2017
Kingston-Upon-Hull Local Government Boundary Review
Conservative and Unionist Group Response
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
INTRODUCTION
The Conservative Group welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Local Government Boundary Commission’s (LGBCE hereafter) proposals. We may also spend some time commenting on other proposals put forward by other political groups, but feel the main thrust of our remarks on the consultation should be around the LGBCE proposals. Our commentary, like our initial proposals, is based around adherence to the three main tenets of the LGBCE as highlighted on their website:-
“The aim of the electoral review is to recommend ward boundaries that mean each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters. We also aim to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities as well as promoting effective local government.”1
To further highlight the key criteria for drawing up wards which we will refer back to throughout this submission document, they are to:
1 ensure each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters 2 ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities 3 promote effective local government
We have also adhered, as far as possible, to our belief that railway lines and dual carriageways are major constraints on identifying a community. Traditionally, canals and rivers are also seen as natural barriers and we feel we need to turn a little to the subject of the river – a topic that greatly exercises the minds of Hullensians.
In cities such as York, Dublin, Belfast, and London the rivers are substantial and although the Ouse and Thames are crossed frequently by major bridges it is still a considerable barrier to traverse. On rivers such as the Tyne, also exuberantly spanned by several iconic bridges, they have even been a barrier in that neither Newcastle nor Gateshead as communities actually span the River Tyne. However in Hull, the River Humber is wide enough that Hull never expanded southwards but, for all the cultural identification amongst sports fans who follow Rugby League, and for other cultural reasons, there is a clear mental divide in the City between the community west of the River Hull and the community east of it. However, even at its widest point in the estuary, the now heavily silted up River Hull still traversed by many bridges2 has been of negligible an obstruction to the development of the City. The City has continued, by organic growth or absorption, to expand in a semi-circle with the loosely vertical axis of the River Hull not shewing a marked difference of development either side.
We recognise that the LGBCE, the Liberal Democrats, and ourselves in our initial submission have all said they regard the River Hull as a barrier but read with interest the Labour Party’s contrary opinion, and of course recognise that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission (BC) at the last
1 From the Local Government Boundary Commission. Accessed from https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current- reviews/yorkshire-and-the-humber/kingston-upon-hull/kingston-upon-hull on 4th March 2017 at 11.04am 2 There are sixteen bridges in total that cross there River Hull, three of which are in Beverley, and a further one of which is no longer in use.
1 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 reorganisation3 included wards east of the River as part of the Hull North seat. The Labour Party’s suggestion of high car ownership in the north of the proposed Beverley and Sculcoates Ward is of course incontrovertible but nobody would suggest a car would be a tool to merely cross a dual carriageway. We did, on reflection however, consider that developments on the outskirts of Hull posed a serious challenge to the traditional assumptions.
Building a large residential community on the outskirts of a City, some five miles away from the City Centre4, and making sure the community has a large retail park with upmarket retailers,5 school, and café facilities all to hand, is tantamount to building a town adjacent to that City. When the new development is built next to a middle-class residential community such as is at the northern end of Beverley Ward and both communities are united by housing tenure, economic activity and reliance on the car, then they are also going to be united by the retail offer. From Mizzen Road, in the top end of Beverley ward, it is 1.8 miles to the Marks and Spencer at Kingswood where there is free parking and a range of retail offer available; or from the same place to Marks and Spencer on Whitefriargate in the City Centre it is 3.9 miles with no adjacent car parking, no free car parking, and a retail offer that cannot be held to be indubitably better, if undoubtedly a bit wider. It is not unreasonable for us to say that, in cases like this, and where the River Hull really is very narrow, there is a community of interest. Indeed 21,000 vehicle movements a day6 would suggest that the river was not seen as an impediment in this area although, were both communities of Kingswood and northern Beverley Ward to be of low car-ownership this idea would have no traction at all as there are some fields between the two communities7 which would inhibit the casual “have a cuppa”8 test.
In circumstances such as this we note that the river, at its narrowest point, with a purpose built residential/amenity/retail/employment offer immediately adjacent to a pre-existing community of stakeholders reflecting a similar demographic and much nearer than the similar offer in the City Centre cannot surely be held to be a major obstacle? We note that the Liberal Democrats say it is,9 in defiance of the last Boundary Commission settlement for the Parliamentary Constituency but are a little askance to read the Liberal Democrats have a different view when it comes to Parliamentary proposals this time round. Whilst we understand the Boundary Commission and LGBCE are doing separate reviews, and are empowered to do so, it does seem strange that Dave McCobb10 should say to the Boundary Commission,
3 “The Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies” 2007 4 4.9 miles from The Pines at Kingswood to Ferensway in the City Centre 5 Whilst the Kingswood retail park has no formal website, please see their entry on “Completely Retail”, accessed from https://completelyretail.co.uk/portfolio/LegalAndGeneral/scheme/Kingswood-Retail-Park-Hull on 5th March 2017. 6 According to statistics from the Department for Transport’s count data from the A1033 Ennerdale bridge. 7 Largely unused and widely believed to be waiting for the next residential expansion of Hull. 8 Loosely: the idea that someone will randomly step outside their property and go to another friend, not knowing if they are in or not, but living so close it is not a major impediment or inconvenience to an unplanned act. 9 From the Liberal Democrat submission to the LGBCE’s 2016/17 review, accessed from https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/31297/LibDems-PG-Hull-2016-10-28_combined- files.pdf on 1st March 2017. 10 City Councillor for the existing Beverley ward and the main instigator of their 2016/17 submissions to the LGBCE
2 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
“….It [the proposed Hull Central Constituency] also brings together the City Centre in one constituency by putting Drypool and Myton wards into one constituency. Parts of Drypool ward are recognised as being parts of the City Centre.”11
So, at the widest part of the River it is not seen, by Liberal Democrats, as a community cohesion barrier, in a part of the city where car ownership and population are low and the greatest part of the car owning population to the east of the river in Drypool is in the Victoria Dock village south of the A63; but it is a barrier in two similar demographics at the narrowest part of the river?
Furthermore the phrase, “Parts of Drypool ward are recognised as being parts of the City Centre.” is disingenuous in the extreme. As a glance at the map reference12 shews it is hard to escape the conclusion that political considerations are leading to a duality of message on this point from one Party.
The statement of Kevin Morton13, a significant employee of Diana Johnson MP, on this topic is also interesting.
“The Commission [the Parliamentary one] is arguing because of one new river crossing in the City Centre this somehow overcomes physically the divide. That is contentious to say the least. I do not think there has been in the City Centre any greater feeling of oneness between the East and West banks of the River Hull in the city, than there was, say, ten years ago. …although we would argue that as the river flows away from tributary with the Humber it becomes thinner and arguably less important.”14
However this may well be a debate for the future and, because of the LGBCE proposals around Kingswood we are not inclined to adumbrate such an argument in this submission.
We also reaffirm our commitment to the concept of four yearly elections and single member Wards of around 3,000 each. We note with pleasure that only one Group is now resolutely opposed to promoting effective local government by ensuring electors can categorically reject an Administration and ensuring a sensible time-frame to allow policy development. However, the support of the smallest Group on the City Council and slightly less than half of one of the others, as well as it not being a matter for the LGBCE, means we recognise that boat has sailed.
Another boat that has sailed is the idea of one member Wards with some 3,000 electors. There is no logical reason why Local Government on a four year cycle needs a three member Ward of some 9,000 voters. Our initial submission flagged up how much easier it is to be promoting effective local government when it is possible to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities when we included some single member Wards. By settling on a seemingly arbitrary figure of three member Wards, rather than say four member, it becomes necessary to often consider an artificial imposition of local communities and we truly believe smaller
11 Boundary Commission for England, “Proceedings at the 2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies in England held at Mercure Hull Royal Hotel Hull” 24th October 2016 (Day One) before John Feavyour, the Lead Assistant Commissioner. Transcribed from the Audio by WB Gurney & Sons LLP, London p6 12 Although drawn from the Consultation Document “Hull Local Plan to 2030 Issues and options Consultation Document April/May 2014” (because it was all I had to hand in the right format) this is the Council’s statutorily recognised definition of the City Centre and comes from P39. The area east of the River, largely an empty development site, is certainly but an exceptionally small part of Drypool ward – and contains a statistically irrelevant percentage of the population to boot. 13 Boundary Commission for England Op Cit. 14 Ibid p.17
3 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 units make it easier to reflect community identities. Nevertheless we recognise that in this Boundary Review, single-member Wards are no longer an option and we have therefore revisited our initial proposals, welcoming the flexibility opened up by the LGBCE’s willingness to consider less of a one- size fits all strait-jacket. We have not set out to have a set number of two- or three- member wards but, whilst guided by the criteria that each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters, we have also placed great weight on promoting effective local government by avoiding tensions within a Ward to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities. In a City, and indeed in a democracy, there are always tensions between different communities: well-managed they can be the spark that promotes ideas, compromise and the birth of new ideas and movements. However, it is impossible to have that creative dialogue, championed by the representative of that community who has been elected, when that Councillor is not only engaged in arguing the corner of their community, but has to engage in an inevitable and institutional clash within the community they represent simply because their ward is not drawn up as a cohesive community.
We also do not revisit the final number of Councillors. Hull has been hovering around the 60 councillors for decades, there seems little point in straining at a gnat when there is a clear consensus and one elected place variance over such a large figure is statistically irrelevant. We have therefore embraced the LGBCE’s figure.
We also do not accept it is necessarily a good thing that “all boundaries are changed” as the LGBCE announces. We are supportive of the LGBCE’s long established policy of the minimum change needed to achieve number equality; there is very much to be said for governance stability as well, particularly when many communities feel alienated from the political process driving down democratic engagement.
Finally we express our disappointment that the City Council has been unable to come up with a consensus, or even a qualified majority consensus in certain parts, to respond officially which we feel does not send out a strong message about promoting effective local government. Having been involved in the previous reviews of 1979, 2001, and the current review, this failure is all the more startling. We have held ourselves ready to meet since the first meeting, and have been particularly vigorous since the LGBCE responded, in trying to get a meeting. To say one Party has been tardy, and the ex-UKIP (now Independent) member has been wholly absent, is not unfair; and the categoric almost desperate avoidance of any form of public debate in the Council Chamber even has been especially marked. As could be expected from the smallest Group on the Council, our elected position does not represent clashes across the whole City so most of the obduracy and discussion was shaped by the two larger groups and compromise was always tantalisingly close but would fall down around one sometimes changing small area. It remains unclear to us why a submission around the points we did agree on has not emerged but we were not invited to the last meeting between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, a meeting which also seemed to see a hardening of attitude towards our narrowest position by the only large Group that had at least been prepared to discuss something other than their own view on it. It is hard to escape the conclusion, as one of my senior colleagues put it, that the LGBCE proposal, at the stroke of a pen and without a vote cast made such a material change to the balance of the council that one Party had a definite reason not to wish to see much change.15
For these reasons it has been necessary to revisit some of our proposals. Revisiting them should not be taken as abandoning, merely an acknowledgment that we recognise we are in an
15 I am not naming names – the discussions we had should be under the Chatham House rule in my book, but I ask you to believe this was said.
