Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council
Report to The Electoral Commission
September 2004
Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact The Boundary Committee for England:
Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected]
The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Licence Number: GD 03114G. Report no. 379
2 Contents
Page
What is The Boundary Committee for England? 5
Summary 7
1 Introduction 23
2 Current electoral arrangements 27
3 Draft recommendations 37
4 Responses to consultation 39
5 Analysis and final recommendations 41
6 What happens next? 77
Appendix
A Final recommendations for West Sussex: Detailed mapping 79
3 4 What is The Boundary Committee for England?
The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The functions of the Local Government Commission for England were transferred to The Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee on 1 April 2002 by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (SI No. 3962). The Order also transferred to The Electoral Commission the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to taking decisions on recommendations for changes to local authority electoral arrangements and implementing them.
Members of the Committee are:
Pamela Gordon (Chair) Professor Michael Clarke CBE Robin Gray Joan Jones CBE Ann M. Kelly Professor Colin Mellors
Archie Gall (Director)
We are required by law to review the electoral arrangements of every principal local authority in England. Our aim is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor in an area is as nearly as possible the same, taking into account local circumstances. We can recommend changes to the number of councillors elected to the council, division boundaries and division names.
This report sets out the Committee’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the county of West Sussex.
5 6 Summary
We began a review of West Sussex County Council’s electoral arrangements on 11 March 2003. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements on 24 February 2004, after which we undertook a nine-week period of consultation.
• This report summarises the representations we received during consultation on our draft recommendations, and contains our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission.
We found that the existing arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in West Sussex:
• In 36 of the 71 divisions, each of which are currently represented by a single councillor, the number of electors per councillor varies by more than 10% from the average for the county and eight divisions vary by more than 20%. • By 2007 this situation is expected to worsen, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10% from the average in 34 divisions and by more than 20% in nine divisions.
Our main final recommendations for West Sussex County Council’s future electoral arrangements (see Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 198 – 199) are:
• West Sussex County Council should have 70 councillors, one fewer than at present, representing 62 divisions. • As the divisions are based on district wards which have themselves changed as a result of the recent district reviews, the boundaries of all divisions, except Northgate & Three Bridges, will be subject to change.
The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that, in future, each county councillor represents approximately the same number of electors, bearing in mind local circumstances.
• In 45 of the proposed 62 divisions the number of electors per councillor would vary by no more than 10% from the average. • This improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue, with the number of electors per councillor in sixteen divisions expected to vary by more than 10% from the average by 2007.
Recommendations are also made for changes to parish council electoral arrangements which provide for:
• new warding arrangements for Rustington Parish.
7 All further correspondence on these final recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to The Electoral Commission, which will not make an Order implementing them before 26 October 2004. The information in the representations will be available for public access once the Order has been made.
The Secretary The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Fax: 020 7271 0667 Email: [email protected] (This address should only be used for this purpose.)
8 Table 1: Final recommendations: summary Division name Number of (by district council Constituent district wards councillors area) Adur district 1 Kingston Buci 1 Southlands ward; part of St Mary’s ward (unparished area); part of Southwick Green ward (unparished area) 2 Lancing 1 Churchill ward; Manor ward; Mash Barn ward 3 Saltings 1 Marine ward; Widewater ward 4 Shoreham 1 Buckingham ward; St Nicolas ward; part of St Mary’s ward (unparished area) 5 Sompting 1 Cokeham ward; Peverel ward 6 Southwick 1 Eastbrook ward; Hillside ward; part of Southwick Green ward (unparished area) Arun district 7 Aldwick East & 1 Aldwick East ward; Marine ward Bognor Regis West 8 Angmering & 1 Angmering ward; Findon ward Findon 9 Arundel Wick 1 Arundel ward; Wick with Toddington ward 10 Bersted 1 Bersted ward; Pevensey ward 11 Bognor Regis 1 Hotham ward; Orchard ward East 12 East Preston 1 East Preston with Kingston ward; Ferring ward Ferring 13 Felpham 1 Felpham East ward; Felpham West ward 14 Fontwell 1 Barnham ward; Walberton ward 15 Littlehampton 1 Beach ward; Brookfield ward; part of East Rustington West ward (Rustington North parish ward of Rustington parish) 16 Littlehampton 1 Ham ward; River ward Town 17 Middleton 1 Middleton-on-Sea ward; Yapton ward 18 Nyetimber 1 Aldwick West ward; Pagham & Rose Green ward 19 Rustington 1 Rustington East ward; part of Rustington West ward (Rustington West parish ward of Rustington parish)
9 Table 1 (continued): Final recommendations: summary Division name Number of (by district council Constituent district wards councillors area) Chichester district 20 Bourne 1 Southbourne ward; Westbourne ward; part of Bosham ward (the parish of Chidham); part of Funtington ward (the parishes of Compton, Marden and Stoughton) 21 Chichester East 1 Chichester East ward; North Mundham ward; Tangmere ward 22 Chichester North 1 Boxgrove ward; Chichester North ward; Lavant ward 23 Chichester South 1 Chichester South ward; Donnington ward; Sidlesham ward 24 Chichester West 1 Chichester West ward; Fishbourne ward; part of Bosham ward (the parish of Bosham); part of Funtington ward (the parish of Funtington) 25 Fernhurst 1 Bury ward; Easebourne ward; Fernhurst ward; part of Stedham ward (the parishes of Cocking, Heyshott and West Lavington) 26 Midhurst 1 Harting ward; Midhurst ward; Rogate ward; part of Stedham ward (the parishes of Bepton, Stedham with Iping and Woolbeding) 27 Petworth 1 Petworth ward; Plaistow ward; Wisborough Green ward 28 Selsey 1 Selsey North ward; Selsey South ward 29 The Witterings 1 East Wittering ward; West Wittering ward
Crawley borough 30 Bewbush, Gossops 2 Bewbush ward; Gossops Green ward; Green & Southgate Southgate ward 31 Broadfield 1 Broadfield North ward; Broadfield South ward 32 Ifield, Langley 2 Ifield ward; Langley Green ward; West Green Green & West ward Green 33 Northgate & Three 1 Northgate ward; Three Bridges ward Bridges 34 Pound Hill, Worth 2 Maidenbower ward; Pound Hill North ward; & Maidenbower Pound Hill South & Worth ward 35 Tilgate & Furnace 1 Furnace Green ward; Tilgate ward Green
