County Council Further Electoral Review Comments on LGBCE Draft Divisional Arrangements (Stage 3)

Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for (LGBCE) August 2012

FINAL

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Support for the Council’s proposal ...... 4 2. Borough ...... 5 3. ...... 10 4. Conclusions ...... 13 5. Appendices...... 14 Appendix 1: Responses from Kettering stakeholders ...... 14

2 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to outline amendments to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) draft proposals for Northamptonshire.

This aim of the Electoral Review is to improve electoral equality. This means ensuring, as far as is reasonable, that each councillor represents the same number of electors. Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) submitted scheme patterns for the county in April 2012 based on consultation with its key stakeholders.

The LGBCE reviewed the NCC proposal along with others that had been received and a draft set of recommendations has been circulated for consultation. This document contains NCC response to the draft recommendations.

The main points of NCC’s response are as follows;

No objections to the proposed recommendations for*; i. Borough ii. District iii. District iv. Borough v. District

Alternative proposals put forward for: i. Kettering Borough ii. Borough of Wellingborough

In addition to improving electoral equality a key objective of this work is to ensure new arrangements reflect community identity and result in effective and convenient local government.

*It should be noted that this does not indicate a consensus between political groups on the Council.

3 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

1. Introduction

This submission is made part as part of the Electoral Review for Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) in response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) invitation for comments on the draft proposals.

NCC welcomes the LGBCE’s proposals for five out of the seven districts and boroughs in the county (Corby Borough, , East Northamptonshire District, Northampton Borough and South Northamptonshire District).

Alternative arrangements have been put forward for the remaining two areas in Northamptonshire; i. Kettering ii. Wellingborough

This submission seeks to build on evidence gathered from key stakeholders and established communities whilst taking into account the statutory criteria.

The County Council’s cross party Working Group considered the LGBCE recommendations and conducted additional workshops and dialogued with borough and parish council stakeholders to ensure that community interest was built into NCC’s response.

1.2 Support for NCC’s proposal A working group comprised of members from each political group on the Council has reviewed and signed off this submission, although it should be noted that this does not indicate a consensus between political groups on the Council.

The Council has also undertaken additional consultation with organisations in Kettering and Wellingborough. As a result of this consultation, the following stakeholders have also lent their support to NCC’s proposal;

Kettering (appendix 1) : Parish Parish Council Town Council Parish Council Town Council

Wellingborough: The Borough Council of Wellingborough

4 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

2. Kettering Borough In addition to the Council’s response to the consultation on electoral arrangements in Kettering, the LGBCE also received a response from Kettering Borough Council. Although the Borough Council’s submission was not accompanied by any community identity evidence, the LGBCE considered that it provided for good levels of electoral equality and chose to base their draft proposal upon it. We have since learned that Kettering Borough Council will be submitting additional supporting information within this final consultation period relating to community identity.

The County Council feels very strongly that the LGBCE draft recommendations, for the town of Kettering in particular, fail to recognise and accommodate accepted communities across this urban area. Our community concerns can broadly be divided into two sections of electoral arrangements – the proposals for the north, centre and west of the town (covering Brambleside, All Saints, Northfield, William Knibb and St Peters borough wards); and the proposals for the east and south of the town (covering Avondale Grange, Pipers Hill, St Michaels & Wicksteed and Barton borough wards).

The County Council Cross Party Working Group agreed to circulate a summary paper to the following parish councils in Kettering;

Rushton Sutton Bassett (response to be received by 9th August) Stoke Albany Dingley Ashley Weston By Welland

This paper compared the LGBCE proposal with NCC’s scheme arrangements and asked the parish councils to state their preferred option.

North, centre and west of the town

21. Clover Hill (paragraph 91)

The County Council’s proposal for this division combined the wards of Brambleside and St Peter’s with the northern half of All Saints ward. The LGBCE’s proposal included Brambleside and a larger proportion of All Saints ward. The LGBCE did not provided any reason for this change.