4 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 iterative process and this is the negotiation phase of the Review. We therefore assume it can be taken as read we were fully behind our proposals, but now that we have had the chance to see other ideas, and because this is the time to be able to comment, it would not be helpful to take an obdurate stance.
5 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
EAST HULL
It follows that we naturally believe our initial proposals had much to commend them, and in many cases they might be thought to be our position. However we recognise that this is an iterative process so any proposed changes from our initial position should be seen as welcoming the wider input, and not necessarily in any way suggesting that, at the time we drew them up and on the basis of information to hand then, they were not strong proposals. We have also prioritised commentary on the proposals of the LGBCE. It is not entirely easy to comment on the proposals by the other two Groups on the City Council because often what we proposed was not like the LGBCE’s proposals. This would result in a very cumbersome document if described ward by ward, and a lengthy one if we commented on every single proposal in three different sets of proposals. However at times it will be necessary to comment on arguments proffered by others most especially when they seem materially misleading.
KINGSWOOD
We fully welcome the proposals from the LGBCE for Kingswood. They reflect what we had first roughly attempted to create for the Kingswood ward, but we had not managed to make the ward boundaries work to contain the right number of voters to meet the LGBCE’s criteria for variance which has caused the need for a boundary review in the first place.
The LCGBE proposals fully recognise that the Kingswood development has grown enough not to require the addition of alien communities grafted on from Sutton Park and which destroyed the integrity of that latter community. With the caveat proposed in the general introduction about the River Hull in general terms, we recognise the sense of the Western boundary and whilst we think Raich Carter Way in its entirety would represent a better southern boundary, we recognise that Gibraltar Way and the “Dams streets” off it to the south do not sit especially well in either of the larger communities to their north and east. We therefore would not feel a need to die in a ditch where the “Gibraltar et al” community reside but recognise the numbers sit better with the LGBCE proposals.
The eastern boundary of Kesteven Way is strongly supported. There are those who would argue that all houses contained between the loop formed by Kesteven way and Wawne Road and to the south of South Field are part of Kingswood, and in terms of the time they were built that is broadly true. However we agree with the LGBCE in what we assume to be their reasoning that these houses, in the “South of South Field sack”, have no other similarity to the newer phases of Kingswood and Kesteven Way is indeed a natural barrier.
The flexibility inherent in not tying to a straight-jacket of “three member only”, and placing a weighting on community, means we agree that keeping this a two member ward is a stronger proposal than again making the Kingswood Ward less of a Kingswood Community through grafting on extra communities to once again “make up the numbers”. It was necessary when the Estate was newer and less built up - it is not necessary now and avoids diluting other communities nearby.
6 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
We did not agree with the Liberal Democrat proposals16 which we felt clearly failed in promoting effective local government because they actually did not ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities. Whilst agreeing with the argument that Sutton Park should be a united community17 we rejected the view that Kingswood residents went in any appreciable numbers to Ennerdale for shopping18 which is a retail offer on a wholly different scale to Kingswood19; any such movement would be stronger the other way and thereby be a rather one- sided view of community cohesion. With the sole exception of the Ennerdale Leisure Centre the leisure offer on Kingswood is also of an equally imbalanced scale with that at Ennerdale.20
Had there been any meaningful discussion before initial proposals were submitted we may have shewn some interest in the initial Labour proposals. However, as explained elsewhere, whilst we have an emerging sympathy, still short of full-blown agreement, with the idea the River Hull is more permeable at this point we recognise that the idea has insufficient traction at the current stage in this Boundary Review.
WEST CARR
Again we recognise the strength of the LGBCE proposals for this ward.
The northern boundary of Bude Road/John Newton Way makes sense and, subject to the caveat at “Kingswood” above about the Gibraltar Way enclave, we think the Western boundary of the River Hull and Thomas Clarkson Way makes eminent sense. Incidentally we would not see an even theoretical chance in any future Boundary review of making the River a permeable boundary at this point – the connections between Sutton Park and the “Ghost estate”21 are nebulous and far less clear than the same estate has with Kingswood.
The southern boundary of Sutton Road makes eminent sense and reflects the City Council’s original, and sustained, plan for having the Sutton Fields industrial park separate from the local residences but obviously within easy commuting distance.
The eastern boundary of Holwell Road, Barnstaple Road, and Wawne Road makes sense in terms of the roads’ status within the City although we do recognise that the inclusion of part of Bransholme in this new Ward may lead to suggestions of breaking up a community.
16 The Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p59 17 Ibid p59 18 Ibid p59 19 Kingswood has an Asda Superstore, Marks and Spencer, Matalan, Boots, Next, in fact most of the large retailers, with most units being medium or larger, that you would expect in an out of town development built in the last few decades. Sutton Park has convenience offers, and is more heavily residential as you would expect of an older estate. 20 At Kingswood there is an entertainment complex with a cinema and numerous dining options. At Sutton Park there are not. 21 The “newest” development in the general vicinity of the Rising Sun pub and containing such streets as Mizzen Road, Capstan Road etc. Sometimes referred to as the Trafalgar estate but, as so often in Hull, one area has several names!
7 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
In fact one of the biggest problems in Hull, in certain policy areas anyway, is this idea of “The Bransholme Estate” and it being the “biggest council estate in Europe”22. Nevertheless, in such cross- party discussions as took place on this matter recently at least one representative from each Group present argued that “Bransholme” was in fact several communities lumped under one genetic description and often reflecting the phases of construction. There was even some agreement which communities were which! Certainly the element of Bransholme in this proposed Ward is recognisably tied together by an ability to easily walk to “Bransholme Centre” or “North Point” – though it should be owned that the pull of the centre is a considerably larger area and indeed even transcends any known definition of “Bransholme”.
This proposal also reflects one of our priorities which was to restore the integrity of Sutton Park Estate which was, and it was the only possible decision at the time, artificially divided because Kingswood had not developed enough at that point. We therefore strongly support that inclusion within this Ward.
NORTH CARR
Having accepted the LGBCE’s proposals in respect of Kingswood and West Carr it makes sense to endorse the proposals here which largely complete the topmost triangle of the area East of the River Hull and on the north of the City.
The validity of the Western boundary, and our agreement to it, has already been highlighted earlier. The Northern boundary, along with the Eastern, is clearly apposite reflecting as it does the current boundary of the City.
The Southern boundary makes sense entering from Castlehill Road, and running down Noddle Hill Way but we recognise there may be a degree of contention whether the boundary uses Wawne Road or goes up Midmere Avenue and where it is drawn around the cricket club.
We also welcome the recognition that the Garths are a community within the rather more generic “Bransholme”. Keeping the Garths together is sensible and reflects perceptions on the ground by such as the Garths Residents and Tenants Association.23
SUTTON
Again we offer broad support for this proposal. At its heart the LGBCE proposals recognise the core of Sutton Village which clearly is, despite having been absorbed by Hull for so long, still very much a village with a sense of a community unlike any other part of Hull.
22 This claim is now open to doubt Dagenham’s Becontree estate being larger but it may once have been true and is certainly a “fact” still widely peddled locally 23 Created in 2007. Accessed from: http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,674011&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_id=818&p_ month=&p_page_number=&content=pressrelease&p_mode=result&p_theme=2&p_theme_name=Communit y%20and%20living on 5th March 2017 at 3.12pm
8 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
The use of Castlehill Road for the largely North-western boundary has been commented on earlier and the North-Eastern boundary being the current city boundary requires no further comment.
The South-Western boundary relying on Cavendish Road and Sutton Road makes eminent sense and whilst we recognise there may be arguments for including all the “London” Streets in one community and drawing the line down the Western side of the Ings Recreation Park rather than Wembley Park Avenue the persistent and recurring obduracy on this topic during our few meetings leads me to believe there is a Party political imperative here as well and we are not willing to side with either Group in a ward that is indeed finely balanced. Since the line down Wembley Park Road neither favours one Group or another in its entirety, therefore meaning the LGBCE cannot plausibly be accused of partisanship, we are inclined to leave the matter on the table as is.
We note the initial proposals from both Groups largely sought to maintain the integrity of “Sutton” and that is a principle we too reflected. The problem for us all is there is no clear agreement, beyond Sutton Village itself, which of the rest of the area truly belong to Sutton. Some of the immediately adjacent communities may well reflect the feeling they are part of, if not historic Sutton Village, the environs that set it in context, but go beyond that area and the feeling is more nebulous and harder to define. We are therefore content to accept the LGBCE proposals but are relaxed should there be any mutually agreeable “tweaks”.
HOLDERNESS
For all that the ward name has survived a number of Boundary Reviews it is hard to say there is a clear identity to Holderness ward – in any of its earlier or proposed incarnations. We can understand why the Liberal Democrats proposed retaining it in the existing format24, but can see why Labour also proposed changes to the ward. Surrounded by communities with a clearer identity, away from the heart of Holderness Ward which does indeed have social cohesion, it is hard not to agree with the Liberal Democrats who claim the ward “…satisfactorily represents a number of different communities”.25 So whether the subjective term “satisfactorily” is enough to alter perceptions as other stronger communities are identified is moot and since we too took a “balancing” view of this ward we can support the LGBCE proposals.
The current proposals for Holderness seem to reflect a ward with no clear identity: a large Industrial Estate (Sutton Fields), and a very large park occupy some half of the total area of the Ward with three proposed population clusters: the area to the north of, and including, James Reckitt Avenue; the area adjoining the Park on three sides, and then Garden Village. It is not immediately clear to us that Garden Village in any way looks towards East Park, although as we said in our original submission it is equally unclear that Garden Village belongs in Drypool over and above it has been welded into a community since the last boundary review. The argument by Labour that the gardens and house size of Garden Village has some traction with properties in the residential areas of Holderness does have a certain qualified appeal, but it is not clear to us that Garden Village has significantly more in common with Holderness than it does with parts of Drypool. The character of
24 The Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p55 25 Ibid p55
9 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
Garden Village is such that it is rather unique in itself – and again may benefit from smaller ward community boundaries.
It is also unclear why the boundary is not along Chamberlain Road rather than a rather arbitrary looking line connecting into Stoneferry Road along a line people would be hard placed to point to on the ground.
However we can live with the current proposal although when there is unclear a case for change our natural instinct is to favour the status quo and on the topic of the name we agree with the LGBCE that, charming and distinct as Garden Village is whichever ward it is in it does not form a large enough part to be included in a ward name. Were people minded to go for our leaner proposal that all wards were clearer and more manageable communities with a clearer identity if they had but one member per ward of roughly 3000 people then of course Garden Village would have more chance to emerge like a butterfly from the chrysalis on the leaf in the garden, but until then we agree with the LGBCE.
DRYPOOL
Again we still largely favour our own proposals26 which reflected the status quo and are perplexed why, although the LGBCE commented on our proposal to put all the docks in one Ward, there was no reason given for rejecting it. Including all the docks east of the River in one ward would seem to be promoting effective local government and again meet a key criteria of the LGBCE. We wouldn’t die in a dock if the one ward was Marfleet or Drypool, but it did seem to make more sense to put them in Drypool which has residents south of the Garrison Road/Hedon Road axis given, as the LGBCE agree, there are no voters in the Marfleet Docks area south of Hedon Road.