10 Table 1 (continued): Final recommendations: summary Division name Number of (by district council Constituent district wards councillors area) Horsham district 36 Billingshurst 1 Billingshurst & Shipley ward; Rudgwick ward 37 Bramber Castle 1 Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote ward; Steyning ward 38 Henfield 1 Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead ward; Henfield ward 39 Holbrook 1 Holbrook East ward; Holbrook West ward 40 Horsham Riverside 1 Forest ward; Horsham Park ward 41 Horsham Town 1 Denne ward; Trafalgar ward West 42 Pulborough 1 Pulborough & Coldwaltham ward; part of Chanctonbury ward (the parishes of Thakeham and West Chiltington) 43 Roffey 1 Roffey North ward; Roffey South ward 44 Southwater 1 Nuthurst ward; Southwater ward Nuthurst 45 Storrington 1 Chantry ward; part of Chanctonbury ward (the parishes of Ashington and Wiston) 46 Warnham Rusper 1 Broadbridge Heath ward; Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham ward; Rusper & Colgate ward Mid Sussex district 47 Burgess Hill 2 Burgess Hill Dunstall ward; Burgess Hill Franklands ward; Burgess Hill Leylands ward; Burgess Hill Meeds ward; Burgess Hill St Andrews ward 48 Cuckfield & 1 Cuckfield ward; Haywards Heath Lucastes Haywards Heath ward Lucastes 49 East Grinstead 2 Ashurst Wood ward; East Grinstead Ashplats ward; East Grinstead Baldwins ward; East Grinstead Herontye ward; East Grinstead Town ward 50 Hassocks & 1 Burgess Hill Victoria ward; Hassocks ward Burgess Hill Victoria 51 Haywards Heath 1 Haywards Heath Bentswood ward; Haywards East Heath Franklands ward
11 Table 1 (continued): Final recommendations: summary Division name Number of Constituent district wards (by district council councillors area) 52 Haywards Heath 1 Haywards Heath Ashenground ward; Town Haywards Heath Heath ward 53 Hurstpierpoint & 1 Bolney ward; Hurstpierpoint & Downs ward Bolney 54 Imberdown 1 East Grinstead Imberhorne ward; part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill ward (Crawley Down parish ward of Worth parish) 55 Lindfield & High 1 High Weald ward; Lindfield ward Weald 56 Worth Forest 1 Ardingly & Balcombe ward; Copthorne & Worth ward; part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill ward (the parish of Turners Hill) Worthing borough 57 Castle 2 Castle ward; Goring ward; Northbrook ward 58 Gaisford 2 Broadwater ward; Gaisford ward; Tarring ward 59 Salvington 2 Durrington ward; Offington ward; Salvington ward 60 Worthing East 1 Selden ward; part of Central ward (unparished area) 61 Worthing Pier 1 Part of Central ward (unparished area); part of Heene ward (unparished area) 62 Worthing West 1 Marine ward; part of Heene ward (unparished area)
Notes: 1. The constituent district wards are those resulting from the electoral reviews of the West Sussex districts which were completed in 2002. Where whole district wards do not form the building blocks in parished areas, constituent parishes and parish wards are listed. 2. The large maps inserted at the back of the report illustrates the proposed divisions outlined above.
12 13
Table 2: Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2002) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Adur district 1 Kingston Buci 1 7,678 7,678 -9 2 Lancing 1 9,984 9,984 19 3 Saltings 1 7,676 7,676 -9 4 Shoreham 1 7,233 7,233 -14 5 Sompting 1 6,819 6,819 -19 6 Southwick 1 7,784 7,784 -7 Arun district Aldwick East & 7 Bognor Regis 1 7,983 7,983 -5 West Angmering & 8 1 6,722 6,722 -20 Findon 9 Arundel Wick 1 7,178 7,178 -15 10 Bersted 1 9,711 9,711 16 Bognor Regis 11 1 7,705 7,705 -8 East East Preston 12 1 9,616 9,616 14 Ferring 13 Felpham 1 7,923 7,923 -6 14 Fontwell 1 8,636 8,636 3 Littlehampton 15 1 9,428 9,428 12 East Littlehampton 16 1 7,210 7,210 -14 Town 17 Middleton 1 8,181 8,181 -3 18 Nyetimber 1 10,069 10,069 20 19 Rustington 1 8,989 8,989 7
14
Table 2: (continued) Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2007) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Adur district 1 Kingston Buci 1 8,287 8,287 -5 2 Lancing 1 10,158 10,158 17 3 Saltings 1 7,870 7,870 -10 4 Shoreham 1 7,360 7,360 -15 5 Sompting 1 6,915 6,915 -21 6 Southwick 1 7,932 7,932 -9 Arun district Aldwick East & 7 Bognor Regis 1 8,240 8,240 -5 West Angmering & 8 1 7,615 7,615 -13 Findon 9 Arundel Wick 1 7,538 7,538 -13 10 Bersted 1 10,043 10,043 15 Bognor Regis 11 1 8,119 8,119 -7 East East Preston 12 1 9,640 9,640 11 Ferring 13 Felpham 1 8,173 8,173 -6 14 Fontwell 1 8,770 8,770 1 Littlehampton 15 1 9,475 9,475 9 East Littlehampton 16 1 7,473 7,473 -14 Town 17 Middleton 1 8,381 8,381 -4 18 Nyetimber 1 10,183 10,183 17 19 Rustington 1 9,125 9,125 5
15 Table 2 (continued): Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2002) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Chichester district 20 Bourne 1 8,994 8,994 7 21 Chichester East 1 8,785 8,785 5 22 Chichester North 1 8,049 8,049 -4 23 Chichester South 1 8,560 8,560 2 24 Chichester West 1 8,991 8,991 7 25 Fernhurst 1 8,412 8,412 0 26 Midhurst 1 8,710 8,710 4 27 Petworth 1 9,464 9,464 13 28 Selsey 1 8,310 8,310 -1 29 The Witterings 1 7,883 7,883 -6 Crawley borough Bewbush, Gossops 30 2 16,043 8,022 -5 Green & Southgate 31 Broadfield 1 8,608 8,608 2 Ifield, Langley 32 Green & West 2 15,460 7,730 -8 Green Northgate & Three 33 1 7,773 7,773 -8 Bridges Pound Hill, Worth & 34 2 16,563 8,282 -1 Maidenbower Tilgate & Furnace 35 1 8,990 8,990 7 Green
16 Table 2 (continued): Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2007) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Chichester district 20 Bourne 1 9,308 9,308 7 21 Chichester East 1 9,305 9,305 7 22 Chichester North 1 8,583 8,583 -1 23 Chichester South 1 8,833 8,833 1 24 Chichester West 1 9,420 9,420 8 25 Fernhurst 1 8,613 8,613 -1 26 Midhurst 1 8,958 8,958 3 27 Petworth 1 9,819 9,819 13 28 Selsey 1 8,652 8,652 -1 29 The Witterings 1 8,352 8,352 -4 Crawley borough Bewbush, Gossops 30 2 16,625 8,313 -5 Green & Southgate 31 Broadfield 1 8,808 8,808 1 Ifield, Langley 32 Green & West 2 16,252 8,126 -7 Green Northgate & Three 33 1 8,056 8,056 -7 Bridges Pound Hill, Worth & 34 2 18,087 9,044 4 Maidenbower Tilgate & Furnace 35 1 9,068 9,068 4 Green
17 Table 2 (continued): Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2002) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Horsham district 36 Billingshurst 1 8,297 8,297 -1 37 Bramber Castle 1 9,126 9,126 9 38 Henfield 1 8,131 8,131 -3 39 Holbrook 1 8,474 8,474 1 40 Horsham Riverside 1 8,773 8,773 4 41 Horsham Town West 1 8,633 8,633 3 42 Pulborough 1 8,779 8,779 4 43 Roffey 1 9,617 9,617 14 44 Southwater Nuthurst 1 9,091 9,091 8 45 Storrington 1 9,072 9,072 8 46 Warnham Rusper 1 8,246 8,246 -2 Mid Sussex district 47 Burgess Hill 2 17,636 8,818 5 Cuckfield & 48 Haywards Heath 1 6,301 6,301 -25 Lucastes 49 East Grinstead 2 16,141 8,071 -4 Hassocks & Burgess 50 1 9,466 9,466 13 Hill Victoria Haywards Heath 51 1 7,229 7,229 -14 East Haywards Heath 52 1 7,585 7,585 -10 Town Hurstpierpoint & 53 1 7,384 7,384 -12 Bolney 54 Imberdown 1 7,640 7,640 -9 Lindfield & High 55 1 9,281 9,281 10 Weald 56 Worth Forest 1 8,806 8,806 5
