Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on Warding Arrangements for Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2017 Cheshire West Labour 1. Introduction 1.1 As part of the review being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (“the Commission”) into both Council Size and Warding Arrangements within Cheshire West and Chester Council (“the Council”) the Commission has determined, in a letter to the Chief Executive of the Council dated 28th March 2017 to recommend that the number of elected Members should be reduced to 69. 1.2 The Commission published this recommendation following a consultation process. 1.3 This recommendation provides for a Councillor to electorate ration of 1 : 4085 1.4 The next phase of this Review is to determine a pattern of Warding Arrangements. 1.5 This submission is made by Cheshire West Labour comprising the Cheshire West and Chester Labour Group and the Chester West and Chester Local Campaign Forum as part of that determination process. 1.6 This document should be considered alongside the Council Size submission made by Cheshire West Labour in May 2017. 1.7 The intention of this submission is to assist the Commission in reaching its determination on the pattern of Warding Arrangements and the following statutory criteria has been adopted and considered throughout: Delivering electoral equality for local voters. We have sought to ensure that each local councillor represents roughly the same number of people. This provides for a system where every person’s vote achieves the same value. In the context of this submission, as mentioned above, we are seeking to establish an elected member to electorate ratio of 1 : 4085. Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities. This is intended to establish electoral arrangements where, as far as possible, local ties are maintained and where Ward boundaries are easily recognised. Promoting effective and convenient local government. We have set out to ensure that the proposed Wards are represented effectively and that the proposed electoral arrangements, as a whole, allow Cheshire West and Chester Council to conduct its business effectively. 1.8 It is noted that Cheshire West and Chester Council hold “all out” elections on a four yearly cycle. 1.9 Cheshire West Labour seeks to adopt a pattern of Wards that establishes a principle of single member wards wherever possible, as we believe that under an “all out” elections system, this is the best way to ensure that every elector has an equal say in the political make-up of the Council; and that it provides communities with a clear single accountable person to serve as their voice and their representative. 1.10 It is recognised and accepted that in order to comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 that single member wards are not always possible. To that end, we have proposed three two-member wards. No three-member wards have been proposed, as they are clearly inappropriate for an “all out” electoral system. LGBCE Cheshire West and Chester 2019 Review – Cheshire West Labour Submission 2 2. Background 2.1 The background to this proposal of single member wards is complex. It has its origins in the 19th century and the creation of elected local government. 2.2 Under the Municipal Corporation Act 1835 newly created boroughs had three member wards with elections every year when a third of members retired. 2.3 This was determined not to be the best way of operation and under the Local Government Act 1888 new counties were divided into single member wards with all members retiring every three years. 2.4 The Local Government Act 1894 created urban and rural district councils. These were a hybrid of multi- member wards and whole council elections or elections by thirds. 2.5 This system has been strongly criticised by a number of reviews. In particular the Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government 1967 (the Maud Committee), the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England 1969 (the Redcliffe-Maud Committee), the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland 1969 (the Wheatley Commission) and the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Authority Business (the Widdicombe Report). 2.6 Indeed the Wheatley Commission made recommendations that were followed in full in Scotland and introduced single member wards with all out elections every four years. 2.7 Furthermore a recommendation of the Widdicombe Report was that there should be a single councillor for every electoral ward. 2.8 In support of the concept of single member wards multi-member Parliamentary seats were abolished in the 19th century. 2.9 Single member wards provide a strong link between the member and their constituents. The electorate have a single person to whom they can go to with problems. There is no danger of members shuffling difficult problems onto each other or alternatively of seeking to compete with each other for kudos. 2.10 There is also some evidence that single member wards encourage higher turn-outs. LGBCE Cheshire West and Chester 2019 Review – Cheshire West Labour Submission 3 3. Considerations 3.1 Although our objective is to achieve perfect electoral equality for all Wards we recognise and accept that this cannot exactly be achieved across every Ward. 3.2 Any such variance reflects the interests and identities of local communities and provides for effective and convenient local government. 3.3 In those very few Wards in which we seek to have two Members this is a result of geographical features that determine that two adjoining Wards have a member to electorate ratio that sits outside an acceptable variance and cannot be resolved without the division of established community ties. 3.4 In establishing the Wards within this document we have given full consideration that these proposals reflect the interests and identities of local communities and indeed many of the proposed Wards remain almost wholly unchanged from existing boundaries and where Wards are divided they do so along strong and established lines of community ties and interests. 3.5 In considering community ties and interests we have given proper consideration to: Transport links – particularly so when we have proposed the joining of nearby villages. Community groups – these include the nature of the groups represented and their functions and purpose and whether a Ward boundary precludes or prevents their effective continuance, particularly so when these groups transverse geographical areas and attract members from far afield. Facilities – such facilities to include shops, leisure and medical centres, schools and libraries. Consideration is also given as to how important these are viewed as being focal points within communities. Identifiable boundaries – these include rivers and open spaces as well as constructions such as major road and railways, including disused railways. These also include established housing estates that incorporate publically and privately owned properties that of themselves have become uniquely recognised as being a distinct community. Parishes – In areas within the borough that have established Parishes and where these Parish Boundaries represent the extent of a community these have been reflected in this submission. In some cases the Parish itself has been divided into distinct Wards within Town or Parish Councils. These Wards have been used to facilitate the division of existing multi-member Wards. Shared Interests – whilst a consideration within this submission such interests are reflected within other more persuasive community ties and often transverse over many existing Wards and cannot be accounted for in any pattern of Warding Arrangements. 3.6 The Council operates on a four yearly cycle of “all out” elections. 3.7 It is the view of Cheshire West Labour that the most effective and convenient manner of achieving the best possible local representation is to have a pattern of single member Wards. This view is supported by the Widdicombe Report 1986 which itself builds upon earlier reviews. Nothing has changed in the intervening years. 3.8 In having, wherever possible, single member wards every voter will have an equal opportunity to influence the make-up of the Council at each election. It will also afford the opportunity for a more diverse view of representation to be present. 3.9 In striving to achieve this it is accepted that within this Council there has to be three two-member Wards these split over three of the Parliamentary Constituencies that operate within the Council boundary. LGBCE Cheshire West and Chester 2019 Review – Cheshire West Labour Submission 4 3.10 No proposed Ward is too large geographically so that is difficult for any Councillor to represent. Similarly no proposed Ward is too small so as not to be able to contribute to the wider business of the Council. 3.11 We have not sought to create any ‘doughnut’ Wards nor are there any proposals for detached Wards. 3.12 Within our submission we are seeking to change the names of a number of existing Wards. 3.13 These changes are consistent in approach and have been done to reflect the communities contained within the proposed Wards. We have sought to reflect in the name a physical or geographical feature within that Ward or adopt a Town or Parish Ward name. 3.14 Each proposed name is not lengthy and can easily be recognised by local people. 3.15 We have not sought the Commission to consider any history or tradition as part of this submission. We accept, that whilst these may form a solid basis for an argument of community identity we acknowledge that communities change over time and perceptions can vary between individuals as to the nature and extent of these ties.