However since both the Liberal Democrats as well as ourselves used phrases such as “satisfactorily represents a number of different communities”27 and, “...it is hard to argue that Drypool is an organic and cohesive community…the unifying effects of the last boundary change have set up a new community identity”,28 it is harder to argue against the LGBCE proposals so we broadly accept them.
We recognise Labour’s original proposals that record of Victoria Dock, “…this is the one genuinely isolated community in the whole of Hull that would have justified a separate solution…”,29 if not entirely agreeing that those criteria alone would justify single-member wards. However when we approached this from a pre-disposition to make Victoria Dock a single-member Ward we too found it fell too far short of meeting the criteria each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters to compensate for its ability to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities.
26 Which were also cogently argued by the Liberal Democrats in their submission. The Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p53 27 Ibid. p53 28 From the Conservative and Unionist submission to the LGBCE’s 2016/17, p. 14 29 From the Labour submission to the LGBCE’s 2016/17 review, accessed from https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/31199/Labour-PG-Hull-2016-10-28combined-files.pdf on 5th March 2017, p. 3
10 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
SOUTHCOATES
Although we can support this Ward as proposed, it still seems to us tidier to have the southern boundary as Hedon Road and to include the area adjacent to the Prison in Southcoates. We recognise “...this leads to marginally poorer electoral equality in a ward whose boundaries are already severely constrained”,30 but also believe it is necessary to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities in promoting effective local government. The distance from Carlton Avenue on Delhi Street, in the South-West of Marfleet Ward, to Newtown Court, the next residential part in Marfleet that is not the gaol, is 1 mile or about 20 minutes’ walk along one of the busiest roads in Hull and handling dock traffic. From Newtown Court to the nearest habituated point in the proposed Southcoates Ward is less than ¼ of a mile. The area to the west of the prison really will be a better fit with the new Southcoates reflecting a solid residential block to the west of Southcoates Lane and being in the hinterland of Alexandra Dock rather than King George Dock (which is in the hinterland of Delhi Street), the two docks separated from each other by the North-South running Holderness Drain.
We note the Liberal Democrats also concluded with us that the area around the gaol was best served by inclusion in the Southcoates community31 although, in line with our belief in unifying the docks to help in promoting effective local government, we feel the boundary line should reflect the Trunk Road.
We also agree with the current Southcoates Ward Councillors32 that the heart of the community identity is clearly summed up by those initiatives, whilst adding they are largely reinforced by the very obvious external boundaries formed by Holderness Road, Newbridge Road, the docks and the Holderness Drain.
MARFLEET
We see no reason to oppose the broad consensus on Marfleet with the exception of the caveat mentioned above in Southcoates concerning the strong North/South divide of the Holderness Drain, and our comments under “Drypool” about the docks.
The Eastern boundary being the current City boundary is clearly non-negotiable, and the Northern boundary along Hopewell Road, makes considerable sense as well.
In the end, however, we do not see a need to draw red lines that would break any emerging consensus in this area, and we note the Liberal Democrat proposals33 have largely been adopted by the LGBCE apart from the area around the gaol or MARI as we both initially cited34also.
30 Local Government Boundary Commission for England “New electoral arrangements for Hull City Council” p. 12 31 Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p. 68 32 Labour Submission, Op. Cit. Appendix 1, p. 12 33 Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p. 65 34 Conservative and Unionist Submission, Op. Cit. p. 14 and not varied in the addendum
11 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
LONGHILL & BILTON GRANGE
We support the proposals of the LGBCE for this Ward. We recognise that, in abutting on to Ings ward, which is a political hot-potato between two of the Groups on the City Council, there may be some dispute on the precise boundary
INGS
We support the proposals of the LGBCE for this Ward. We recognise that, in abutting on to Longhill and Bilton Ward this is a fiercely contested Ward between two of the Groups on the City Council, there may be some dispute on the precise boundary. Discussions that were held seemed to revolve around barely concealed box-counts rather than “Community” and, in line with our meeting with the Commissioners who were very clear a unified view was not needed across the city, and our own initial proposals clearly developed in a non-sectarian way, being seemingly rejected we feel no need to side with either of the other Groups and are thus broadly content to support the LGBCE proposals and any emerging consensus that may appear from this process.
12 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
WEST HULL
It follows that we naturally believe our initial proposals had much to commend them, and in many cases they might be thought to be our position. However we recognise that this is an iterative process so any proposed changes from our initial position should be seen as welcoming the wider input, and not necessarily in any way suggesting that, at the time we drew them up and on the basis of information to hand then, they were not strong proposals. We have also prioritised commentary on the proposals of the LGBCE. It is not entirely easy to comment on the proposals by the other two Groups on the City Council because often what we proposed was not like the LGBCE’s proposals. This would result in a very cumbersome document if described Ward by ward, and a lengthy one if we commented on every single proposal in three different sets of proposals. However at times it will be necessary to comment on arguments proffered by others most especially when they seem materially misleading.
ORCHARD PARK
We clearly agree with the LGBCE proposals that the Northern and the Western boundaries of Orchard Park continue to be the current City Boundary. In respect of the Southern boundary, which has varied more over the years, we again indicate our broad agreement subject to any minor variations that may ensure the best opportunity for ensuring each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters.
However we significantly part company with the proposal to include part of BEVD within Orchard Park. Whilst BEVD undoubtedly forms an island between the North-South running Beverley & Barmston Drain and the North- South running Beverley Road so doesn’t sit easily with the nearest population to its West or its East. We therefore look at the demographics of the communities to either side and find there is no contest, they are definitely united demographically and by census measurements with the residents of the Ghost Estate opposite. This largely car-driving community have two roads out onto Beverley Road where they can feed into five roads in Beverley Ward North of Sutton Road, or they can cross the drain at only one place. The last Boundary Review was the first to tackle the issue of what was then OP7 and is now the half BEVD to the West of Beverley Road because it was the first one that had to deal with those new-build houses.35 The Boundary Commissioners accepted the arguments of the City Council, the Conservative Group and the Hull Independent Labour Group, that BEVD should go to Beverley Ward and, having rejected the “Newland finger” addressed the problem of University Ward and electoral equality in another manner commenting, “We have considered the proposals from the City Council and Hull Independent Labour Group and arrived at a solution by adopting parts of both proposals, both of which provide a good balance between electoral equality and the statutory criteria”.36 In respect of BEVD, nothing has
35 Local Government Boundary Commission for England, paras 70 and 73 pages 21 and 22 respectively 36 Ibid para 73 p.22.
13 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 changed demographically to warrant a return to Orchard Park Ward where, as private houses in an otherwise almost entirely Council estate, they may feel that their issues will command less governance attention than the more economically challenged overwhelming majority. Indeed the customer segmentation map clearly shews that the nearest collection of “Group F: Older Couples in Semis” is the other half of BEVD on the other side of Beverley Road.37
The community in the South of the island formed by the Drain and the Road, the streets around Watton and Lissett Groves cross the drain and the road precisely once each way and it is the same road. We concur with the LGBCE that the commonality of community interest in this part of the community however lies to the West.
UNIVERSITY
We are truly astonished that the Liberal Democrats could seriously propose a ward that crosses Cottingham Road and merges the Bricknell estate with the North Hull estate. In the “Final Recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Kingston Upon Hull”38 The Local Government Commission for England (LGE) record that:
“At Stage Three the City Council put forward proposals for alternative boundaries….It proposed that what has come to be known as the “Newland finger” should remain in University ward rather than be transferred to Newland ward. The Council stated that Cottingham Road/Clough Road is a major community boundary, accepted for police beats, surgery practices and school catchment areas, and that there is a public perception that the community on one side of the road is different from that on the other.” 39
Later on it was concluded that:
“We note the arguments against our proposal to transfer part of the University ward to Newland ward, [or what was then to be renamed Bricknell Ward] and are persuaded that, on the grounds of community identity, the area concerned should remain in University ward as it has more in common with the area north of Cottingham Road than the rest of Newland [Bricknell] ward, and Cottingham Road is a strong natural boundary which we have utilised elsewhere. We are therefore making this proposal part of our final recommendation for the area” 40
In that respect nothing has changed from that submission earlier and on which good Government has revolved, and to that extent we support the statement in the LGBCE proposal, “In particular we consider that Cottingham Road would make a strong boundary between the University
37 See Appendix 1 38 Local Government Commission for England 2001 39 Local Government Commission for England , “Final Recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Kingston Upon Hull” para 69 p. 21 40 Ibid para 72 p. 22
14 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 and Wyke wards”.41 Indeed there is so little in common even between what is left of the Council estate in the current Bricknell Ward and the North Hull Estate that they are even managed by separate Housing Teams. Not only are they separate housing management teams on the ground but right through the various layers of management the first person who has joint engagement with both Council estates is the Number two in the Housing Department.
We can only sadly assume this flagrant disregard to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities, and administrative efficiency based on existing arrangements promoting effective local government largely unaltered over many decades, two of the major tenets of the LGBCE review is based around flagrant gerry-mandering. The statement in the Liberal Democrat submission, “The community and shopping area around the Cottingham Road/Hall Road/Fairfax Avenue roundabout currently divided between University and Bricknell wards, would be reunited” 42 is egregiously misleading. Since at least the middle of the last century those two communities have never been united to be separated leading to reunification! To wantonly tear asunder communities with a clear sense of identity and force them into a new community because that would be “…a ward that would satisfactorily represents [sic] a number of different communities”43 is not so much the “Newland finger” as the “Bricknell sore thumb” and we recognise the sagacity of the LGBCE in rejecting it.
We are also somewhat surprised by Labour’s proposals to extend University Ward to the River in the East. We recognise it makes sense in light of their proposals to reflect a harmony of interest between Northern Beverley Ward and parts of Kingswood but recognise that crossing of the River is not currently fully supported yet. In any event, and subject to the caveat mentioned earlier where we have emerging sympathy with the point about the River Hull at its narrowest point, that idea is weakened by the consequent alteration to the University Ward boundary as proposed. Whilst that element of Beverley Ward between Sutton Road and Clough Road is not a perfect match with the part North of Sutton Road it is as close as is likely to happen within Hull as it is likely to get. Whilst indeed the Beverley Ward houses South of Sutton Road and North of Clough Road are also a demographic match to those privately built houses in the South-West of University Ward we truly feel that separating them by nearly two miles (1.7 miles between Wellesley Avenue and Wensley Avenue) of student accommodation, the university campus, and council housing in a perverse “housing tenure sandwich” does not strengthen the case for such a wide University Ward.
We recognise that the Western, Southern, and Eastern boundaries proposed by the LGBCE have been set for some considerable time and support them. However in the broad area of the North Hull Estate and the Orchard Park Estate the dividing line has been drawn at varying points over the decades and whilst we are content with the West/East axis proposed by the LGBCE we are again in broad agreement subject to any minor variations that may ensure the best opportunity for ensuring each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters.