18 Table 2 (continued): Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2007) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Horsham district 36 Billingshurst 1 8,874 8,874 2 37 Bramber Castle 1 9,313 9,313 7 38 Henfield 1 8,586 8,586 -1 39 Holbrook 1 8,558 8,558 -2 40 Horsham Riverside 1 8,998 8,998 3 41 Horsham Town West 1 8,833 8,833 1 42 Pulborough 1 9,158 9,158 5 43 Roffey 1 9,781 9,781 12 44 Southwater Nuthurst 1 9,391 9,391 8 45 Storrington 1 9,446 9,446 9 46 Warnham Rusper 1 8,559 8,559 -2 Mid Sussex district 47 Burgess Hill 2 17,858 8,929 3 Cuckfield & 48 Haywards Heath 1 8,298 8,298 -5 Lucastes 49 East Grinstead 2 16,417 8,209 -6 Hassocks & Burgess 50 1 9,827 9,827 13 Hill Victoria Haywards Heath 51 1 7,518 7,518 -14 East Haywards Heath 52 1 7,675 7,675 -12 Town Hurstpierpoint & 53 1 7,896 7,896 -9 Bolney 54 Imberdown 1 7,688 7,688 -12 Lindfield & High 55 1 9,331 9,331 7 Weald 56 Worth Forest 1 9,058 9,058 4
19 Table 2 (continued): Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2002) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Worthing borough 57 Castle 2 16,459 8,230 -2 58 Gaisford 2 19,706 9,853 17 59 Salvington 2 17,566 8,783 4 60 Worthing East 1 8,079 8,079 -4 61 Worthing Pier 1 8,285 8,285 -1 62 Worthing West 1 8,491 8,491 1 Totals 70 588,414 – – Averages – – 8,406 –
20 Table 2 (continued): Final recommendations for West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Number of Variance (by district council of (2007) electors per from area) councillors councillor average (per cent) Worthing borough 57 Castle 2 17,356 8,678 0 58 Gaisford 2 19,740 9,870 13 59 Salvington 2 17,473 8,737 0 60 Worthing East 1 8,210 8,210 -6 61 Worthing Pier 1 8,951 8,951 3 62 Worthing West 1 8,552 8,552 -2 Totals 70 609,381 – – Averages – – 8,705 –
Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by West Sussex County Council.
21 22 1 Introduction
1 This report contains our final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the county of West Sussex. Our review of the county is part of our programme of periodic electoral reviews (PERs) of all 386 principal local authority areas in England. Our programme started in 1996 and is currently expected to finish in 2004.
2 In making final recommendations to The Electoral Commission, we have had regard to:
• the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by SI 2001 no. 3962), i.e. the need to: − reflect the identities and interests of local communities; − secure effective and convenient local government; and − achieve equality of representation. • Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972. • the general duty set out in section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to: − eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; − promote equality of opportunity; and − promote good relations between people of different racial groups.
3 Details of the legislation under which we work are set out in The Electoral Commission’s Guidance and Procedural Advice for Periodic Electoral Reviews (Published by the EC in July 2002). This Guidance sets out our approach to the reviews.
4 Our task is to make recommendations on the number of councillors who should serve on a council, and the number, boundaries and names of electoral divisions. In each two-tier county, our approach is first to complete the PERs of all the constituent districts and, when the Orders for the resulting changes in those areas have been made, then to commence a PER of the County Council’s electoral arrangements. Orders were made for the new electoral arrangements in the districts in West Sussex in November and December 2002 and we are now conducting our county review in this area.
5 Prior to the commencement of Part IV of the Local Government Act 2000, each county council division could only return one member. This restraint has now been removed by section 89 of the 2000 Act, and we may now recommend the creation of multi-member county divisions. In areas where we are unable to identify single-member divisions that are coterminous with ward boundaries and provide acceptable levels of electoral equality we will consider recommending multi-member divisions if they provide a better balance between these two factors. However, we do not expect to recommend large numbers of multi-member divisions other than, perhaps, in the more urban areas of a county.
6 Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 sets out the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements. These statutory Rules state that each division
23 should be wholly contained within a single district and that division boundaries should not split unwarded parishes or parish wards.
7 In the Guidance, The Electoral Commission states that we should wherever possible, build on schemes that have been created locally on the basis of careful and effective consultation. Local people are normally in a better position to judge what council size and division configuration are most likely to secure effective and convenient local government in their areas, while also reflecting the identities and interests of local communities.
8 The broad objective of PERs is to achieve, so far as possible, equal representation across the local authority as a whole. Schemes which would result in, or retain, an electoral imbalance of over 10% in any ward will have to be fully justified. Any imbalances of 20% or more should only arise in the most exceptional circumstances, and will require the strongest justification.
9 Similarly, we will seek to ensure that each district area within the county is allocated the correct number of county councillors with respect to the district’s proportion of the county’s electorate.
10 The Rules provide that, in considering county council electoral arrangements, we should have regard to the boundaries of district wards. We attach considerable importance to achieving coterminosity between the boundaries of divisions and wards. The term ‘coterminosity’ is used throughout the report and refers to situations where the boundaries of county electoral divisions and district wards are the same, that is to say, where county divisions comprise one or more whole district wards. Where wards or groups of wards are not coterminous with county divisions, this can cause confusion for the electorate at local elections, lead to increased election costs and, in our view, may not be conducive to effective and convenient local government.
11 We recognise that it is unlikely to be possible to achieve absolute coterminosity throughout a county area while also providing for the optimum level of electoral equality. In this respect, county reviews are different from those of districts. We will seek to achieve the best available balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, taking into account the statutory criteria. While the proportion of electoral divisions that will be coterminous with the boundaries of district wards is likely to vary between counties, we would normally expect coterminosity to be achieved in a significant majority of divisions. The average level of coterminosity secured under our final recommendations for the first eleven counties that we have reviewed (excluding the Isle of Wight) is 70%. Therefore, we recommend that in formulating schemes, interested parties should seek to secure a level of coterminosity of around 60% to 80%.
12 Where coterminosity is not possible in parished areas, and a district ward is to be split between electoral divisions, we would normally expect this to be achieved without dividing (or further dividing) a parish between divisions. There are likely to be exceptions to this, however, particularly where larger parishes are involved.