The LGBCE amendments to the proposed division of Clover Hill electoral division fail to fully reflect the distinct identities of local communities that have developed over a long period of years. This area of the town, to the south of Reservoir Road, developed from the boom in shoe making that took place from the mid 1800s. Throughout the central area of Kettering, shoe factories were established which were surrounded by terrace housing for the thousands of workers employed in them. Despite the decline of the shoe industry in the 1970s, many factories remain along with the terrace housing. These historical roots have contributed to giving this area of housing a totally

5 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

distinct character from that present in Brambleside area to the north of Reservoir Road which has seen a great deal of development since the early 1960s.

The growth of Kettering has meant that the current All Saints Ward contains two distinct communities. For example, the housing north of the Rockingham Road Pleasure Park was built in the 1930s and is mainly made up of semi-detached and detached housing, traditionally occupied by white collar workers. This housing differs greatly in character to the terrace housing to the south of the Pleasure Park. The difference in housing also means that historically many residents in the area consider Reservoir Road as being a natural boundary within All Saints ward, dividing these two communities. These unique and separate community identities influence the range of issues that are important to residents, which in terms of democratic representation are markedly different from one another.

There are few, if any residents who would understand or associate themselves with the suggested division name of Clover Hill. This historic name derives from an old area in the current Reservoir Road area, but the name has long fallen out of use locally and has disappear from maps of Kettering. As the County Council proposal includes new developments such as the Balmoral and Caitlands estates, all of Brambleside and parts of All Saints, a more suitable and acceptable and familiar name to residents would be ‘Brambleside’.

24. Northall (paragraph 91)

The Council’s proposal for this division was comprise of Northfield ward and parts of All Saints, William Knibb and St Michael’s and Wicksteed wards. The LGBCE has proposed a division comprised of all of Northfield, William Knibb and St Peter’s in one division. There is little explanation of the reasons for this in the LGBCE’s draft proposal; however it does improve coterminosity with existing borough wards.

The County Council strongly feels that the LGBCE draft recommendations for Northall division again groups together communities with little correlation or common interest. As detailed in the County Council’s original submission the areas of Northfield ward, William Knibb Ward and the southern area of All Saints ward are of similar distinction and commonality. This was a key driver in the County Council’s recommendations for those areas to be grouped into the proposed Kettering Central and Grange divisions.

The LGBCE recommendation to include St Peters ward with Northfield and William Knibb wards fails to recognise these community identities. The St Peters ward area is characterised by modern outlying housing developments with large detached dwellings. This is in stark contrast to the community identity of the residents of the town centre areas of Northfield and William Knibb wards. It has been our belief throughout our scheme development in Kettering town that the residents and communities within St Peters ward share far more of the typical community concerns prevalent in the Brambleside and [north of Reservoir Road] areas.

The ward areas of St Peters and Brambleside do enjoy excellent communication links in the form of the A43 and A14 which merge at junction seven of the A14. This major arterial route connects the

6 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

very north eastern tip of Brambleside ward all the way to junction eight of the A14 which serves the southern area of St Peters.

East and South of the town

26. Wicksteed (paragraph 91)

Whereas the County Council proposed a division comprised of parts of Barton, St Michael’s and Wicksteed and Piper’s Hill wards, the LGBCE has proposed a division comprised of all of St Michael’s and Wicksteed and Barton wards, with the exception of the polling district to the north of Barton Ward which remains in the proposed Ise division.

The area of St Michaels & Wicksteed Borough ward and to the north of The Oval has traditionally been part of a town centre orientated county division. The character of the housing in this area is much more akin to that found in other satellites of the centre of Kettering such as William Knibb and Northfield borough wards, as well as the southern area of All Saints ward discussed earlier in this document. This area of St Michaels & Wicksteed borough ward to the north of The Oval is also separated from the southern Wicksteed and Barton Seagrave areas by the campuses of Bishop Stopford Schools, Highfields Community Primary School and Southfield School for Girls, as well as Highfield Public Park. These four school sites, added to the public park, create a clear green space ‘firebreak’ covering a right angle up Highfield Road and then along Springfield and Netherfield Roads.