41 Local Government Boundary Commission for England “New electoral arrangements for Hull City Council 2017 para 54, p. 15 42 Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p. 24 43 Ibid p. 24
15 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
BEVERLEY & SCULCOATES
We do not support this proposal from the LGBCE, and we also note the Labour Group’s original proposals for this area and accept that that case is as yet unmade in the eyes of the LGBCE. We expect that the Labour Group, like us, will have to propose something new since our initial proposals too were rejected as failing to ensure each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters when BEVD was removed because the LGBCE feel it belongs in Orchard Park ward again.44 However first we wish to comment on the initial proposals.
We recognise the sense of the Northern boundary as it is part of the frankly bizarre current Northern Boundary of the City – and we recognise that the obvious tidying up exercise is not a matter for you. Alas it seems unlikely to be included in the Parliamentary Boundary Review either reading the current proposals and those in the North of the City will have to continue to briefly leave the City before travelling briefly East and crossing the River Hull to again return to the City!!!
The creation of a Ward with nine others as its neighbours, in a manner reminiscent of Birmingham Sparkbrook which was soon disposed of in the obvious manner at the last Boundary Review, seems out of keeping with other proposals for all other Wards which generally range from 2- 4 bordering on. Given the Council’s governance arrangements where a Key Decision is one that involves two Wards or more45 this would give one Ward a “super majority lock-out” on an overly large part of the City. Furthermore, as we currently stand, the Council has Area Committees where a degree of devolved decision making is made by Wards grouped together with a certain commonality of interests. A Beverley & Sculcoates Ward this size, with so many coterminous borders will be hard to fit in anywhere, and if it looks away from University/Orchard Park wards there could again be serious Governance questions for two small wards viewed in isolation and bounded elsewhere and everywhere by non-council wards – an unusual position in Hull. Quite frankly a Beverley & Sculcoates Ward this large will give any incumbent an undue influence on the decision making processes of the Council, it could lead to Stasis, or abuse of power and though “could” is not “will”, promoting effective local government sound governance arrangements are a legitimate matter for the LGBCE and a potential concern in a highly charged political environment.
Even if we currently regard Clough Road as a permeable barrier, and the evidence suggesting it is seems thin and not especially developed, the communities immediately south of Clough Road and that to the North of it, but both to the East of Beverley Road are not especially homogenous. It is indeed, either side of the Clough Road axis that the rented/HIMO percentage markedly increases.46
The Liberal Democrat justification for this Ward is in fact remarkably thin. Constant boiler- plated assertions of “…a ward that satisfactorily represents a number of different communities” even if prefaced with “…the strengthening of community identities...” does not necessarily make it so. The current Beverley ward is unique in not having a single council house47 which makes it a less likely candidate to claim any part of the Fountain Road estate which is projected in their proposals. The customer segmentation map shews that the age of citizens reduces the further South they are along
44 LGBCE op.cit Para 59 p 16 45 The Constitution of Hull City Council. Whilst the definition of “significant” is flexible and has hitherto tended to be used and measured as a financial definition, this does not negate a potential use in the future that could be used to prevent promoting effective local government. 46 See Appendix 1 47 Conceivably it may have “acquired dwellings” a term used to describe homes exchanged by a homeowner for care in a Council home”, but Beverley Ward does not have a Council estate of any size whatsoever.
16 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 the length of Beverley Road, just as the incidence of owner occupation decreases. It is not germane to posit which age is a good thing, or which housing tenure level is best, or if indeed there is a perfect point on either scale. However to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities does not suggest a Ward that is 3.2 miles long48 in a City which at that point on the North/South axis is 4.1 miles49 will be promoting effective local government. Even setting aside the huge diversity of tenure and income along that length of road contained in the proposed new Ward, there are significantly diverse attitudes and areas of interest. At the Northern- most part of the Ward the largely car-driving residents will look to Kingswood for most of their leisure and retail offer (including the Tesco superstore just opposite Mizzen Road) and they may well work there. At the Fountain Road Estate end of Beverley Road the axis for those with significantly fewer cars to enjoy Retail and Leisure is the City Centre and the Marina Dock Estate – they may well work there too. This is not one community facing in one direction and pulling the same way but a series of communities facing in two directions and a diaspora of places they may well go.
The LGBCE comment, “We accept that the communities in this ward are linked by a connection to Beverley Road but they are spread out along its length and we would be particularly interested in the views of local residents and others in relation to this ward as part of the consultation on our draft recommendations”.50 Our view is that Beverley & Sculcoates Ward is too flawed and any advantages are asserted not evidenced and we will return with some counter-proposals later in this response to the consultation.
AVENUE
We are pleased there were “…very similar proposals for a three-member Avenue ward from the three political groups” 51not so much because Avenue ward is inviolate but because it is a finely balanced political ward and the purpose of a Boundary review should not be to negate the ballot box.
We can understand the Labour group’s view that the Overhead Railway line is not as an effective barrier as it may seem – Murrayfield Road, just to the North, was in Avenue Ward just before the 1983 boundary changes which saw John Fareham elected, and he has lived for decades on Ella Street and never found it impossible or difficult to access the shops and cafes on Newland Avenue. There is time for a discussion on the Overhead Railway line, with the strategically placed bridges and pavements/roads regularly puncturing it. Indeed Bricknell Ward would not have existed had the then Hull Corporation not paid handsomely to the Railway company to pierce the embankment so they could build a residential ward there. Right from the outset there was the width (and depth) for a generous road and even tramcar provision as well as generous pavements. However given the strictures of our belief in not circumventing the ballot box at the strokes of a few pens, and the fact this discussion has not been started in a timely fashion that would allow the LGBCE to give serious consideration to what would be a serious alteration in the usual perception of (“at grade”) railway lines, then we do not support it in this round.
48 Downfield Avenue to Norfolk Street.(the most northerly street in the proposed Ward to the most Southerly) 49 Downfield Avenue to Wellington Street West (the first Street in the City to the last before the River Humber) 50 LGBCE Op. Cit. Para 60 p. 16 51 LGBCE Op. Cit. Para 58, p. 15
17 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
We note the proposed small alterations by the Liberal Democrats who refer to two minor adjustments. We have no especial view on the “… a handful of addresses...” at the southern end of Princes Avenue because the proposals are remarkably imprecise and give no hint of how many people which information we would need to satisfy the condition that each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters. The junction at Princes Avenue/Spring Bank/Spring Bank West may well be three legged but there is not a right angle to be found at any of the junctions so we are not clear which addresses are caught up in which lines here.
The second minor alteration proposed by the Liberal Democrats about Charing Close, off Louis Street, has some merit that it should go in Myton Ward because access can only be gained off Louis Street which is wholly in Myton Ward. The Conservative Group Leader was involved in the 1999/2001 Boundary Review, unlike any of the current Liberal Democrat Group only one of whom was (newly) elected at that time, and I don’t think we can say this was done “by mistake”52 and we note the LGBCE has proposed accepting them. For the electoral reasons mentioned above, and because we do not feel the Liberal Democrat proposals have a measurable effect such that each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters, in any way have a positive or negative effect in promoting effective local government, or any significant impact one way or another to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities, we however suggest caution. In opening up the question of how streets are accessed, we draw the Commissioner’s attention to the fact that Dover and Berkley Street are both in Avenue Ward but only accessible by car from Myton Ward and we well recall discussions about similar streets in the South-Eastern most part of the current Avenue Ward. To accede to the Liberal Democrat request about Charing Close on that justification could and should lead to equally fair demands for similar alterations in the South-Eastern Boundary near Beverley Road. Because of our firm belief that the ballot box should triumph over Boundary Reviews in effecting political change on any Council our inclination remains to keep Avenue Ward as we proposed and if Charing Close is accepted our calculations shew that sorting out the afore- mentioned South-Eastern corner would actually improve the measurement by which each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters
MYTON
Because of the over-dominant effect of Beverley & Sculcoates we are by definition not in agreement with these proposals. For reasons more fully explained in our detailed critique of Beverley & Sculcoates we think Myton has come too far South retesting from an over-extended Beverley & Sculcoates.
We note the general consensus for a three member ward here that has emerged but it is not in and of itself a determining factor for us. We recognise, like the LGBCE53 and Labour54 seem to have done, that there is a substantial, by Hull standards, minority series of communities in this area and support proposals to keep them together sending out a metaphorical message as well as a literal one about the importance of the City Centre support networks.
52 Liberal Democrat Group Submission, Op. Cit. p. 13 53 Op. Cit. p.15 54 Op. Cit. p. 8
18 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
We note the comments on tidying up, which we have dealt with largely under the section on Avenue Ward and confirm our agreement with Labour’s stated belief that this process should not be used to alter plurality and political balance. In a marginal ward we therefore feel the need for this would be misplaced since we can ensure an acceptable level of each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters without the need to move people excessively.
Our proposals for Myton will follow and we hope they may commend in some way to assist in a solution.
NEWINGTON WARD & ST ANDREWS
We do not entirely support this Ward. The separation of Hessle Road makes some sense as a cartographic exercise, but definitely fails the need to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities. Whatever the state of affairs may be today in terms of the economic reality of fishing in Hull, Hessle Road is a community with a strong sense of identity and cohesion. In drawing up our initial proposals we approached this area with a firm conviction it was important to keep Hessle Road as one community and for that reason alone we would have had to oppose the creation of this Ward.
Influenced by the regeneration area debate at Planning, a topic alluded to by the Liberal Democrats55 and with which we have some sympathy, we revisit this by agreeing that NTN A-C and part of NTN D form the nucleus of this area. We are fully cognisant that the “Shires” as streets can fit with the community here as mentioned by Labour56, although this is a marginal call and other claims can be made, not least of which is that they belong in Gipsyville despite the difference in property tenure.
We feel the need to mention the S.222 Prostitution Prohibition Zone that was obtained in this area, and we feel some weight should be attached to its boundaries. One of the first in the country the view in the Guildhall is that part of the success for it was because there was a clearly defined area that evoked the sense of community which is a key factor in passing such a Zone. It is not enough to merely draw lines on a map it is necessary to shew there is a community impact. We submit this as a somewhat atypical measure of community identity.
We are also neutral about precisely where the line(s) go insofar as the docks are concerned. We retain a conviction that greater dock unification is needed, and welcome the LGBCE ending the current anomaly in respect of St Andrews dock but will make a counter suggestion later.
BOOTHFERRY
We broadly support these proposals.
We agree with the LGBCE that Woldcarr Road, Northfield Road, and Springfield Road can readily be included into this Ward, but suggest the North-South Boundary at this point of the Eastern
55 Liberal Democrats Submission, Op. Cit. p. 35 56 Labour Submission, Op. cit. p. 10
19 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 side of the Ward should be moved slightly West to skirt the recreation ground. We notice that Parkfield Road, itself reflecting the shallower depth of the recreation ground at this point, is also connected to Alliance Avenue. Whereas Woldcarr Road, Northfield Road, and Springfield Road are exclusively accessed from Anlaby Road, Parkfield Road is accessed from Anlaby Road but also has a minor connection to Alliance Avenue. Since the ward boundary reflects the recreation ground for part of its length we think it may as well contour the entire recreation area to allow what may well be secondary but is a consideration for policing and other public functions. We would therefore put Parkfield Road into Newington.