13 We are not prescriptive on council size. However, we believe that any proposals relating to council size, whether these are for an increase, a reduction or no change, should be supported by evidence and argumentation. Given the stage now reached in the introduction of new political management structures under the provisions of the
24 Local Government Act 2000, it is important that whatever council size interested parties may propose to us they can demonstrate that their proposals have been fully thought through, and have been developed in the context of a review of internal political management and the role of councillors in the new structure. However, we have found it necessary to safeguard against upward drift in the number of councillors, and we believe that any proposal for an increase in council size will need to be fully justified. In particular, we do not accept that an increase in electorate should automatically result in an increase in the number of councillors, nor that changes should be made to the size of a council simply to make it more consistent with the size of other similar councils.
14 A further area of difference between county and district reviews is that we must recognise that it will not be possible to avoid the creation of some county divisions which contain diverse communities, for example, combining rural and urban areas. We have generally sought to avoid this in district reviews in order to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Some of the existing county council electoral divisions comprise a number of distinct communities, which is inevitable given the larger number of electors represented by each councillor, and we would expect that similar situations would continue under our recommendations in seeking the best balance between coterminosity and the statutory criteria.
15 As a part of this review we may also make recommendations for change to the electoral arrangements of parish and town councils in the county. However, we made some recommendations for new parish electoral arrangements as part of our district reviews. We therefore expect to put forward such recommendations during county reviews only on an exceptional basis. In any event, we are not able to review administrative boundaries between local authorities or parishes, or consider the establishment of new parish areas as part of this review.
The review of West Sussex County Council
16 We completed the reviews of the seven district council areas in West Sussex in July 2002, and Orders for the new electoral arrangements have since been made. This is our first review of the electoral arrangements of West Sussex County Council. The last such review was undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission, which reported to the Secretary of State in June 1984 (Report No. 473).
17 This review was in four stages. Stage One began on 11 March 2003, when we wrote to West Sussex County Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. We also notified district councils in the county, Sussex Police Authority, the Local Government Association, West Sussex Association of Parish & Town Councils, parish and town councils in the borough, the Members of Parliament with constituencies in the County, the Members of the European Parliament for the South East region, and the headquarters of the main political parties. We placed a notice in the local press, issued a press release and invited the West Sussex County Council to publicise the review further. The closing date for receipt of representations, the end of Stage One, was 7 July 2003. During Stage Two we considered all the representations received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations.
18 Stage Three began on 24 February 2004 with the publication of our report, Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council, and ended on 26 April 2004. During this period we sought comments from the
25 public and any other interested parties on our preliminary conclusions. Finally, during Stage Four we reconsidered our draft recommendations in the light of the Stage Three consultation and now publish our final recommendations.
19 In preparing this report the Committee has had regard to the general duty under section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote racial equality and to the approach set out in BCFE (03) 35, Race Relations Legislation, which the Committee considered and agreed at its meeting on 9 April 2003.
26 2 Current electoral arrangements
20 The county of West Sussex comprises the seven districts of Adur, Arun, Chichester, Crawley, Horsham, Mid Sussex and Worthing. West Sussex is a largely rural county. Gatwick airport is located in Crawley district, which is the main manufacturing and employment centre, although the coastal areas do provide some tourist trade.
21 The electorate of the county is 588,414 (December 2002). The Council presently has 71 members, with one member elected from each division.
22 To compare levels of electoral inequality between divisions, we calculated, in percentage terms, the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each division (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the county average. In the text which follows, this calculation may also be described using the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’.
23 At present, each councillor represents an average of 8,288 electors, which the County Council forecasts will increase to 8,583 by the year 2007 if the present number of councillors is maintained. However, due to demographic change and migration over the last two decades, the number of electors per councillor in 36 of the 71 divisions varies by more than 10% from the county average and eight divisions vary by more than 20%. The worst imbalance is in Furnace Green division where the councillor represents 62% more electors than the county average.
24 As detailed previously, in considering the County Council’s electoral arrangements, we must have regard to the boundaries of district wards. Following the completion of the reviews of district warding arrangements in West Sussex, we are faced with a new starting point for considering electoral divisions. Our proposals for county divisions are based on the new district wards as opposed to those which existed prior to the recent reviews. In view of the effect of these new district wards, and changes in the electorate over the past twenty years which have resulted in electoral imbalances across the county, changes to most if not all of the existing county electoral divisions are inevitable.
27 Table 3: Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2002) from councillors average (per cent) Adur district 1 Kingston Buci 1 7,121 -14 2 Lancing 1 8,517 3 3 Saltings 1 9,335 13 4 Shoreham 1 8,629 4 5 Sompting 1 6,627 -20 6 Southwick 1 6,945 -16 Arun district 7 Arun East 1 6,333 -24 8 Arundel & Angmering 1 8,236 -1 9 Bersted 1 9,613 16 10 Bognor Regis 1 8,655 4 11 Felpham 1 7,829 -6 12 Fontwell 1 8,636 4 13 Hotham 1 7,359 -11 14 Littlehampton North 1 7,154 -14 15 Littlehampton Town 1 9,814 18 16 Middleton 1 8,275 0 17 Nyetimber 1 9,841 19 18 Preston Manor 1 8,747 6 19 Rustington West 1 8,859 7
28 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2007) from councillors average (per cent) Adur district 1 Kingston Buci 1 7,438 -13 2 Lancing 1 8,669 1 3 Saltings 1 9,551 11 4 Shoreham 1 9,082 6 5 Sompting 1 6,723 -22 6 Southwick 1 7,059 -18 Arun district 7 Arun East 1 6,340 -26 8 Arundel & Angmering 1 9,183 7 9 Bersted 1 10,018 17 10 Bognor Regis 1 8,925 4 11 Felpham 1 8,078 -6 12 Fontwell 1 8,770 2 13 Hotham 1 7,687 -10 14 Littlehampton North 1 7,292 -15 15 Littlehampton Town 1 10,302 20 16 Middleton 1 8,476 -1 17 Nyetimber 1 9,955 16 18 Preston Manor 1 8,860 3 19 Rustington West 1 8,889 4
29 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2002) from councillors average (per cent) Chichester district 20 Bourne 1 8,994 9 21 Chichester East 1 7,372 -11 22 Chichester North 1 7,327 -12 23 Chichester South 1 8,544 3 24 Chichester West 1 8,460 2 25 Fernhurst 1 8,126 -2 26 Midhurst 1 9,315 12 27 Petworth 1 9,145 10 28 Selsey & Sidlesham 1 9,243 12 29 The Witterings 1 9,632 16 Crawley borough 30 Bewbush 1 8,325 0 31 Broadfield 1 8,608 4 32 Furnace Green 1 13,417 62 33 Gossops Green 1 7,200 -13 34 Ifield 1 6,173 -26 35 Langley Green 1 6,955 -16 Northgate Three 36 1 7,773 -6 Bridges 37 Pound Hill 1 7,614 -8 38 Tilgate 1 7,372 -11