27. Windmill (paragraph 91)

The County Council’s submission for this division sought to bring together Avondale Grange ward with parts of All Saints, Pipers Hill and William Knibb wards. The LGBCE’s proposal combines Avondale Grange and All Saints wards with a small part of All Saints Wards. Again, little explanation of the reasons for this are given by the LGBCE, but their proposal does improve coterminosity with borough wards.

The area of Pipers Hill borough ward to the south of the Cemetery and Elm Road has traditionally formed part of the electoral arrangements covering Barton Seagrave and Wicksteed.

It remains the County Council’s strong recommendation that the area of Avondale Grange holds far more common community interests with the central areas of Kettering, rather than the communities further to the south towards Wicksteed. Avondale Grange has a long history of being a recognised community within Kettering, with a majority of homes being pre-war council housing. This contrasts greatly with the housing stock in the southern half of the Pipers Hill Ward, which is mainly privately owned.

Historically the area of Pipers Hill south of Deeble Road has been attached to the St Michael’s & Wicksteed and Barton Wards as these areas are very similar in terms of demographics, housing and facilities. In addition to this Wicksteed Park represents a central focal point for this community.

7 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

Other areas of Kettering Borough

20. Burton and Broughton (paragraph 82)

The Council’s proposal for this area sought to join Burton Latimer with the parishes of Pytchley and Broughton, on the basis that Burton Latimer and Pytchley have historical links. It also suggested adding part of Cranford parish (specifically the area that will be developed into the Kettering East Sustainable Urban Extension) to this division. The LGBCE’s proposal extends the division to the west so that it incorporates the parishes of and . Their proposal also removes the Council’s proposal to ward the western half of Cranford Parish.

As stated above, Burton Latimer and Pytchley enjoy longstanding historic links and also have good transport links as the A14 forms the northern border of both parishes. However, the parish of Cransley has more in common with the parish of Loddington as the two parishes share a common ethos and are also relatively free from planned development. Furthermore, the two parishes are part of the same ecclesiastical benefice, are part of the same borough ward and also share a number of services. Similarly, the parish of Thorpe Malsor looks north towards Rothwell, a town with which is shares strong links and also good communication routes in the form of the A14.

It should be noted that the Council no longer wishes to pursue its original suggestion to ward the parish of Cranford and split it between the Burton and Broughton division and the Ise division. The Council is content that the entire parish of Cranford should become part of the proposed Ise Division as it looks predominantly to the north.

22. Desborough (paragraph 90)

The Council’s proposal for this division incorporates the area covered by Desborough Town Council as well as the parishes of Braybrooke, Dingley and Brampton Ash. The LGBCE’s proposal has increased the size of this division by adding in Sutton Bassett, Weston by Welland, Ashley, Stoke Albany and Wilbarston.

The Council has undertaken a further consultation with parishes in this area in order to better understand their views on the LGBCE’s proposals. We understand that Desborough Town Council voted to support the Council’s proposal as it feels it has relatively little in common with the rural parishes in the north of the borough. Desborough Town Council’s priorities include the development of the town centre, leisure facilities and policing to control anti-social behaviour. The rural parishes in the north of Kettering borough have much more in common with similar parishes to the north and east. In particular, Sutton Bassett Parish Meeting indicated support for the Council’s proposal, and put forward the view that a councillor charged with representing a relatively populous market town such as Desborough would not be able to adequately represent rural parishes as well, and that this would not lead to effective and convenient local government.