We note that we had one success from our initial proposals – moving Sorrell Drive area from Boothferry into Derringham. We may as well celebrate our minor success which, whilst it looks untidy on the map, does reflect our continuous effort to pay regard to residents being able to access their homes from their own ward. Putting this area in Boothferry made no sense to us as it was not accessed from Boothferry Ward which is entirely behind it to the South-West with access coming from elsewhere.
PICKERING
We are delighted to see the Gipsyville Estate has been reunited in the LGBCE proposal and we fully support that. Although one of the first of the Council uses of social housing for electoral purposes this estate has always had a strong sense of community cohesion, and is a major reason why the largely 1930’s estate was heavily modernised and renovated in more recent times. To that extent we agree with the Liberal Democrats57 and the LGBCE58.
DERRINGHAM
The external boundary common to the current city boundary clearly excites no opposition from us, and the current proposal, with the very modest single success we had in the initial submission means we agree with the proposals in this area. The railway line is equally fixed for us.
WYKE
It gives little pleasure to confirm we were right when we said “Confident, based on initial proposals last time, others would seek to gerry-mander away Conservative representation on the council…”.59 It is perhaps a little disappointing that the LGBCE should propose this Ward and tacitly accept the flawed arguments adumbrated by those desirous to achieve by this Review process what
57 Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. cit. p41 58 LGBCE Draft Proposals, Op. cit. p16 59 Conservative and Unionist Submission, p10
20 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 one Party has not succeeded in doing and the other has come close to by the fair means of the ballot box.
In our commentary on the University Ward proposals we highlighted how the Liberal Democrats artificially created a community where none had gone before and happily proposed crossing Cottingham Road to weld disparate communities into what they were pleased to call the “creation of a ward that would satisfactorily represents [sic] a number of different communities” rather than keep the existing community formed by both Bricknell and University Ward; seemingly forgtting their desire to separate two identical customer segregation groups in BEVD and the top of Beverley Road on the other side because they crossed a road even though they were part of the same community. (Certainly nothing like the young public sector rented BEVD were returned to in OPE with no promoting effective local government to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities.)
The Liberal Democrat proposal professes to believe that they want to create a “…community centre around the University of Hull campus”60 and this is repeated in their submissions to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.61 Whilst neither the LGBCE nor we are here to debate those Parliamentary proposals it is important in understanding proposals made to the LGBCE that we go to first principles. Cllr McCobb, someone the Conservative Group Leader is pleased to call a friend, is a consummate politician paid by his Party to secure electoral advantage for them – there is no harm in that and his abilities deserve recognition his peers give him by employing him. The big political battle in this area, and we are all at it, is the future shape of the proposed Hull West and Haltemprice constituency. Widely believed to be a 2- or 3- way marginal, all the main political parties are “proving” which Hull wards need to be in the seat to best suit their purpose. There is no doubt in any informed minds, let alone those paid by any political party, that the inclusion or exclusion of certain wards is vital for giving an edge to certain parties. A major key is the inclusion, or exclusion, of Bricknell Ward and certain Labour or Liberal Democrat Wards in the current Parliamentary seat of Hull West and Hessle. To exclude, if they will forgive us for the moment, consideration of the Labour Party, the Conservatives want Bricknell in the new Constituency where estimates mean we will be slightly ahead of the Liberal-Democrats as the main challenger to Labour; the Liberal Democrats need the converse to be the main challenger.
The strategy is clear then: group Bricknell with some other seats so it becomes harder to separate it from them for the Parliamentary prize. However, even understanding the underlying motives, the key claim made by the Liberal Democrats is “it is all about the University” and the LGBCE seem sympathetic to that point.
The Conservative and Unionist Group are both products of the University of Hull - we do not oppose it and indeed support it, however we do not accept the Liberal Democrat assertions nor the LGBCE’s manifestation of them for the following reasons.
60 Liberal Democrat submission, op.cit. p44 61 Dave McCobb (North Hull Cllr) “Having a constituency for [inter alia]…the communities around the University… Bricknell, Newland, University, Beverley, and Avenue Wards” p6 David Nolan (ERYC residing Lib Dem former Cllr) “…putting the Bricknell ward area into the Hull Central seat makes sense, that area tends to identify towards the Avenues rather than, for example, out towards Cottingham” p11 John Robinson (North Hull Cllr) “in the new proposed Central Constituency, it is my understanding that amongst other wards, Avenue ward, Bricknell and Newland form part of that constituency. I actually think that makes a lot of sense from one particular aspect of the population, which is to do with the university population.” P25 Claire Thomas (West Hull Constituency Cllr) “On a wider Hull basis, I do think that the Bricknell, Newland, Avenue, University, and Beverley wards are a very clear university community” p30
21 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
“Newland Park is home to many people who work at or have worked at the University”62 which is a very out-of-date statement. It was true when Cllr Fareham first represented the Ward in 1983 that lecturers with tenure made up the largest single percentage of employment – though still not into double figures if memory serves – but it is not now. A street where the property prices range between £300,000-500,000+ attracts few lecturers now in the era after Edgar Paige was given three months’ notice in 1981 and the Court of Appeal upheld the University decision in 1991 thereby ending “tenure” – the only reason lenders had been prepared to entertain relatively low-paid lecturers being lent such large sums as they were a “sound bet for life”. The Academics who live in the Park now are generally those that lectured the Conservative Group back in the Seventies and are usually “Visiting” or “Emeritus” Professors with less than a handful still teaching full time.
Lecturers today are scattered throughout the ward in much more modest housing and it cannot be denied they do live in streets such as Goddard Avenue and Kenilworth Avenue. However in any street where we know there are lecturers there are, in each and every of those streets, more local government workers and those in the “Health area”63 than there are lecturers.
“The area has an identity formed around working or studying at the University”.64 In the round this is true. The University is a dominant presence in the area. It owns major proportions of streets (Cranbrook Avenue, and Auckland Avenue in University Ward); it is a very substantial land-owner with the campus (University Ward); and the student rented sector is preponderant in Newland Ward. We are at one with the Liberal Democrats when they say “All the terraced streets in that area [the Cottingham Road shopping area] (on both sides of Cottingham Road) are predominantly student housing”65 and that is true of University Ward and Newland Ward, particularly Polling Districts NWDA, NWDC, and NWDE. It may also be becoming true for the terraces of large “Avenues style housing” at the very southern tip of the current Beverley Ward also all of which contain significant student numbers amounting to 20% of the current ward. However one thing is certainly true – there is no street, terraced or not, in Bricknell Ward where the houses are “…predominantly student housing”. Indeed the reason I was so vigorous in introducing an Article 4 direction about HIMO’s through Wyke Area Committee was precisely because local residents wanted to prevent the spread of a different community in what is essentially a suburban residential ward. The Avenue and Newland members supported the introduction of an Article 4 because they needed to “cap” their existing level for what we would call in this process promoting effective local government.66
Full Time Students Living in Bricknell and Newland Wards 67 Bricknell Ward Newland Ward TOTAL FULL TIME STUDENTS 578 4203
62 Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p. 44 63 It is hard for us to evidence this since it is information we just “know” from canvassing regularly and extensively. Data protection regulations mean we, quite rightly, cannot share information and privacy suggests it would also be wrong –as well as a breach of electoral regulations. However we ask the Commission to believe us – it may be assumed we know our Ward given the close fights Labour push us to and we are not idle sybarites returned on no effort! We are also of the convention you do not ask a (known) Council officer for their voting intention, and believe me we are painfully aware how many staff we have resident. 64 Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p. 44 65 Ibid. 66 The matter eventually went to Cabinet because other Areas thought a blanket ban would impact on their housing stock and in the end an Article 4 was brought in although it only covers a small part of Bricknell ward in the immediate vicinity of the university. 67 All data retrieved from www.ukcensusdata.com
22 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
Full Time Students in Work 175 869 Full Time Students - Unemployed 36 327 Full Time Students – Economically Inactive 367 3007
As can be seen then the number of students actually in Bricknell Ward is very low, and contains many still living at home rather than in what is often thought of as “student accommodation” which is borne out by the low number of student houses in the ward. Indeed the next table shews the numbers of HIMOs in both halves of the proposed Ward.
NEWLAND BRICKNELL Count of usage Count of usage usage Total usage Total Flat Over Shop 71 Flat Over Shop 8 HMO: Cat A 2 Story Bedsits 39 HMO: Cat A 3 Story Bedsits 1 HMO: Cat A 3 Story Bedsits 10 HMO: Cat B 2 Story Shared 16 HMO: Cat B 2 Story Shared 840 HMO: Cat F 2 Story S/C Flats 3 HMO: Cat B 3 Story Shared 172 HMO: Cat F 3 Story S/C Flats 3 HMO: Cat D 2 Story Hostel 3 HMO: Cat G 2 Story 1 HMO: Cat D: 3 Story Hostel 1 House in Disrepair/Single Occ 199 HMO: Cat F 2 Story S/C Flats 81 Non HMO - Purpose Built Flats 2 HMO: Cat F 3 Story S/C Flats 62 Vacant House 1 House in Disrepair/Single Occ 2612 Grand Total 234 Non HMO - Converted Flats 3 Non HMO - Purpose Built Flats 45 Vacant House 18 Grand Total 3957
The LGBCE proposal for a Wyke Ward therefore flies in the face of the evidence about the University and seeks to merge two very different communities which we venture to suggest will not be promoting effective local government because it dilutes the clear focus possible in the current Bricknell and Newland wards to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities.
Perhaps we may turn to that point and the duty to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities? The biggest issue in Newland Ward at the moment is the extensive and severe problem of rubbish in the streets. We are not talking the odd McDonalds wrapper tossed down on a grass verge in Bricknell Ward68 we are talking sustained and systemic dumping of furniture, bags of rubbish, and other random items in bulk on very many points off Newland Avenue. Indeed there is a Facebook group called “Newland Avenue its rubbish” where citizens are uniting to bring pressure for action so long has this been going on.
68 Conscious that this is a public document could we just take this moment to acknowledge the helpfulness of the franchise operator and their litter patrols – we are not suggesting lack of civic duty by them
23 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
69
Indeed the problem is so bad that that there are multiple daily reports of fresh sightings (and the long time for the Council to leap into action).
69 https://www.facebook.com/groups/NewlandRubbish/
24 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
Indeed there is a further nuance here. The Liberal Democrats justify their “University ward” with “The proposals would see the artificial split of Goddard Avenue removed and the two ends of the road reunited” 70 as if this was one community artificially wrenched apart and pining for reunification; the LGBCE seem inclined to place weight on it. However such claims about unification are misleading. Firstly problems of rubbish, on the scale discussed earlier, are frequently evident on the Newland Ward portion of Goddard Avenue and they are not on the Bricknell part71. Secondly the straight and very wide road of late C19 early C20 terraced housing with squares off part of Goddard Avenue
70 Liberal Democrat Submission, Op. Cit. p. 44 71 The nearest is the very intermittent tipping on assorted parts of Jack Kaye Walk, including on a few occasions in Bricknell Ward, but this is a long strip of land shared between three wards.