30 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2007) from councillors average (per cent) Chichester district 20 Bourne 1 9,308 8 21 Chichester East 1 7,667 -11 22 Chichester North 1 8,039 -6 23 Chichester South 1 8,777 2 24 Chichester West 1 8,881 3 25 Fernhurst 1 8,287 -3 26 Midhurst 1 9,591 12 27 Petworth 1 9,512 11 28 Selsey & Sidlesham 1 9,611 12 29 The Witterings 1 10,170 18 Crawley borough 30 Bewbush 1 8,392 -2 31 Broadfield 1 8,808 3 32 Furnace Green 1 13,637 59 33 Gossops Green 1 7,530 -12 34 Ifield 1 6,735 -22 35 Langley Green 1 7,169 -16 Northgate Three 36 1 8,056 -6 Bridges 37 Pound Hill 1 8,967 4 38 Tilgate 1 7,602 -11
31 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2002) from councillors average (per cent) Horsham district 39 Billingshurst 1 7,351 -11 40 Henfield 1 8,700 5 41 Holbrook 1 11,771 42 42 Hurst 1 6,312 -24 43 Pulborough 1 9,387 13 44 Riverside 1 8,384 1 45 Roffey 1 8,843 7 46 Southwater 1 11,204 35 47 Steyning 1 8,557 3 48 Storrington 1 8,464 2 49 Warnham 1 7,266 -12 Mid Sussex district 50 Burgess Hill Central 1 9,715 17 51 Burgess Hill East 1 7,263 -12 52 Cuckfield Rural 1 7,497 -10 53 East Grinstead East 1 7,291 -12 54 East Grinstead South 1 7,590 -8 Hassocks & Burgess 55 1 10,124 22 Hill West 56 Haywards Heath East 1 7,229 -13 Haywards Heath 57 1 7,172 -13 West 58 Imberdown 1 10,511 27 59 Lindfield 1 7,546 -9 60 Mid Sussex North 1 8,566 3 61 Mid Sussex South 1 6,965 -16
32 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2007) from councillors average (per cent) Horsham district 39 Billingshurst 1 7,922 -8 40 Henfield 1 9,179 7 41 Holbrook 1 12,026 40 42 Hurst 1 6,405 -25 43 Pulborough 1 9,785 14 44 Riverside 1 8,602 0 45 Roffey 1 8,998 5 46 Southwater 1 11,564 35 47 Steyning 1 8,720 2 48 Storrington 1 8,819 3 49 Warnham 1 7,477 -13 Mid Sussex district 50 Burgess Hill Central 1 9,744 14 51 Burgess Hill East 1 7,456 -13 52 Cuckfield Rural 1 7,785 -9 53 East Grinstead East 1 7,456 -13 54 East Grinstead South 1 7,687 -10 Hassocks & Burgess 55 1 10,485 22 Hill West 56 Haywards Heath East 1 7,518 -12 Haywards Heath 57 1 8,885 4 West 58 Imberdown 1 10,570 23 59 Lindfield 1 7,709 -10 60 Mid Sussex North 1 8,804 3 61 Mid Sussex South 1 7,467 -13
33 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2002) from councillors average (per cent) Worthing borough 62 Broadwater 1 7,439 -10 63 Cissbury 1 8,505 3 64 Durrington 1 8,274 0 65 East Worthing 1 7,959 -4 66 Goring-by-Sea 1 7,989 -4 67 Maybridge 1 7,037 -15 68 Richmond 1 7,060 -15 69 Salvington 1 7,953 -4 70 West Parade 1 8,630 4 71 West Tarring 1 7,740 -7 Totals 71 588,414 – Averages – 8,288 –
34 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements in West Sussex
Division name Number Electorate Variance (by district council area) of (2007) from councillors average (per cent) Worthing borough 62 Broadwater 1 7,555 -12 63 Cissbury 1 8,482 -1 64 Durrington 1 9,230 8 65 East Worthing 1 8,140 -5 66 Goring-by-Sea 1 8,003 -7 67 Maybridge 1 6,932 -19 68 Richmond 1 7,606 -11 69 Salvington 1 7,898 -8 70 West Parade 1 8,750 2 71 West Tarring 1 7,686 -10 Totals 71 609,381 – Averages – 8,583 –
Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by West Sussex County Council.
Note: Each division is represented by a single councillor, hence the electorate columns denote the number of electors represented by each councillor. The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors represented by each councillor varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in 2002, electors in Arun East division in Arun district were relatively over-represented by 24%, while electors in Furnace Green division in Crawley borough were significantly under-represented by 62%. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
35 36 3 Draft recommendations
25 During Stage One we received 43 representations, including a county-wide scheme from West Sussex County Council, Councillor Jones (Hotham division) and Councillor Deedman (Steyning division). We also received submissions from three district councils, two Labour groups, 21 parish and town councils and a further 14 representations from local councillors and residents. In the light of these representations and evidence available to us, we reached preliminary conclusions which were set out in our report, Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council.
26 Our draft recommendations were based on a number of local schemes, which achieved some improvement in electoral equality and coterminosity than the existing arrangements. However, we moved away from these proposals in a number of areas to further improve electoral equality and coterminosity whilst providing a better reflection of community identity. We proposed that:
• West Sussex County Council should be served by 70 councillors; • there should be 62 electoral divisions, involving changes to the boundaries of all but one of the existing divisions.
Draft recommendation West Sussex County Council should comprise 70 councillors, serving 62 divisions.
27 Our proposals would have resulted in significant improvements in electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor in 45 of the 62 divisions varying by no more than 10% from the county average. This level of electoral equality was forecast to improve further, with 16 divisions varying by more than 10% from the average in 2007.
37 38 4 Responses to consultation
28 During the consultation on our draft recommendations report, we received 49 representations. A list of all respondents is available from us on request. All representations may be inspected at our offices and those of West Sussex County Council.
West Sussex County Council
29 The County Council opposed the use of two-member divisions in the county in principle and in some other areas it opposed our recommendations where it considered we had not reflected community identity. It supported our draft recommendations in Arun and Horsham. In Chichester and Crawley it proposed that we adopt its original Stage One proposals and in Adur it proposed we adopt its Stage One proposals in the west of the district but supported our draft recommendations in the east. In Mid Sussex it supported the single-member divisions outlined in our draft recommendations but proposed alternative single-member divisions to replace the two-member divisions that we had proposed. In Worthing borough it proposed a modified version of its Stage One submission.
District and borough councils
30 We received representations from five district and borough councils. Arun and Chichester district council’s supported our draft recommendations for their respective areas. Crawley Borough Council opposed the two-member divisions that we proposed and supported the County Council’s Stage One proposals. Mid Sussex District Council opposed the use of two-member divisions in East Grinstead but supported our proposals in the rest of the district, including the two-member division in Burgess Hill. Worthing Borough Council proposed a district-wide scheme comprising three three- member divisions.
Political Parties
31 We received representations from six political parties during Stage Three. The Conservatives, Sussex Area opposed two-member divisions in principle. Arun District Littlehampton Labour Party opposed the Arundel Wick division and proposed an alternative scheme which comprised two two-member divisions. Southgate Branch Labour Party, Bewbush Labour Party and Gossops Green Labour Party supported our draft recommendations in Crawley borough. Horsham Conservative Association broadly supported our draft recommendations and proposed one alternative division name.
Parish and town councils
32 We received 18 representations from parish and town councils during Stage Three. Sompting, East Preston, West Dean, Singleton, Southwater, Twineham, Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common and West Hoathly parish councils broadly supported our draft recommendations in their respective areas. Littlehampton Town Council opposed the Arundel Wick division in Arun district and endorsed its original Stage One submission. Rustington Parish Council opposed our draft recommendations for Arun and proposed the same district-wide scheme that Arun District Littlehampton Labour Party proposed.