It should also be noted that the transport links between these parishes and Desborough are no better, and in some cases worse, than the transport links between these parishes and the parishes to the east. For example, Ashley, Stoke Albany and Wilbarston all have very good transport links with the parishes of East Carlton, Middleton and Cottingham. Furthermore, these parishes also share

8 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

many historical links with villages in , to the north (such as Hallaton and Medbourne, with whom Ashley holds an annual tug of war competition), rather than Desborough, to the south.

23. Ise (paragraph 82, 88)

The Council’s proposal for this division was for thirteen parishes running along the northern edge of the with the addition of the Ise Lodge ward. The LGBCE suggested amendments to this division by adding all of Cranford parish to it (the Council’s submission proposed that Cranford be warded and divided between two divisions) and moving Rushton into a division with Rothwell and the parishes of Wilbarston, Stoke Albany, Ashley, Weston by Welland and Sutton Bassett into a division with Desborough.

The Council accepts that, given the potential delay in work commencing on the Kettering East Sustainable Urban Extension, the parish of Cranford should not be warded and should form part of the Ise electoral division. However, the LGBCE’s proposal leaves this division close to the lower end of the acceptable electoral variance and, for the reasons outlined in the analysis of the proposed Burton and Broughton and Desborough divisions given above, the Council wishes to re-state its support for the inclusion of the parishes that run along the northern edge of the borough of Kettering, up to and including Sutton Bassett, in the Ise division.

25. Rothwell and Mawsley (paragraph 90)

In comparison with the Council’s proposal for this division, the LGBCE moved the parishes of Thorpe Malsor and Cransley to the Burton Division and added in the Parish of Rushton.

As stated above, Burton Latimer and Pytchley enjoy longstanding historic links and also have good transport links as the A14 forms the northern border of both parishes. However, the parish of Cransley has more in common with the parish of Loddington as the two parishes share a common ethos and are also relatively free from planned development. Similarly, the parish of Thorpe Malsor looks north towards Rothwell, a town with which is shares strong links and also good communication routes in the form of the A14. For these reasons, the Council believes that the parishes of Thorpe Malsor and Cransley should be part of the Rothwell and Mawsley division. Similarly, the parish of Rushton shares common interests with the rural parishes to the east and west, and by including this parish in the Ise division, coterminosity with the present borough wards is maintained.

Summary of additional stakeholder responses

Desborough Town Council, Sutton Bassett and Weston By Welland have lent their support to the NCC proposal and have set out reasons why the proposal made by the LGBCE would not facilitate effective and efficient local government. The County Council places considerable weight on the evidence put forward by these key stakeholders and hopes that the LGBCE will do likewise and revise the arrangements for this area. Ashley Parish Council is preparing its own response.

9 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

3. Wellingborough 52. Brickhill and Queensway (paragraph 132)

The LGBCE amendments to the proposed division of Brickhill & Queensway create several issues that do not reflect the distinct identities of local communities. The decision to include two further portions of housing from the northern side of Hardwick Road splits one community, and annexes another which has no discernible community links to the areas which it is proposed to be included with.

Firstly, the decision to use the section of the Hardwick Road which joins the A509 as a new division boundary creates an arbitrary partition through the community built up around Medway Drive, which is part of the Redwell West borough ward, and produces an electoral arrangement in which households on the same residential drive will be split into two different divisions. Whilst in some cases careful separation of communities is unavoidable, in this case it is unnecessary and not justified by electoral equality requirements.

The second area added to the County Council’s proposed Brickhill & Queensway is the area of housing between Kilborn Road and Hardwick Road, known as Gleneagles. This area is predominantly one of privately owned housing, as opposed to the adjacent housing on the other side of Hardwick Road which historically was built to accommodate London overspill in the 1960s and 1970s, of which much remains as social housing. Furthermore, there is a distinct divergence in the use of amenities by these areas to the north and south of Hardwick Road. The Gleneagles area utilise Redwell Infant and Redwell Junior schools for their children, whereas those families living in the Queensway Estate to the south of Hardwick Road use the Hardwick Infant and Hardwick Junior schools on Olympic Way.

