to A9.

Map A2 illustrates the proposed boundary between the divisions of Ventnor East and Ventnor West. This would also form the boundary between the proposed parish wards of Ventnor Parish East and Ventnor Parish West.

Map A3 illustrates the proposed boundary between the divisions of Shanklin Central, Shanklin North and Shanklin South.

Map A4 illustrates the proposed boundary between the divisions of Lake North and Lake South.

Map A5 illustrates the proposed boundary between the divisions of Sandown North and Sandown South.

Map A6 illustrates the proposed boundary changes in Bembridge.

Map A7 illustrates the proposed boundaries in Ryde.

Map A8 illustrates the proposed boundaries in Cowes; the proposed divisions of Cowes Castle East, Cowes Castle West, Cowes Central and Cowes Medina.

Map A9 illustrates the proposed boundaries in East Cowes; the proposed divisions of East Cowes North, East Cowes South and Osborne.

The large map at the back of this report shows the proposed division boundaries for the Newport area.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 33 Map A1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for the Isle of Wight: Key Map

34 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Ventnor

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 35 Map A3: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Shanklin

36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A4: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Lake

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 37 Map A5: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Sandown

38 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A6: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Bembridge

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 39 Map A7: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Ryde

40 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A8: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Cowes

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 41 Map A9: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for East Cowes

42 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX B

Draft Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

Figure B1: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Division name Constituent areas

Ashey Existing Electoral Division

Bembridge South Bembridge 2 Electoral Division; Bembridge 1 Electoral Division (part)

Binstead Binstead Electoral Division (part)

Brading and Yaverland Brading Electoral Division; Sandown 1 Electoral Division (part)

Brighstone and Shorwell Existing Electoral Division

Calbourne, Shalfleet Existing Electoral Division and Yarmouth

Carisbrooke East Carisbrooke East Electoral Division; Mount Joy Electoral Division (part); Carisbrooke West Electoral Division (part)

Carisbrooke West Carisbrooke West Electoral Division (part)

Chale, Niton and Whitwell Existing Electoral Division

Cowes Castle East Cowes Castle 1 Electoral Division; Cowes Castle 2 Electoral Division (part)

Cowes Central Cowes Central Electoral Division; Cowes Medina Electoral Division (part); Cowes Castle 2 Electoral Division (part)

Cowes Medina Cowes Medina Electoral Division (part)

East Cowes North East Cowes 1 Electoral Division; East Cowes 2 Electoral Division (part)

East Cowes South & Osborne East Cowes 2 Electoral Division (part); Osborne Electoral Division (part)

Fairlee Existing Electoral Division

Freshwater Afton Existing Electoral Division

Continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 43 Figure B1 (continued): The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Division name Constituent areas

Freshwater Norton Existing Electoral Division

Gatcombe, Godshill Existing Electoral Division and Rookley

Gurnard and Cowes Gurnard Electoral Division; Cowes Castle 2 Electoral Castle West Division (part)

Lake North Lake 1 Electoral Division (part)

Lake South Lake 2 Electoral Division (part); Lake 1 Electoral Division (part)

Mount Joy and Arreton Mount Joy Electoral Division (part); Newport Central Electoral Division (part); Arreton parish

Newchurch Newchurch parish

Newport Central Mount Joy Electoral Division (part); Newport Central Electoral Division (part); Parkhurst Electoral Division (part)

Newport South Mount Joy Electoral Division (part); Newport Central Electoral Division (part)

Northwood with Porchfield Northwood Electoral Division; Porchfield parish ward of Calbourne parish

Pan Existing Electoral Division

Parkhurst Parkhurst Electoral Division (part)

Ryde North East Ryde North East Electoral Division (part)

Ryde North West Existing Electoral Division

Ryde South East Ryde South East Electoral Division; Ryde North East Electoral Division (part)

Ryde South West Existing Electoral Division

Sandown North Sandown 1 Electoral Division (part)

Sandown South Existing Electoral Division

Seaview and Nettlestone Seaview and Nettlestone Electoral Division (part)

Shanklin Central Shanklin Central Electoral Division (part); Shanklin South Electoral Division (part)

44 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure B1 (continued): The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Division name Constituent areas

Shanklin North Shanklin North Electoral Division; Shanklin Central Electoral Division (part)

Shanklin South Shanklin South Electoral Division (part)

St Helens and St Helens Electoral Division; Bembridge 1 Electoral Bembridge North Division (part)

St Johns East St Johns 2 Electoral Division (part); Seaview and Nettlestone Electoral Division (part)

St Johns West St Johns 1 Electoral Division; St Johns 2 Electoral Division (part)

Totland Existing Electoral Division

Ventnor East Ventnor 1 Electoral Division (part)

Ventnor West Ventnor 2 Electoral Division (part); Ventnor 1 Electoral Division (part)