39 In Chichester district, Funtington Parish Council opposed our draft recommendations and supported the proposals of the County Council. In Horsham district, Lower Beeding Parish Council commented on the naming of the Southwater & Nuthurst division. Woodmancote Parish Council opposed being in the same division as Upper Beeding and Bramber parishes and proposed that it be in the same division as Henfield and Shermanbury parishes. Shipley Parish Council opposed being in the same division as Billingshurst parish. Cuckfield Parish Council opposed the proposals for Cuckfield division in Mid Sussex district. East Grinstead Town Council opposed the two-member division in East Grinstead but did not provide an alternative proposal. North Horsham and Worth parish councils said they had no comments to make on the draft recommendations.
Other representations
33 A further 19 representations were received in response to our draft recommendations from local councillors and residents. Councillor Deedman supported the draft recommendations for Arun district. He opposed the draft recommendations for Adur and stated that we should either adopt the County Council’s Stage One submission or an alternative two-member division in the west. He also opposed the draft recommendations in Worthing Borough and endorsed the County Council’s submission instead. Councillor Dewdney opposed two-member divisions in principle. Councillor O’Neill and nine local residents opposed the Arundel Wick division that we proposed in Arun district on grounds of community interest. We also received a petition with 15 names opposing our draft recommendations in this area.
34 A local resident opposed our proposals in relation to Funtington ward in Chichester district. In Crawley borough, Councillor Mullins supported the two-member Bewbush & Gossops Green division that we proposed. Councillor Smith opposed the two-member divisions that we proposed and re-iterated his Stage One comments regarding the inclusion of the name Worth in a division to the east of the borough. Councillors Stevens and Waight opposed the two-member divisions proposed in Worthing, in principle. Another local resident broadly supported the proposals for the whole county.
40 5 Analysis and final recommendations
35 As with our reviews of districts, our primary aim in considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for West Sussex is to achieve electoral equality. In doing so we have regard to section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended) which defines the need to secure effective and convenient local government, reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and secure the matters referred to in paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 (equality of representation). Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 refers to the number of electors per councillor being ‘as nearly as may be, the same in every division of the county’.
36 In relation to Schedule 11, our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of local government electors likely to take place over the next five years. We must also have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiable boundaries and maintaining local ties, and to the boundaries of district wards.
37 We have discussed in Chapter One the additional parameters which apply to reviews of county council electoral arrangements and the need to have regard to the boundaries of district wards to achieve coterminosity. In addition, our approach is to ensure that, having reached conclusions on the appropriate number of councillors to be elected to the county council, each district council area is allocated the number of county councillors to which it is entitled. It is therefore impractical to design an electoral scheme which results in exactly the same number of electors per councillor in every division of a county.
38 We accept that the achievement of absolute electoral equality for the authority as a whole is likely to be unattainable, especially when also seeking to achieve coterminosity in order to facilitate convenient and effective local government. There must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach, in the context of the statutory criteria, is that such flexibility must be kept to a minimum. Accordingly, we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to be minimised, the aim of electoral equality should be the starting point in any review. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested parties should make electoral equality their starting point, and then make adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as the boundaries of district wards and community identities. Five-year forecasts of changes in electorate must also be taken into account and we would aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral equality over this five-year period.
39 The recommendations do not affect county, district or parish external boundaries, local taxes, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that these recommendations will have an adverse effect on house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our proposals do not take account of parliamentary boundaries, and we are not therefore able to take into account any representations that are based on these issues.
41 Electorate forecasts
40 Since 1975 there has been a 25% increase in the electorate of West Sussex. The County Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2007, projecting an increase in the electorate of 4% from 588,414 to 609,381 over the five-year period from 2002 to 2007. Most of the growth is expected to be in Crawley and Mid Sussex, although the growth is expected to be fairly uniform throughout the county. In order to prepare these forecasts, the Council estimated rates and locations of housing development with regard to structure and local plans, the expected rate of building over the five-year period and assumed occupancy rates. We accept that this is an inexact science, and having considered the forecast electorates, we stated in our draft recommendations report that we were satisfied that they represented the best estimates that could reasonably be made at the time.
41 During Stage Two, Councillor Jones (Hotham division) queried the figures in some areas. We asked the County Council to consider his comments regarding the electorate forecasts. The County Council responded, stating that it was ‘satisfied that it obtained the best available information, and used this in a consistent manner to arrive at projected figures for 2007’. The County Council stated that the method it had used to calculate the electorate forecasts ‘was applied consistently to all the wards within a district’. We know that forecasting electorates is difficult and, having considered all the evidence received concerning electorate forecasts, we accepted that the County Council’s figures were the best estimates that could reasonably be made. We received no comments on the Council’s electorate forecasts during Stage Three, and remain satisfied that they represent the best estimates currently available.
Council size
42 As explained earlier, we now require justification for any council size proposed, whether it is an increase, decrease, or retention of the existing council size.
43 West Sussex County Council currently has 71 members. At Stage One, the County Council proposed a council size of 70. We also received proposals for two different council sizes. Councillor Jones (Hotham division) proposed a council size of 76, and Councillor Deedman (Steyning division) proposed a council size of 69.
44 In our draft recommendations report, we adopted the Council’s proposal for a council of 70 members as we considered that it had provided strong evidence and argumentation in support of its proposal and had considered the council size in light of the new political management structure. We were not persuaded to adopt either of the alternative council sizes as they did not provide any evidence in terms of the new political management structure.
45 During Stage Three, we received some support for a council size of 70. We received no objections to the proposed decrease in council size. Therefore, in the light of the support for our recommendations, and in the absence of alternative proposals, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendation for a council size of 70 as final.
42 Electoral arrangements
46 As discussed earlier, during Stage One, the County Council proposed a decrease in council size from 71 to 70. It proposed all single-member divisions for the county, ‘as it wishes to preserve the clear line of accountability and direct relationship between the elected member and the people that he or she represents’. The County Council undertook a consultation process where it initially consulted on between two and six schemes for each district, with ‘all members of the County Council, West Sussex borough and district councils and principal political parties operating in the county’. It then extended the consultation process and consulted with ‘about 400’ consultees, including borough, district and parish councils, local offices of political parties, community associations and the general public, via public libraries and community centres. It stated that the ‘consultation scheme attracted very little comment or criticism’.
47 In our draft recommendations we adopted a combination of the County Council’s, Councillor Jones’s and Councillor Deedman’s proposals, with a number of our own amendments in order to improve the balance between electoral equality and coterminosity and to reflect community identities. In Adur district we adopted Councillor Jones’s proposals in the west and made a number of minor amendments to the County Council’s proposals in the east. In Arun district we adopted Councillor Deedman’s proposal in its entirety which necessitated the re-warding of Rustington parish. In Chichester district we proposed a scheme based on the County Council’s scheme with a number of amendments to improve electoral equality. In Crawley borough we proposed our own three two-member divisions to improve coterminosity and unite communities and also adopted three of the single-member divisions proposed by the County Council. In Horsham district we adopted the County Council’s scheme, with one name change. In Mid Sussex district we proposed our own scheme which included two- member divisions in East Grinstead and Burgess Hill. In Worthing borough we adopted three divisions proposed by the County Council and also proposed three two-member divisions to improve coterminosity.