The County Council’s proposed division of Brickhill & Queensway which did not cross Hardwick Road, enjoys excellent communication links between the various neighbourhoods. To the east of the Park Farm Industrial Estate lie Shelley Road and Burns Road, both of which connect up to Queensway itself. Then from Queensway, branching off to the east of the proposed division, Brickhill Road and Northampton Road connect communities in the east of the Division.

Furthermore, the Hardwick/ Road is one of the key borders in the town of Wellingborough. It is a recognised natural boundary which creates a division between the northern and southern areas of the east of the town. This is reflected in the boundaries used in the formation of the Borough wards for the area.

56. Hatton Park (paragraph 130)

As outlined in the narrative provided around division 52, the County Council strongly advocates the return of the Medway Drive and Kilborn Road/Hardwick Road areas to the proposed Hatton Park electoral division.

In paragraph 126 of LGBCE draft recommendations the proposed boundary between the County Council’s proposed Hatton Park and Castle & is described as ‘arbitrary and illogical’. The boundary drawn between the proposed Hatton Park and Castle & Irchester divisions was intended to reflect the current polling district arrangements employed by the Borough Council of

10 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

Wellingborough. This was done to maintain the integrity of electorate numbers as far as possible, and to ensure new arrangements allowed for convenient local government at the Borough level. On reflection we accept that the LGBCE recommendation for using Nest Lane and Paterson Road as the boundary for whichever proposed division comes to border Hatton Park is a more effective solution for the communities in this area of Wellingborough.

The County Council’s proposed division of Hatton Park boasts excellent communication links throughout. Firstly the A509 – Niort Way and the A510 – Northen Way provide easy connectivity along the north of the proposed Division. These major routes are complemented by Hardwick Road, Gold Street and Nest Lane along the southern border of the proposed division. In addition to this Gleneagles Drive, Kilborn Road, Harrowden Road and Nest Farm Road enhance the already excellent communication links, allowing residents to easily travel across the proposed division.

The County Council must firmly restate its conviction that the community of Redhill Grange to the north of the A510 is better served coming under a county electoral division of a more rural character. Redhill Grange was first developed twenty years ago and has since built up its own community identity given its detachment from Wellingborough itself. Redhill Grange sits clearly outside of the Wellingborough A509/A510 ring road, and indeed uses amenities in the rural area to the north such as utilising Community Primary School for their children. The residents of Redhill Grange are currently in the process of applying for parish status, further enhancing both the area’s independence from the town and its more rural character. We believe that not only will the residents of this community be better served and more at ease with a presence in a rural division, but that the A510 (Northen Way) provides a clear and natural boundary to form the northern edge of the proposed Hatton Park division.

55. (paragraph 126-127)

As outlined in the narrative provided around division 56, the County Council strongly supports the inclusion of the Redhill Grange community in the rural division which makes up the north and east of the Borough of Wellingborough.

In paragraphs of 126 and 127 of the draft recommendations, the LGBCE state that the town of Finedon should be included with Castle district ward and part of Hemmingwell district ward, rather than Little Irchester and Irchester which sits on the south-east tip of the town of Wellingborough. The LGBCE draft recommendations state that the County Council’s proposed Finedon Rural division would not reflect existing communities in the borough, and neglected to consider the communication link Finedon has with Wellingborough in the form of the A510.

With regard to the representation of existing communities, the County Council proposal for a Finedon Rural division added only one further parish to the existing county division of Finedon – the parish of . The county councillor in the Finedon division has represented the parishes of Finedon, , Little Harrowden, , , Hardwick, Sywell and for over thirty years; and the parishes of Ecton and Wilby for more than a decade. With the addition of Great Doddington to the existing Finedon division, the proposed division of Finedon Rural would also be coterminous with four complete district wards – Finedon Ward, North Ward, West Ward and Great Doddington & Wilby Ward.