25 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 architecturally bears little relation to inter-war semis and the occasional terrace on the very narrow road of Bricknell’s Goddard Avenue. Both sections may have problems with cars, but in Newland it is parking haphazardly on the verge, in Bricknell it is the impassability of it around peak times. Thirdly the two communities largely look to different shopping streets even and, whilst neither would be exclusively so, the preponderance of car driving Bricknell Goddard residents tend to shop on Chanterlands Avenue, and the lower car-density owning Newland Goddard Avenue look towards Newland Avenue itself. Fourthly the customer segmentation map shews a clear and marked difference between the two halves
We pass no comments and make no judgements but clearly there are two very different residential offers to hand, offering a choice to some, and once again this is not the “unity of local community” that is pretended. Indeed there are those in Bricknell Ward who, purely on traffic management grounds, want to either block the two halves of the road off or introduce a one-way system (as yet unspecified which flow), and informal conversations with Cllr Ross suggest the idea has no traction at all in his ward.
Goddard Avenue in some ways serves as a microcosm for housing mix in the proposed Wyke Ward. In the Council’s proposals for warding in the last review the council officers wrote,
“The new two member Newland [subsequently renamed Bricknell Ward] is a suburban middle-class area centred around the Bricknell Avenue and Cottingham Road areas. The housing tenure is very similar right up to the City’s north western administrative boundary. There is a small Council estate, but many of the occupants have bought their dwellings, making it similar in terms of aspiration and community identity to other areas within this new ward.”72
72 Kingston upon Hull City Council Proposed Warding Scheme, as submitted to The Local Government Commission for England Periodic Electoral Review at the last Review. Para 8 iii p3
26 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
Information on Right to Buy Purchases in Bricknell and Newland Ward 73 Bricknell Newland Original Stock 747 292 Sold 344 82 % Sold 46% 28%
As Bricknell Ward homogenises the housing offer so paradoxically in Newland or, the east of Wyke, does the same but in a different manner. In the 1980s what has been referred to as “the settled community” were a still sizeable presence in Newland and in many streets they were still the majority. As the Liberal Democrats point out in their submission, and we quoted earlier, that is no longer necessarily the case. In fact, according to the Excel sheet below the student accommodation in Newland Ward has risen by some 29% in only ten years between censuses to reach 723 in 2011. In the same period the figure in Bricknell may well have increased by just over 100% but it has taken the “all student” household to 17 from just 8. The evidence simply is not there that Bricknell is an overwhelming student ward as asserted by the Liberal Democrats. In fact, mentioning this claim on our recent “Forum on the Move”74 several residents said words to the same effect “our biggest connection to the University is they park on our streets”75 and in one part of the ward they were more minded to talk about Wyke Sixth Form College than the University.
NEWLAND 2001 2011 No % No % All Households 4216 4895 One Person 1580 37.5% 1759 35.9% One Person: Pensioner 500 11.9% 396 8.1% One Person: Other 1080 25.6% 1363 27.8% One Family 1727 41.0% 1789 36.5% One Family: All Pensioners 160 3.8% 89 1.8% One Family: Married Couple With Children 453 10.7% 460 9.4% One Family: Married Couple No Children 292 6.9% 284 5.8% One Family: Cohabiting Couple With Children 152 3.6% 190 3.9% One Family: Cohabiting Couple No Children 242 5.7% 342 7.0% One Family: Lone Parent with Children 428 10.2% 424 8.7% Other Households 909 21.6% 1,347 27.5% Other Households: Dependent Children 77 1.8% 144 2.9% Other Households: All Student 559 13.3% 723 14.8% Other Households: All Pensioners 15 0.4% 9 0.2% Other Households: Other 258 6.1% 471 9.6%
73 Information gathered in an email received by Cllr John Fareham from David Richards on 3rd March 2017 74 A mobile surgery conducted on a single-decker bus at various points within Bricknell ward through the day, and as featured on BBC Radio 4. 75 3rd March 2017
27 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
BRICKNELL76 2001 2011 No % No % All Households 3300 3443 One Person 924 28.0% 947 27.5% One Person: Pensioner 619 18.8% 485 14.1% One Person: Other 305 9.2% 462 13.4% One Family 2234 67.7% 2321 67.4% One Family: All Pensioners 364 11.0% 329 9.6% One Family: Married Couple With Children 936 28.4% 805 23.4% One Family: Married Couple No Children 440 13.3% 510 14.8% One Family: Cohabiting Couple With Children 112 3.4% 198 5.8% One Family: Cohabiting Couple No Children 138 4.2% 149 4.3% One Family: Lone Parent with Children 244 7.4% 330 9.6% Other Households 142 4.3% 175 5.1% Other Households: Dependent Children 54 1.6% 64 1.9% Other Households: All Student 8 0.2% 17 0.5% Other Households: All Pensioners 23 0.7% 10 0.3% Other Households: Other 57 1.7% 84 2.4%
That the wards are different is made clear even in the Council’s processes. The Council devolves money towards using a formula where 70% of the weighting is afforded to population, 7% to unemployment, 6% to disability, 7% to benefits, and HIMOs 2%.77 The two member Newland gets significantly more than the two member Bricknell ward, and despite 70% weighting on population and Avenue Ward having one more councillor so some 50% more population, Newland still tops the table for income and is therefore seen as a ward which is more disadvantaged.
Capital and Revenue Budgets for the Newland, Bricknell, and Avenue Wards. Capital Revenue Newland £50,748 £9,742 Bricknell £27,593 £5,326 Avenue £50,102 £9,670
We also note the Labour proposals for a “Greater Bricknell”78 and their equally inaccurate belief, for the reasons mentioned above, that “In many ways this is the second Ward of influence of Hull University”.79 We also reject the idea that a railway line “at grade”, crossed only by a flyover that is part of the inner ring-road, and a narrow footbridge down a long lane, is a strong community link – it is almost the classic definition of what is regarded as an insuperable barrier to community
76 Both tables use data supplied from the 2001 and 2011 Censuses for the Bricknell and Newland wards. 77 This and the data to the table below contained in an e-mail to all Members from Bruce Fisher in the Council’s Treasury sent on 28th February 2017 at 9.09am - a copy available on request. 78 In size if not effectiveness! 79 Labour Op. Cit. p.8
28 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017 development. Nevertheless we thank them for the kind remark, in also seeking to fix what is not broken, that “Although politics is not a consideration we have sought to ensure the area’s character, recognising this is the only area of the Ward [sic?] that votes for the current national Government party as we seek political plurality.”80
Indeed it is that very political truth that adds to our reasons for not supporting the proposed Wyke Ward. For reasons that are not clear the Liberal Democrats propose rejecting the perfect social match of BEVD, a total harmony in meeting the need to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities (being a small area that would be less than 10% of a totally mismatched community with OPE) but is an harmonious blend with Beverley Ward opposite it and thereby trigger, in a contrived manner, a situation where there is a failure in each councillor representing approximately the same number of voters. This then pushes Beverley Ward into having to regain a population solely for unspecified reasons of rejecting BEVD that has enjoyed promoting effective local government for some ten years.
There is also another small matter relating to the promoting effective local government clause and is an appalling position we have all been put in by Parliament. The BCE are obliged as part of their review to consider only the boundaries currently in existence. It is by no means clear what the Commissioners will decide on but the linkage between Bricknell and Newland Wards and if they go in the same constituency but if the LGBCE merge the two wards and the BCE do not we could have a position where half of the new Wyke ward will vote in one constituency in Parliamentary elections and the other half another – hardly promoting community cohesion. The BCE has to work on the 2015 wards must offer “strong and compelling reasons to split a Ward” so there would not be a conflict a priori but post facto would it really be good government? It could be an interesting situation, I believe unknown in Hull before, for one councillor to have two MPs. I do agree with Cllr McCobb’s comments81 this is a less than ideal framework of times for us all to be working under.
80 Labour Group Submission, Op. Cit. p. 8 81 BCE Op. Cit. p. 9
29 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
OUR PROPOSALS
Following on from our response to the LGBCE, Labour Group, and Liberal Democrat Group proposals, and accepting that this is an iterative process, we will now outline our refined proposals for Kingston- Upon-Hull’s ward boundaries.
EAST OF THE RIVER KINGSWOOD
We are in agreement with the LGBCE proposals. To try and expand the boundaries solely to have some form of spurious macho “three member status” would dilute the community and alter the rest of the Wards needlessly.
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,619
Variance from target number of electors: + 1%
WEST CARR
We are in agreement with LGBCE proposals and particularly relish the re-coalescence of Sutton Park which had to be temporarily split for the fledgling Kingswood area. We expect by the time of the next boundary change, Kingswood will be a three member ward within its own estate boundaries.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,785
Variance from target number of electors: 0%
NORTH CARR
We are in agreement with the LGBCE proposals and particularly relish the maintenance of The Garths as a unit.
30 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,226
Variance from target number of electors: + 4%
SUTTON
We support the LGBCE proposals, recognising the adroitness that avoids a seeming display favouring one side or another in this heavily contested Ward and even more importantly celebrates the sense of community.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,563
Variance from target number of electors: + 8%
HOLDERNESS
Reluctantly we support the LGBCE’s proposal. We still lean to the retention of Garden Village in Drypool, but in a City which is largely a semi-circle, sometimes there is a need to make a series of “balancing” judgements. The new Holderness Ward achieves a community identity and community cohesion, though in a different manner than before. We also share the view of Labour that the creation of wards with such high variances from the target number of electors per Councillor is not ideal, but we salute the opportunity this gives us to present proposals with similar variances elsewhere on the map.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,081
Variance from target number of electors: - 8%
DRYPOOL
With the caveat about Garden Village mentioned above we accept the LGBCE proposals. We were never convinced that Drypool, as a three member Ward reflected a natural community, but we accepted it had community cohesion and salute the Ward members who “made it work”
31 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,189
Variance from target number of electors: - 6%
SOUTHCOATES
We almost entirely agree with the LGBCE proposals for this Ward but are still a little uncomfortable with the absence of the area around the gaol here (MARI). We note, and agree with, the LGBCE comments that Marfleet is already towards the end of the acceptable scale, at - 8%. It does concern us that the variance figure increases to - 9% by the simple movement of 181 people and we recognise this is a straight conflict between “each councillor represent[ing] approximately the same number of voters” and the aim “to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities” which produces the classic failure to “promote effective local government”.
It is a judgement call which of the first two principles least causes the failure of the last, and we would not find ourselves going to any barriers whichever way this call is made.
Either way the number of Councillors remains the same, so it does not alter the balance between East and West, even if it does reinforce our point that the arbitrary selection of a number greater than 1 for representing a ward can be a straitjacket.
Our two options are either to accept the LGBCE’s proposals; or to accept the LGBCE’s proposals but also adding in the entirety of MARI, which increases the ward at 2022 by 181 electors.
A) LGBCE’S PROPOSAL B) LGBCE’S PROPOSAL PLUS MARI
3 member ward. 3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,924 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,105
Variance from target no of electors: + 1% Variance from target no of electors: + 3.5%
MARFLEET
Subject to the caveat above we broadly accept the LGBCE proposals and the number of members for the ward.