48 At Stage Three, the County Council opposed our decision to recommend a number of multi-member divisions. In some districts the County Council recommended we adopt its original Stage One proposals and in other areas it amended its Stage One proposals to either improve electoral equality or to divide two-member divisions in to single- member divisions. A number of other respondents also opposed the use of two-member divisions in West Sussex, in principle. The majority of these respondents did not, however, provide alternative schemes to our draft recommendations. Whilst recognising the preference for single-member divisions we do not believe that the ‘in principle’ opposition, without supporting evidence, addresses the requirements of our statutory criteria more effectively than our draft recommendations.
49 In response to our draft recommendations report, a number of respondents objected to our proposals in Arun district. These respondents opposed the Arundel Wick division we recommended as they considered it combined communities that have nothing in common. We received a petition from 15 residents of Wick who opposed the inclusion of Arundel town and its surrounding rural villages in a division with Wick, stating that there are social, economical and geographical differences between them.
50 The remaining respondents generally commented on particular divisions which affected them. We did also receive a borough-wide scheme for Worthing which
43 comprised three three-member divisions and in Adur and Arun districts we received proposals for two-member divisions that we had not considered when formulating our draft recommendations. We consider that the majority of respondents did not provide strong evidence or argumentation to persuade us to move away from our draft recommendations, though we note that some of the proposals that we received do have some merit. In particular, we note Worthing Borough Council’s scheme that comprised three three-member divisions. However, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to adopt such a significantly different scheme to our draft recommendations, especially in light of the opposition to multi-member schemes that we have received. We therefore propose to confirm our draft recommendations as final, subject to ten division name changes.
51 We have reviewed our draft recommendations in the light of further evidence and the representations received during Stage Three. For county electoral division purposes, the following areas are considered in turn: i) Adur district (pages 44 – 47) ii) Arun district (pages 47 – 54) iii) Chichester district (pages 54 – 57) iv) Crawley borough (pages 58 – 61) v) Horsham district (pages 61 – 64) vi) Mid Sussex district (pages 64 – 68) vii) Worthing borough (pages 68 – 73)
52 Details of our final recommendations are set out in Tables 1 and 2, and illustrated on the large maps inserted at the back of this report.
Adur district
53 Under the current arrangements, the district of Adur is represented by six county councillors serving six divisions. Kingston Buci, Sompting and Southwick divisions currently contain 14%, 20% and 16% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (13%, 22% and 18% fewer by 2007). Lancing, Saltings and Shoreham divisions currently contain 3%, 13% and 4% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1%, 11% and 6% more by 2007).
54 At Stage One we received five submissions in relation to the district of Adur. The County Council and Councillor Jones both proposed schemes that allocated Adur six councillors, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. Councillor Deedman proposed a scheme based on five councillors.
55 In the west of the district the County Council proposed a Sompting division comprising the district wards of Cokeham and Peverel and the southern half of Churchill district ward, to the south of the railway line (polling district AD). It proposed including the remainder of Churchill ward, to the north of the railway line, with Manor and Mash Barn district wards in a Lancing division. In the south of the district it proposed a Saltings division comprising the district wards of Marine and Widewater.
56 In the east of Adur the County Council proposed a Shoreham division comprising the district wards of Buckingham and St Nicolas and the part of St Mary’s district ward lying to the south of the railway line. It proposed a Kingston Buci division comprising
44 Southlands district ward, the remainder of St Mary’s district ward and polling district AX in the western half of Southwick Green district ward. It also proposed a Southwick division comprising the district wards of Eastbrook, Hillside and the remainder of Southwick Green district ward (polling district AW). The County Council’s proposals would provide a relatively poor level of electoral equality, and just 17% coterminosity would be secured between district ward and county division boundaries.
57 Councillor Jones stated that ‘the County Council’s proposals for Adur do not give due provenance to the Commission’s coterminous requirements’. He also stated that it was ‘wholly unsuitable’ to include that part of Churchill, the polling district south of the railway line, in a Sompting division because ‘the residential area in Sompting is separated by a very large industrial estate from the residential area in [Churchill] ward and acts as a strong barrier between… the two areas’. He stated that his proposals ‘recognise the distinct identities of Sompting, Lancing, Shoreham and Southwick’.
58 Councillor Jones proposed a Sompting division comprising the district wards of Cokeham and Peverel, a Lancing East division comprising the district wards of Mash Barn and Churchill, and a Lancing West division comprising the district wards of Manor and Elms. In the east of Adur he proposed a Shoreham St Nicholas division comprising the district wards of Buckingham, St Nicolas and Marine. He also proposed a Shoreham St Mary’s division comprising the district wards of Southlands, St Mary’s and part of Southwick Green (polling district AX), and a Southwick division, identical to the County Council’s Southwick division, comprising the district wards of Eastbrook, Hillside and part of Southwick Green (polling district AW). Councillor Jones’s proposals would provide 67% coterminosity between district wards and county divisions, but would have provided a poorer level of electoral equality than the County Council’s proposals.
59 We received two other proposals in relation to Adur district. Lancing and Sompting parish councils both opposed the County Council’s proposals and stated that the existing Sompting division should remain unchanged, as under Councillor Jones’s proposal. Lancing Parish Council also opposed the inclusion of part of Lancing in a Sompting division, stating that ‘geographically and demographically the part of Lancing [polling district AD of Churchill ward] to be included within the Sompting [division], is disparate, and not compatible with the rest of the proposed [division]’.
60 In our draft recommendations we adopted a combination of the County Council’s and Councillor Jones’s proposals, with some minor amendments. In the west of Adur we adopted the Sompting and Lancing divisions proposed by Councillor Jones and supported by both the parish councils. Due to the number of councillors that Adur is entitled to, a number of divisions will necessarily have a poor level of electoral equality in Adur. We considered that by adopting these two divisions that have poor levels of electoral equality (21% and 17% respectively by 2007) but are coterminous and reflect community identities and interests, we were providing the best balance between the statutory criteria given the constraints in the area while also facilitating our proposals in the rest of the district.
61 In the east of the district and on the coast we adopted the County Council’s proposals with a number of amendments to improve electoral equality. We adopted the County Council’s proposed Saltings division as we considered this reflected community identities and interests, was coterminous and provided a good level of electoral equality.
45 62 We adopted the County Council’s proposed Shoreham division with no amendments as it is coterminous and facilitates our proposals in the rest of the district. We adopted the County Council’s proposed Southwick and Kingston Buci divisions with some amendments to improve electoral equality. We transferred the area broadly to the east of Kingston Lane and west of Victoria Road from the County Council’s proposed Southwick division to the Kingston Buci division. This ensured that both these divisions would have electoral variances of less than 10% from the county average both initially and by 2007.
63 We also divided polling district AX between Kingston Buci and Southwick divisions to improve access routes within the Southwick division. We considered that by transferring parts of these polling districts between these divisions we improved electoral equality and access links and have consequently improved the balance between the statutory criteria.