11 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

The proposed division of Finedon rural would be served by an extensive rural road network which also includes main routes such as the A509 and A4500. The B574 road for example connects Finedon in the east with Sywell and Mears Ashby in the west; this road also connects the parishes of Orlingbury, Little Harrowden, and Hardwick with Finedon.

The settlement of Finedon was listed in the Doomsday book in 1086 and to this day retains a distinct identity. The proposal to form a Finedon division with Castle Ward and part of the Hemmingwell Ward undermines the established community identity that currently exists. This loss of community identity is also compounded by the fact that the urban areas of Castle and Hemmingwell have little if anything in common with the rural area of Finedon.

In comparison to Irchester, the town of Finedon is more geographically isolated from Wellingborough with a significant area of countryside separating them. Although Finedon has communication links with Wellingborough via the A510, the area is primarily served by the A6 road. For example, Finedon residents access a large number of amenities in Burton Latimer, Kettering, and via this major arterial road link, rather than accessing the Hemmingwell and Castle areas of Wellingborough along the A510. Irchester is far closer to the town of Wellingborough geographically. Little Irchester and Irchester itself are far less divisible from Wellingborough than Finedon, and enjoy far more primary communication links with the Castle area via the A45 dual carriageway and the A509. Due to its proximity to Wellingborough and major roads on the doorstep, residents of Irchester a far more likely to access the town and its surrounding residential areas.

The proposed division also fails to take into account the Midland Main line which forms a significant man made barrier to the east of Wellingborough and in addition to this; the also forms a natural barrier which has helped to protect the rural character of Finedon from the ongoing urban development across the borough.

The County Council has been keen throughout this electoral review process to maintain the interests of rural communities as separate to those of more urban areas. Whilst the large-scale change instituted by this review will create rural divisions of an even larger geographic area, crucially the parishes and communities within them will still retain similar issues, problems and interests for one county councillor to represent. Chief amongst these will be the ongoing impact of town expansion and development on established rural communities, which will of course be of less consequence to already urbanised areas. With the LGBCE’s draft recommendations for Finedon we feel there is a very real danger of an historic small rural town becoming subservient to a larger urban area of a very different character.

53. Croyland & Swanspool; 54. ; 57. Irchester

Given the evidence set out in this consultation response for the other three divisions proposed in the LGBCE draft recommendations, we strongly advocate that the other divisions revert to their arrangement under the County Council submission.

12 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

4. Conclusions This submission outlines NCC’s response to the LGBCE’s draft recommendations on new electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council. A cross party working group formed by the Council reviewed the draft recommendations and welcomed the clarity of the proposals as set out in the LGBCE’s draft document. With the exception of the two areas highlighted above, the Council also welcomed the LGBCE’s proposals. In the case of Kettering and Wellingborough, the Council has elected to put forward additional evidence for the arrangements it submitted during the second round of consultation.

NCC’s original proposals for both Kettering and Wellingborough seek, first and foremost, to reflect local communities and achieve an improved level of electoral equality. The proposals were once again shared with key stakeholders to ensure NCC paid particular attention to natural communities as well as to ensure the proposals are fit for purpose and future proof.

13 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

5. Appendices

Appendix 1: Responses from Kettering Parishes From: michael sandell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 July 2012 11:48 To: Jim Harker Subject: Draft Electoral Recommendations for Ketterig Borough.

Dear Jim,

I have seen your email d.24 July to Bernard Rengger, Chairman of Sutton Bassett Parish Meeting. The LGBCE proposal takes no account of the needs or aspirations of our community and I fully support the points made to you in Bernard's email to you dated 25th July. I am sure that if you have contacted the whole of the rural area, there will be no support for the proposal put forward by LGBCE, but full support for you, your and NCCs views on this matter.

Best Wishes and Good Luck,

Michael

From: Pauline Shaw [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 26 July 2012 12:28

To: Jim Harker

Subject: RE: Draft Electoral Recommendations for Kettering Borough

Dear Jim,

Thank you for this. My Chairman, Graham Garratt receivede an e-mail from Kettering recently and he has responded to the effect that this parish support the NCC recommendation - which we had agreed at a meeting back in February.

Please let me know if there is anything further we can do.

Yours Pauline

From: Bernard Rengger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 July 2012 17:09 To: Jim Harker Subject: Re: Draft Electoral Recommendations for Kettering Borough

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your e mail , within Sutton Bassett I have already sought the views of residents and replied to Paul Hanson , the following is our view on the changes as you will see they are very negative and anything NCC can do to reverse these proosals will get our full support

Bernard Rengger

Dear Paul,

14 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

From discussions held with members of Sutton Bassett parish meeting I can report that Sutton Bassett Parish meeting are unanimous in their rejection of the proposals by the LGBCE and fully support the proposals by NCC. The main reasons behind this stance are as follows.

1. The size and location of the villages along the Welland valley means that our needs and priorities are very different to a town like Desborough. This can easily be illustrated by village priorities such as transport to the towns ( principle ) and the needs of the elderly in isolated communities compared with the priorities of Desborough being development of the town and the town centre , leisure facilities and policing to control unsociable behaviour.

2.The total number of residents in all the villages is far below the number of residents in Desborough so it is highly likely that in any election candidates who focus on Desborough will be elected effectively disenfranchising the village population. In short if the LGBCE proposals are accepted democracy as far as the villages are concerned will be history.

Bernard Rengger

Chair to Sutton Bassett parish meeting

From: Leigh Parkin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 August 2012 00:20 To: Paul Hanson Subject: Changes to NCC's electoral boundaries

Dear Mr Hanson

You recently sent an email to a number of parish councils regarding the draft recommendations by The Local Government Boundary Commission for England re: Electoral Review of Northamptonshire. I appreciate that you did not send this email to Desborough Town Council, however, Desborough Town Council at its’ meeting last week voted (by a majority vote) in support of the NCC proposal.

Regards, Leigh

Mrs Leigh Parkin

15 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

From: Leigh Parkin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 August 2012 23:50 To: Paul Hanson Subject: RE: Changes to Northamptonshire County Council's electoral boundaries

Dear Mr Hanson

I write to confirm that Stoke Albany Parish Council has written to the Local Government Boundary Commission supporting Northamptonshire County Council's proposals. Stoke Albany Parish Council commented that it believes it is imperative rural areas are represented by a dedicated Rural County Councillor.

Regards, Leigh

Mrs Leigh Parkin Clerk to Stoke Albany Parish Council 55 Union Street Desborough Northants NN14 2RH Tel: 01536 506021

16 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL

BURTON LATIMER TOWN COUNCIL

Clerk: Mr George Sneddon MA, DMS 14 Skeffington Close Review Officer (Northamptonshire) Geddington, Kettering Local Government Boundary Commission Northamptonshire. For England NN14 1BA Layden House Tel: Home: 01536 743219 76-86 Turnmill Street Mobile: 07732331946 London Email: [email protected] EC1M 5LG Town Mayor: Councillor Christopher Groome Tel: Home: 01536 420440 Mobile 07973638742 Email: [email protected]

08 August 2012

Dear Sir,

Electoral Review of Northamptonshire: Draft Recommendations

Further to the above and your letter of 19 June 2012, I write to inform you that Burton Latimer Town Council feels strongly that the Burton Division should include only Burton Latimer, Broughton and Pytchley.

The Town Council considers that there is no community shared interest with Cransley and Thorpe Malsor.

The Town Council looks forward to its views being reflected in the Commission’s final recommendations.

Yours Sincerely,

George Sneddon MA; DMS; MCIPD; Grad. IMS; CiLCA Clerk to the Town Council

c.c. P. Hanson (NCC Committee Manager, Resources)

17 NCC Response to draft Electoral Arrangements FINAL