Wootton East and Fishbourne Wootton Electoral Division (part); Binstead Electoral Division (part)

Wootton West Wootton Electoral Division (part); Osborne Electoral and Division (part)

Wroxall and Lowtherville Wroxall Electoral Division; Lowtherville parish ward of Ventnor parish

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 45 Figure B2: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Ashey 1 2,109 2,109 -3 2,109 2,109 -4

2 Bembridge South 1 2,128 2,128 -2 2,132 2,132 -2

3 Binstead 1 1,916 1,916 -12 2,018 2,018 -8

4 Brading and Yaverland 1 1,960 1,960 -10 1,960 1,960 -10

5 Brighstone and 1 2,053 2,053 -5 2,053 2,053 -5 Shorwell

6 Calbourne, Shalfleet 1 2,302 2,302 6 2,342 2,342 7 and Yarmouth

7 Carisbrooke East 1 2,241 2,241 3 2,241 2,241 2

8 Carisbrooke West 1 2,202 2,202 2 2,202 2,202 1

9 Chale, Niton 1 2,353 2,353 9 2,353 2,353 8 and Whitwell

10 Cowes Castle East 1 2,275 2,275 5 2,307 2,307 5

11 Cowes Central 1 2,163 2,163 0 2,163 2,163 -1

12 Cowes Medina 1 2,281 2,281 5 2,305 2,305 5

13 East Cowes North 1 2,361 2,361 9 2,361 2,361 8

14 East Cowes South 1 2,325 2,325 7 2,325 2,325 6 & Osborne

15 Fairlee 1 2,212 2,212 2 2,220 2,220 1

16 Freshwater Afton 1 2,225 2,225 3 2,225 2,225 2

17 Freshwater Norton 1 2,230 2,230 3 2,246 2,230 3

18 Gatcombe, Godshill 1 2,060 2,060 -5 2,190 2,190 1 and Rookley

19 Gurnard and Cowes 1 2,307 2,307 6 2,307 2,307 5 Castle West

20 Lake North 1 1,905 1,905 -12 1,951 1,951 -11

46 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure B2 (continued): The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

21 Lake South 1 1,933 1,933 -11 1,941 1,941 -11

22 Mount Joy and Arreton 1 2,010 2,010 -7 2,010 2,010 -8

23 Newchurch 1 2,102 2,102 -3 2,102 2,102 -4

24 Newport Central 1 2,229 2,229 3 2,229 2,229 2

25 Newport South 1 1,989 1,989 -8 1,989 1,989 -9

26 Northwood with 1 2,040 2,040 -6 2,040 2,040 -7 Porchfield

27 Pan 1 2,151 2,151 -1 2,151 2,151 -2

28 Parkhurst 1 2,147 2,147 -1 2,147 2,147 -2

29 Ryde North East 1 2,303 2,303 6 2,413 2,413 10

30 Ryde North West 1 2,299 2,299 6 2,299 2,299 5

31 Ryde South East 1 2,302 2,302 6 2,310 2,310 6

32 Ryde South West 1 2,342 2,342 8 2,432 2,432 11

33 Sandown North 1 1,992 1,992 -8 1,992 1,992 -9

34 Sandown South 1 1,968 1,968 -9 2,122 2,122 -3

35 Seaview and 1 2,548 2,548 18 2,548 2,548 16 Nettlestone

36 Shanklin Central 1 2,198 2,198 1 2,198 2,198 0

37 Shanklin North 1 2,220 2,220 2 2,220 2,220 1

38 Shanklin South 1 2,250 2,250 4 2,302 2,302 5

39 St Helens and 1 2,117 2,117 -2 2,117 2,117 -3 Bembridge North

40 St Johns East 1 2,312 2,312 7 2,312 2,312 6

41 St Johns West 1 2,028 2,028 -6 2,028 2,028 -7

42 Totland 1 2,265 2,265 5 2,293 2,293 5

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 47 Figure B2 (continued): The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for the Isle of Wight

1996 2001 (Projected)

Division name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

43 Ventnor East 1 2,025 2,025 -7 2,057 2,057 -6

44 Ventnor West 1 2,099 2,099 -3 2,099 2,099 -4

45 Wootton East 1 2,134 2,134 -2 2,160 2,160 -1 and Fishbourne

46 Wootton West 1 2,017 2,017 -7 2,017 2,017 -8 and Whippingham

47 Wroxall and 1 2,224 2,224 3 2,264 2,264 4 Lowtherville

Totals 47 101,852 --102,802 --

Average -- 2,167 -- 2,187

Source: Electorate figures are based on the Isle of Wight Council’s submission.

Notes: 1 The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the councillor:elector ratio varies from the average for the Island. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 2 The Isle of Wight Council has since provided more up-to-date electorate forecasts for 2001.

48 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 49 50 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND