Northamptonshire County Council Further Electoral Review Comments on LGBCE Draft Divisional Arrangements (Stage 3) Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) August 2012 FINAL Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Support for the Council’s proposal ................................................................................. 4 2. Kettering Borough ................................................................................................................ 5 3. Wellingborough .................................................................................................................. 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. Corby Borough ii. Daventry District iii. East Northamptonshire District iv. Northampton Borough v. South Northamptonshire 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, Daventry District, 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) : Sutton Bassett Parish Weston By Welland Parish Council Desborough Town Council Stoke Albany Parish Council Burton Latimer 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 Brampton Ash Wilbarston (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