Our two options are either to accept the LGBCE’s proposals; or to accept the LGBCE’s proposals but removing in its entirety MARI, which reduces the ward at 2022 by 181 electors.
32 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
A) LGBCE’S PROPOSAL B) LGBCE’S PROPOSAL MINUS MARI
3 member ward. 3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,072 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 8,891
Variance from target no of electors: - 8% Variance from target no of electors: - 9% %
LONGHILL & BILTON GRANGE
We agree with the LGBCE proposals.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,985
Variance from target number of electors: + 2%
INGS
We agree with the LGBCE proposals.
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,497
Variance from target number of electors: - 1%
TOTAL NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS EAST OF THE RIVER = 28 MATCHES THE LGBCE’S PROPOSALS
33 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
WEST OF THE RIVER
There is marginally less agreement, expressed as a percentage, with the LGBCE proposals on this side of the River Hull. Perhaps because there is greater disparity amongst the communities, or the population distribution is more varied? Either way we feel, for the reasons outlined earlier in the critical analysis part of the text that we need to contest some proposals.
To that end we will start with the Wards we propose no change to, or those with a minor change, and will then move to some of the possible options we propose. This may involve an alteration of the order the seats were analysed in but we think it will help with where we are in agreement to deal with those wards first.
OPTION A
DERRINGHAM
We agree with the LGBCE proposals.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,854
Variance from target number of electors: 0%
AVENUE
We agree with the LGBCE proposals and only ask that, in this most contested of wards which in the last thirty years has been represented by all the major parties, if claims are made about exclusive access from another ward to streets in this ward, all streets are reviewed, not the selective presentation we have seen so far.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,541
Variance from target number of electors: - 3%
34 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
PICKERING
We support the LGBCE proposals for this Ward.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,150
Variance from target number of electors: + 4%
BOOTHFERRY
We support the LGBCE’s proposals for this ward with one statistically irrelevant variation. Removing Parkfield Drive and putting it into what the LGBCE itself proposes as Newington & St Andrew (over which we have proposals), will make no effect on the variance or number of councillors for Boothferry. We will return to the impact elsewhere later.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,630
Variance from target number of electors: - 2%
ORCHARD PARK
Under this option we agree with the LGBCE proposals whilst expressing some concern for those from BEVD who will become a very, very small minority within Orchard Park and we are concerned their current ward member would initiate proposals that “throw them over”.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,201
Variance from target number of electors: + 4%
35 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
UNIVERSITY WARD
Under this option we again accept the LGBCE proposals.
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,345
Variance from target number of electors: - 3%
UP TO THIS POINT, WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE LGBCE’S PROPOSALS WEST OF THE RIVER EXCEPT FOR ONE STREET, WHICH REPRESENTS 60% COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRAFT PROPOSALS. IT IS HERE, HOWEVER, WHERE WE DO PART COMPANY.
WYKE WARD – RETURNS TO EXISTING BRICKNELL WARD
For the copious reasons mentioned earlier, pp 20-29, we now propose removing boxes NWDA, NWDC, and NWDE from the Ward. Within these proposals is the small matter of 84 residents from Scholar’s Drive some of whom have, as we outlined in our original submission, expressed a belief they are a better fit with the current Bricknell Ward.
However, defending a majority of 7, and with a firm view this process should not be used for electoral advantage (and not suggesting all or any of the 84 will vote for us necessarily) there may be a view of “let well alone”. Either way 3,755 voters (as predicted in 2022) would leave the proposed Wyke Ward, leaving Bricknell with 6,255, which would make it a two-person ward with a variance of - 4% without Scholar’s Drive. If Scholar’s Drive was included in our proposed Bricknell ward, the predicted electorate in 2022 would be 6,339, so the ward would have a variance of - 2.5%.
A) BRICKNELL – NO SCHOLARS B) BRICKNELL WITH SCHOLARS
2 member ward. 2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,255 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,339
Variance from target no of electors: - 4% Variance from target no of electors: - 2.5%
36 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
BEVERLEY & SCULCOATES – BECOMES BEVERLEY & NEWLAND
For the reasons outlined on pp 16-17 we disagree with the proposals for this ward (and that is therefore common to both options although alternatives are offered).
In this option we propose a more socially cohesive “Beverley & Newland” Ward. The current BEVA, BEVB, BEVC and half of BEVD (the part east of Beverley Road) remain the core of Beverley Ward, which has a 20% student population on the existing boundaries.82 We also add in NEWA, NEWC, NEWD, and NEWE (with or without the Scholar’s Drive 84).
Those movements give a total of 10,463 - 10,547 (depending on Scholar’s Drive), which would be a three member Ward reflecting the Liberal Democrat’s belief in a “university community” and with a variance of 7 % to 8 % (depending on the 84) in a three member ward.
Consideration may be given to calling this Beverley & Newland Ward.
A) BEVERLEY – NO SCHOLARS B) BEVERLEY WITH SCHOLARS
3 member ward. 3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,463 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,574
Variance from target no of electors: + 7% Variance from target no of electors: + 8%
MYTON
Because of the LGBCE proposals for an elongated Beverley & Sculcoates Ward, which we have rejected, it follows that we can’t entirely agree with these proposals – or consequently the Newington & St Andrew area.
Our proposals for Myton are MYTC, MYTE, MYTF, NWDB, and the part of MYTD North of Freetown Way, except for some 420 to St Andrews. These proposals harmonise the green zones in the customer segmentation map that are in the area East of Beverley Road with the rest of the broadly similar demographic.
A Ward of 6,800 people would follow, a 4% variance, and be a 2 member Ward in line with our original proposals.
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,800
Variance from target number of electors: + 4%
82 See the city wide Census Output Area Level map in Appendix 1
37 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
NEWINGTON & ST ANDREWS – BECOMES ST. ANDREWS
We disagree with elements of this ward because of the problems caused by the Beverley & Sculcoates Ward, and the community issue with the splitting of Hessle Road.
Our counter proposals reunite Hessle Road by including STAA, STAB, STAC, and STAD and the 420 people from the Thornton Estate mentioned above as a nod to the original start of Hessle Road.
We also propose, in line with our harmonisation of dock issues, the addition of MYTA and MYTB to this ward giving Albert Dock, St Andrews Dock, and the Marina to one ward – a clear reflection of the Hessle Road and related community.
We calculate a ward of 9984 and a 2% variance in this new 3 member ward which we propose retains the name St Andrews as one of the patron Saints of fishermen.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,984
Variance from target number of electors: + 3%
NEW WARD - NEWINGTON
We propose the existing NTNA, NTNB, NTNC and some of NTND, but also the Shire Streets and Sunningdale Road meaning it would make sense to draw the boundary behind the school on Askew Avenue. As mentioned earlier we also think Parkfield Drive makes more sense here.
2 member ward of 6387 voters or - 2% variance, called Newington
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,387
Variance from target number of electors: - 2%
TOTAL NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS WEST OF THE RIVER = 29 MATCHES THE LGBCE’S PROPOSALS
38 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
OPTION B
Following the Conservative Group submission to the LGBCE on 6th March 2017, we have revisited our proposals for West of the River “Option B” given a small error of the inclusion of the polling district NWTC in two different wards. The knock on effect of removing this polling district from either ward has meant we have had to look back at our proposals and move boundaries in order to try and meet the LGBCE’s preferred variance. Below, we set out our amended proposals for our West of the River “Option B”.
DERRINGHAM
We agree with the LGBCE proposals.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,854
Variance from target number of electors: 0%
AVENUE
We agree with the LGBCE proposals, though see option B Part II where we have proposed moving the Wellington Lane Community back into Avenue Ward.
I) AVENUE – NO WELLINGTON II) AVENUE – WITH WELLINGTON
3 member ward. 3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,541 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,638
Variance from target no of electors: - 3% Variance from target no of electors: - 1.9%
PICKERING
39 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
We support the LGBCE proposals for this Ward.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,150
Variance from target number of electors: + 4%
BOOTHFERRY
We support the LGBCE’s proposals for this ward though see option B Part II where we have proposed moving Alliance Avenue from NTND and into Boothferry ward, adding approximately 412 electors.
I) BOOTHFERRY – NO ALLIANCE II) BOOTHFERRY – WITH ALLIANCE
3 member ward. 3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,630 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,042
Variance from target no of electors: - 2% Variance from target no of electors: +2 %
ORCHARD PARK
Under this option we largely agree with the LGBCE proposals, but would leave the entirety of BEVD in Beverley Ward for compelling customer segmentation analysis of community cohesion. We recognise the existence of Beverley Road but in a car borne community people have not found this a problem for the time it has been in operation.
This leaves Orchard Park Ward with a population of 9,151 on the existing boundaries.
3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 9,151
Variance from target number of electors: - 6%
UNIVERSITY
Under this option we again accept the LGBCE proposals.
40 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,345
Variance from target number of electors: - 3%
WYKE WARD – RETURNS TO EXISTING BRICKNELL BOUNDARIES
As we outlined in Option A, we would reject the LGBCE’s proposals to create the Wyke ward by joining the existing Bricknell ward with much of the Newland ward. Instead, we propose retaining Bricknell ward in its entirety as a 2-member ward. Within these proposals is the small matter of 84 residents from Scholar’s Drive some of whom have, as we outlined in our original submission, expressed a belief they are a better fit with the current Bricknell Ward.
However, defending a majority of 7, and with a firm view this process should not be used for electoral advantage (and not suggesting all or any of the 84 will vote for us necessarily) there may be a view of let well alone. Either way 3,755 voters (as predicted in 2022) would leave the proposed Wyke Ward, leaving Bricknell with 6,255, which would make it a two-person ward with a variance of - 4% without Scholar’s Drive. If Scholar’s Drive was included in our proposed Bricknell ward, the predicted electorate in 2022 would be 6,339, so the ward would have a variance of - 2.5%.
I) BRICKNELL – NO SCHOLARS II) BRICKNELL – WITH SCHOLARS
2 member ward. 2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,255 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,339
Variance from target no of electors: - 4% Variance from target no of electors: - 2.5%
BEVERLEY
For the reasons outlined on pp 16-17 we disagree with the proposals for this ward (and that is therefore common to both options, although alternatives are offered.)
In this option we retain the existing Beverley Ward, with population of 6,243 and variance of – 4%.
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,243
Variance from target number of electors: - 4%
41 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
NEWLAND
For the reasons outlined earlier in this document, we disagree with the proposals for the Wyke and the Beverley and Sculcoates wards and, by default, with what happens to the polling districts of the existing Newland ward. As such, as an alternative to our “Option A”, we propose retaining the existing Newland ward, with a population of 6,629 and a variance of + 2%.
2 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: 6,629
Variance from target number of electors: + 2%
MYTON
Because of our opposition to the proposed Beverley and Sculcoates ward, the knock-on effect of dismantling it in this manner means we cannot agree the proposed Myton ward. Instead, we propose retaining the existing Myton ward, with some small alterations. Relating to the LGBCE’s proposed Myton ward, this would mean the removal of MYTF from Beverley & Sculcoates and returning it to Myton Ward, and the moving of the Western boundary of the ward from East of Boulevard back to Rawling Way. We also propose the moving of a block of streets in STAA and STAD, as outlined in Appendix 3, from the LGBCE’s proposed Newington and St. Andrews Ward into Myton. For full details, please see Appendix 3.
I) MYTON – WITH WELLINGTON II) MYTON – WELLINGTON REMOVED
3 member ward. 3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: APPROX 10,832 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,593
Variance from target no of electors: + 10.28% Variance from target no of electors: +7.8%
NEWINGTON AND ST ANDREWS
42 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
We disagree with elements of this ward because of the community issue with the splitting of Hessle Road. Therefore, we propose moving a significant proportion of the Western boundary south of Cholmley Street back to the old boundary with Myton ward, as highlighted on the map in Appendix 2. For full details, please see Appendix 3.
We also propose, in line with our harmonisation of dock issues, the addition of MYTA and MYTB to this ward giving the working docks of Albert Dock and St Andrews Dock to one ward – a clear reflection of the Hessle Road and related community.
We calculate a ward of 10,877 in this new 3 member ward which we propose retains the name Newington and St Andrews as one of the patron Saints of fishermen.
I) N&StA – WITH ALLIANCE II) N&StA – ALLIANCE REMOVED
3 member ward. 3 member ward.
Predicted 2022 Electorate: APPROX 10,877 Predicted 2022 Electorate: 10,465
Variance from target no of electors: + 10.74% Variance from target no of electors: +6.5%
TOTAL NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS WEST OF THE RIVER = 29 MATCHES THE LGBCE’S PROPOSALS
43 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
APPENDIX 1 – CUSTOMER SEGMENTATION MAP
44 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
APPENDIX 2 – WEST OF THE RIVER “OPTION B” MAP
45 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
APPENDIX 3 – MYTON/NEWINGTON AND ST ANDREWS AMENDMENT
Finding the accurate data projections for 2022 was not always easy, particularly when delving below Polling District Level, so in order to calculate our figures for the Myton and Newington and St Andrews (N&StA) wards, we relied on 2016 street level data provided by the Electoral Services Department at Hull City Council. Below, we outline the steps taken to calculate the number of electors living in the proposed areas. Whilst admitting it does not allow for projected growth or falls in population, it does still give a very clear indication of the size of the communities involved.
We begin by noting that the existing Myton ward, on 2016 elector figures, has 9840 electors, or an almost perfect variance of + 0.1%.
The picture on the left shows the existing Myton ward to the right of the blue line, the proposed Myton ward to the right of the red line, and the proposed N&StA ward to the left of the red line.
We wish to move the proposed N&StA boundary east to meet the blue, existing Myton ward boundary inclusive of the section where you can see the number 1. The section where you can see the number 2 to the east of the red line will merge with the existing Myton ward. As such, we sought to calculate the number of electors living in between the red and blue lines in the number 1 section. After doing so, we could then add that number to the predicted N&StA figure, and rely on the projected estimates for the Polling Districts that sit within the existing Myton ward. The following streets are included in that movement, with elector numbers given below, as provided by the Electoral Services Department.
REMOVE FROM PROPOSED MYTON AND ADD TO NEWINGTON AND ST ANDREWS THE FOLLOWING
Mews Cholmley St Gee St Wellstead Hamshaw Beech Riston Constable Beech St Ct Close Close Close Grove 68 140 42 63 25 21 32 80 23 Carol Marmaduke Cornwall Devonshire Frances Myrtle Raymond Rise Walk The Dickinson Ct St Gardens Villas Ave Ave Villas Mews 26 17 16 18 22 21 18 22 68 Thirlmes Ave Victoria Ave Coltman TOTAL Street 20 18 365 1,125
We add this to the 2016 figures for N&StA, 10,252, to reach 11,377, with a variance of + 15.83%.
CURRENT FIGURES:
MYTON – 9,840 – + 0.1% N&StA – 11,377 – + 15.83%
Evidently, this variance is much too high to meet the LGBCE’s criteria. As such, we must embark on the task of rebalancing.
46 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
REMOVE FROM NEWINGTON AND ST ANDREWS AND ADD TO MYTON
Cholmley St Coltman St TOTAL 140 160 (notional figure) 300
We remove the 300 from N&StA’s 11,377 to reach 11,077 and add it to Myton’s 9,840 to get 10,140.
CURRENT FIGURES:
MYTON – 10,140 – + 3.2% N&StA – 11,077 – + 12.8%
We then need to calculate the number of people living in the number 2 section to add into the existing Myton ward.
ADD IN TO THE EXISTING MYTON WARD
Bean St Birch Leigh Kings Leigh Kings Cross St Pancras Euston Thorn Leigh Close Close Close 12 32 22 13 31 23 27 The Garden Wesley St Matthew Kings Birch St Bachelor St TOTAL Court St 26 15 126 120 95 542
We add the 542 into Myton ward’s 10,140 to reach 10,682.
CURRENT FIGURES:
MYTON – 10,632 – + 8.7% N&StA – 11,077 – + 12.8%
In order to tidy up the boundaries, as feels more appropriate on the ground, we also propose moving the following streets from N&StA into Myton ward.
REMOVE THE FOLLOWING FROM N&STA AND INTO MYTON
Malm St Ena St Queen’s Gate St TOTAL 57 49 94 200
We remove 200 from N&StA’s 11,077 to get 10,877, and add 200 to Myton’s 10,632 to get 10,832.
FINAL FIGURES:
MYTON – 10,832 – + 10.28% N&StA – 10,877 – + 10.74%
In terms of the LGBCE’s two other criteria – the sense of community and effective governance – we would be happy to leave the two wards with higher than ideal variance at this stage. As highlighted, we have based our workings on 2016 figures. It is also worth highlighting that in the LGBCE’s own proposals, the Newington and St Andrews ward is predicted to depopulate between 2016 and 2022 by approximately 300 electors, which would bring the ward to a much more agreeable variance of +7.5%. This is similar to the LGBCE’s own proposals for Sutton ward, which sees the ward start in 2016 with a proposed variance of 10%, then decrease to a variance of 8% in 2022.
47 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
We must also be clear in stating that our adjustments have been more than merely a “numbers game”. Noting that, currently, Myton Ward embraces most of the stretch of Anlaby road from the flyover at the railway to the town centre on the North side of Anlaby Road, we considered it reflected good governance arrangements, and reflected the reality on the ground, that Myton should also have the developed area of Anlaby Road to the southern side as well. This would ensure an easier and more cohesive approach to any regeneration or enveloping proposals but also reflected the fact that Coltman Street, for example, is 1/2 a mile long in an area of low car ownership. Whilst some might walk much of the length of Coltman Street, Hessle Road itself is long to embrace the key retail elements and it is not hard to say people could easily walk a mile or so along it for their needs and bag carrying is no pleasure. Consultations with friends in the area, and recollections of when many of us had lived at either end of Coltman Street and to an extent Boulevard, revealed the not unsurprising truth that people either shopped on Hessle road at the southern end, or caught a bus into town from the northern end because the retail offer on Anlaby Road is wholly inferior to that on Hessle Road.
So having moved part of the eastern boundary proposed by the LGBCE east we then moved part of it West and slightly "grew" the current Myton which of course bit into those areas of Newington & St Andrews proposed by the boundary commission and therefore reduced that population whilst strengthening governance arrangements for the regeebnration agenda, reflected the numbers desired better, and reflected the reality of community on the ground.
The line between Newington & St Andrews, with Myton
To aid mapping for the LGBCE, we ended up with a line that started at the North-West corner behind the easternmost back gardens of Boulevard down to the Boulevard roundabout which itself represents a strong east/west marker as well. Proceed east along the rear gardens of Cholmley Street in a straight line until the western side of Rawling Way is reached, recognising and accepting the LGBCE's contention (which I think we reflected in our initial submission) that Rawling Way is a permeable north/south route. The line would then travel south along the western side of Rawling Way meeting the roundabout under the flyover.
It then seemed academic to us if the line goes along the dual carriageway part of the A63 or if it followed English Street in either event until it reached the Mytongate roundabout whence the line should be drawn down Commercial Road which forms a clear north/south axis and separates the commercial docks and the leisure docks. The separation of the two sets of docks again reflects our belief that the docks are key drivers for Hull and should be under the most effective governance arrangements possible with no inherent clashes between two wards representing the same area of operational land.
48 | P a g e
Conservative and Unionist Group Submission March 2017
Appendix 4 – OPTION B – Part II
If the proposed variances for the Myton and Newington and St. Andrews wards are felt to be too large, we do have an alternative set of proposals which would see some small alterations to adjust the boundaries around the ward to fix the variances without have drastic effects on the communities on the ground. Here we will outline the proposed “Option B, Part II”.
REMOVE THE FOLLOWING FROM N&STA AND INTO BOOTHFERRY WARD
Alliance Avenue TOTAL 412 412
We remove 412 from N&StA’s 10,877 to get 10,465 and add 412 to Boothferry’s 9,700 to get 10,112.
FINAL FIGURES:
BOOTHFERRY – 10,112 – + 3.1% N&StA – 10,465 – + 6.5%
We also propose moving the Wellington Lane community into Avenue ward.
MOVE THE FOLLOWING FROM MYTON AND INTO AVENUE WARD
Hampstead Hudson St Barrow Court Cavendish Sq Wellington St Leicester St Court 30 / 11 53 51 21 Derby St All Saints St Terry St Park Rd Margaret St TOTAL 15 48 19 11 30 289
We remove 289 from Myton’s 10,882 to get 10,593 and add 289 to Avenue’s 9,349 to get 9,638.
FINAL FIGURES:
MYTON – 10,593 – + 7.8% AVENUE – 10,465 – -1.8%
49 | P a g e
Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan
From: Dehenna Davison Sent: 30 March 2017 11:47 To: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan Cc: John Fareham; Subject: Submission
Importance: High
Hi Dan,
Just realised we addressed the error around Newington in Option B but not A:
In our "Option A" proposals, NWTC was indeed a typo, which then annoyingly led to incorrect figures being entered.
It should have read that our Newington proposals were based around the following:
NWTA: 1108 NWTB: 1682 Most of NWTD: 1547 (1930 ‐ less the 383 of Wold Carr, Northfield, and Springfield which the LGBCE proposed moving into Boothferry, which ward we had accepted apart from Parkfield) NWTE: 1347 (note, not NWTE NOT NWTC!!)
To which, we added the Shire streets (Devon, Dorset, Essex, Gloucester, Hampshire, Hereford, Huntingdon, and Monmouth), a total of approx 827.
Giving a ward size of 6511.
The confusion stems from the fact we did take Sunningdale St out of NWTC and add the 84 residents to our Newington proposals which gives a grand total of 6595.
From our calculations, this gives a very good variance (or lack thereof!) of +0.7%.
We are more than happy to edit on the main document if it's easier, but happy for this email to be taken as evidence for the panel to consider.
Apologies from both myself and John for failing to pick up on this earlier! I hope this is the last grovelly email I have to send to you, but do get in touch if you have any further questions.
Dehenna
1