N:\Reports\Derby\Derby.Wpd [PFP#512558392]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Derby City Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions June 2001 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 city of Derby. Members of the Commission are: Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman) Professor Michael Clarke CBE (Deputy Chairman) Peter Brokenshire Kru Desai Pamela Gordon Robin Gray Robert Hughes CBE Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive) © Crown Copyright 2001. 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. This report is printed on recycled paper. Report no: 228 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 7 4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9 5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11 6 NEXT STEPS 25 APPENDICES A Draft Recommendations for Derby (January 2001) 27 B Code of Practice on Written Consultation 29 A large map illustrating the proposed ward boundaries for Derby is inserted inside the back cover of the report. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England 26 June 2001 Dear Secretary of State On 27 June 2000 the Commission began a periodic electoral review of Derby under the Local Government Act 1992. We published our draft recommendations in January 2001 and undertook an eight-week period of consultation. We have now prepared our final recommendations in the light of the consultation. We have substantially confirmed our draft recommendations, although some modifications have been made (see paragraph 79-80) in the light of further evidence. This report sets out our final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in Derby. We recommend that Derby City Council should be served by 51 councillors representing 17 wards, and that changes should be made to ward boundaries in order to improve electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria. We recommend that the Council should continue to hold elections by thirds. The Local Government Act 2000 contains provisions relating to changes to local authority electoral arrangements. However, until such time as Orders are made implementing those arrangements we are obliged to conduct our work in accordance with current legislation, and to continue our current approach to periodic electoral reviews. I would like to thank members and officers of the City 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 Derby on 27 June 2000. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements on 9 January 2001, after which we undertook an eight-week period of consultation. • This report summarises the representations we received during consultation on our draft recommendations, and contains our final recommendations to the Secretary of State. We found that the existing electoral arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in Derby: • in 10 of the 20 wards the number of electors represented by each councillor varies by more than 10 per cent from the average for the city, and six wards vary by more than 20 per cent from the average; • by 2005 this unequal representation is not expected to improve, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average in 13 wards and by more than 20 per cent in eight wards. Our main final recommendations for future electoral arrangements (Figures 1 and 2 and paragraphs 79-80) are that: • Derby City Council should have 51 councillors, seven more than at present; • there should be 17 wards, instead of 20 as at present; • the boundaries of all of the existing wards should be modified, resulting in a net reduction of three; • elections should continue to take place by thirds. These recommendations seek to ensure that the number of electors represented by each city councillor is as nearly as possible the same, having regard to local circumstances. • In 16 of the proposed 17 wards the number of electors per councillor would vary by less than 10 per cent from the city average. • This improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue, with the number of electors per councillor in all wards expected to vary by less than 10 per cent from the average for the city in 2005. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii All further correspondence on these recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who will not make an Order implementing the Commission’s recommendations before 6 August 2001: The Secretary of State Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Local Government Sponsorship Division Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary Ward name Number of Constituent areas councillors 1 Abbey 3 Abbey ward (part); Kingsway ward (part); Litchurch ward (part); Littleover ward (part) 2 Allestree 3 Allestree ward (part); Darley ward (part) 3 Alvaston 3 Alvaston ward (part); Litchurch ward (part); Osmaston ward (part) 4 Arboretum 3 Abbey ward (part); Babington ward (part); Darley ward (part); Derwent ward (part); Litchurch ward (part); Sinfin ward (part) 5 Blagreaves 3 Blagreaves ward (part); Normanton ward (part) 6 Boulton 3 Boulton ward (part); Chellaston ward (part); Osmaston ward (part) 7 Chaddesden 3 Alvaston ward (part); Breadsall ward (part); Chaddesden ward (part); Derwent ward (part) 8 Chellaston 3 Boulton ward (part); Chellaston ward (part) 9 Darley 3 Abbey ward (part); Allestree ward (part); Breadsall ward (part); Darley ward (part); Derwent ward (part) 10 Derwent 3 Breadsall ward (part); Derwent ward (part) 11 Littleover 3 Blagreaves ward (part); Kingsway ward (part); Littleover ward (part); Mickleover ward (part) 12 Mackworth 3 Abbey ward (part); Kingsway ward (part); Mackworth ward 13 Mickleover 3 Kingsway ward (part); Littleover ward (part); Mickleover ward (part) 14 Normanton 3 Babington ward (part); Blagreaves ward (part); Littleover ward (part); Normanton ward (part); Sinfin ward (part) 15 Oakwood 3 Breadsall ward (part) 16 Sinfin 3 Litchurch ward (part); Osmaston ward (part); Sinfin ward (part) 17 Spondon 3 Alvaston ward (part); Chaddesden ward (part); Spondon ward Notes: 1 The whole city is unparished. 2 The large map in the back of the report illustrates the proposed wards outlined above. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix Figure 2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Derby Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number of Variance of (2000) of electors from (2005) electors from councillors per average per average councillor % councillor % 1 Abbey 3 10,210 3,403 1 10,233 3,411 -1 2 Allestree 3 10,806 3,602 7 10,883 3,628 6 3 Alvaston 3 10,474 3,491 3 10,422 3,474 1 4 Arboretum 3 10,394 3,465 3 10,367 3,456 1 5 Blagreaves 3 9,529 3,176 -6 9,636 3,212 -6 6 Boulton 3 10,310 3,437 2 10,234 3,411 0 7 Chaddesden 3 10,399 3,466 3 10,319 3,440 0 8 Chellaston 3 9,210 3,070 -9 10,177 3,392 -1 9 Darley 3 10,501 3,500 4 10,727 3,576 4 10 Derwent 3 10,082 3,361 0 10,104 3,368 -2 11 Littleover 3 8,971 2,990 -11 10,682 3,561 4 12 Mackworth 3 10,259 3,420 1 10,427 3,476 1 13 Mickleover 3 11,188 3,729 10 11,137 3,712 8 14 Normanton 3 10,453 3,484 3 10,402 3,467 1 15 Oakwood 3 9,739 3,246 -4 9,807 3,269 -5 16 Sinfin 3 9,888 3,296 -2 9,871 3,290 -4 17 Spondon 3 9,732 3,244 -4 9,394 3,131 -9 Totals 51 172,145 – – 174,822 – – Averages – – 3,375 – – 3,428 – Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Derby City 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 city. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1 INTRODUCTION 1 This report contains our final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Derby City. Our programme started in 1996 and is currently expected to be completed by 2004. 2 This was our first review of the electoral arrangements of Derby. The last such review was undertaken by our predecessor, the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC), which reported to the Secretary of State in February 1977 (Report No. 233). Since undertaking that review, Derby has become a unitary authority (1997). The change in unitary status has led to the loss of 20 county councillors, reducing the total number of councillors for Derby from 64 to 44. 3 In undertaking these reviews, we have had regard to: • the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992, ie the need to: (a) reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and (b) secure effective and convenient local government; • the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements contained in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972.