64 Under our draft recommendations the district of Adur would have 50% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Under our draft recommendations Kingston Buci, Saltings, Shoreham, Southwick and Sompting divisions would initially contain 9%, 9%, 14%, 7% and 19% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 10%, 15%, 9% and 21% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Lancing division would initially contain 19% more electors per councillor than the county average (17% more by 2007).
65 At Stage Three, we received three representations regarding the uniform pattern of single-member divisions that we proposed in Adur. The County Council supported the amendments we made to its Stage One proposals in the east of the district. In the west of the district, however, it opposed our draft recommendations for Lancing and Sompting divisions, which would have 17% more and 21% fewer electors than the county average, respectively, by 2007. It noted that this would result in varying workloads for the councillors representing these divisions and stated that it ‘does not consider this very large difference in workload is justified or desirable’. The only other evidence it provided was that the two divisions ‘cover an urban area, which is all very similar in character, parish boundaries being indistinguishable on the ground’. It proposed that we adopt its original Stage One proposals for this area.
66 Councillor Deedman also opposed the draft recommendations in the west of Adur and proposed that we either adopt the County Council’s Stage One scheme in the area, or that we combine the single-member Lancing and Sompting divisions in a two- member division. He provided similar evidence to the County Council, stating that ‘although [Lancing and Sompting] are separate parishes, they are one community. They share one major shopping centre, one secondary school, most voluntary associations being “Lancing & Sompting whatever”, similar housing etc and no one from outside the area could say where the parish boundary is between them’.
67 Sompting Parish Council supported the draft recommendations for Adur, in particular the single-member division for the parish of Sompting and considered that the proposals reflect community identity.
68 Having carefully considered the representations received, we have decided to endorse our draft recommendations in their entirety. We do not consider that the County Council or Councillor Deedman provided any further evidence to justify adopting the
46 County Council’s original Stage One scheme that we considered when formulating our draft recommendations. We considered adopting a two-member division in Sompting and Lancing, as proposed by Councillor Deedman. We consider that this proposal has some merit and we acknowledge that the area is generally urban in nature and that a two-member division would not be unjustified in this area. However, we do not consider that Councillor Deedman provided strong enough evidence to persuade us to move away from our draft recommendations. We consider that the draft recommendations reflect the community of interest identified during Stage One. We also note the support our draft recommendations received from Sompting Parish Council who consider that the proposals do reflect community identity.
69 Under our final recommendations the district of Adur will have 50% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Under our final recommendations Kingston Buci, Saltings, Shoreham, Southwick and Sompting divisions will initially contain 9%, 9%, 14%, 7% and 19% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 10%, 15%, 9% and 21% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Lancing division will initially contain 19% more electors per councillor than the county average (17% more by 2007). Our final recommendations are illustrated on Sheet 1 and Sheet 2 (Map 1) at the back of this report.
Arun district
70 Under the current arrangements the district of Arun is represented by 13 county councillors serving 13 divisions. Arun East, Arundel & Angmering, Felpham, Hotham and Littlehampton North divisions currently contain 24%, 1%, 6%, 11% and 14% fewer electors than the county average respectively (26%, 7% (more), 6%, 10% and 15% fewer by 2007). Bersted, Bognor Regis, Fontwell, Littlehampton Town, Nyetimber, Preston Manor and Rustington West divisions currently contain 16%, 4%, 4%, 18%, 19%, 6% and 7% more electors than the county average respectively (17%, 4%, 2%, 20%, 16%, 3% and 4% more by 2007). Middleton division would initially have an electoral variance equal to the county average (1% fewer by 2007).
71 At Stage One we received eight submissions in relation to the district of Arun. The County Council, Councillor Jones, Councillor Deedman, Arun District Council and East Preston Parish Council all submitted district-wide schemes consisting of single-member divisions, which were broadly similar in the west of the district but provided alternative arrangements in the east of the district. Councillor Freeman (Middleton division) also submitted a district-wide scheme.
72 In the west of the district, the County Council proposed a Nyetimber division comprising the district wards of Aldwick West and Pagham & Rose Green. It proposed a Bognor Regis West division comprising the district wards of Aldwick East and Marine, and a Bognor Regis East division comprising the district wards of Hotham and Orchard. It proposed a Bersted division comprising the district wards of Bersted and Pevensey, and a Felpham division comprising the district wards of Felpham East and Felpham West. It proposed a Middleton division comprising the district wards of Middleton-on- Sea and Yapton, and a Fontwell division comprising the district wards of Barnham and Walberton. Arun District Council, East Preston Parish Council and Councillor Deedman also all proposed these divisions in the west of the district.
47 73 The County Council noted that ‘the organisation of the coastal wards from the River Arun eastwards makes it very difficult to devise a scheme that avoids having to split parishes or parish wards’. To the east of the River Arun the County Council proposed an Arundel Angmering division comprising the district wards of Angmering and Arundel, and a Ferring Findon divison comprising the district wards of Ferring, Findon and part of East Preston with Kingston district ward (Kingston parish and polling district BE of East Preston parish). It noted that this division would require the re-warding of East Preston parish. It proposed a Littlehampton North division comprising the district wards of Ham and Wick with Toddington, and a Littlehampton Town division comprising the district wards of Beach and River. It proposed a Rustington East division comprising Rustington East district ward, the remainder of East Preston with Kingston district ward (West Preston parish ward of Rustington parish and polling district BF of East Preston parish) and part of Rustington West district ward (polling district CH). Finally it proposed a Rustington West division comprising Brookfield district ward and the remainder of Rustington West district ward (polling districts CI, CJ and CS).
74 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 77% coterminosity would be secured between district wards and county divisions. Four divisions would have electoral variances of over 10% by 2007.
75 Councillor Freeman submitted one of the schemes formulated by the County Council during its consultation process. She proposed identical divisions to the County Council to the east of the River Arun and in the west proposed an alternative arrangement which she considered reflected the ‘essential village identity and character of the Downland area’.
76 Arun District Council, East Preston Parish Council and Councillor Deedman also submitted schemes formulated by the County Council during its consultation process. They were all identical to the County Council’s scheme to the west of the River Arun but provided an alternative arrangement of divisions to the east of the River Arun. Arun District Council and East Preston Parish Council submitted an identical scheme. They both opposed the proposals of the County Council because they would involve the rewarding of East Preston parish and proposed some name changes to the divisions in the west of Arun. Under their proposals there would be 100% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries and there would be good access within all the divisions. However, Rustington division, comprising the district wards of Rustington East and Rustington West, would have an electoral variance of 21% above the county average by 2007.
77 As noted previously, Councillor Deedman proposed a scheme with the same divisions in the west of the district as the County Council. To the east of the River Arun he proposed an Arundel Wick division comprising the district wards of Arundel and Wick with Toddington. He noted that this division is ‘not ideal’ as it links an urban ward with a rural ward, but considered that it ‘enables the formation of community related divisions in the rest of the eastern part of Arun’. He proposed a Littlehampton Central division comprising the district wards of Ham and River. He also proposed a Littlehampton East division comprising the district wards of Beach, Brookfield and part of Rustington West (polling district CS) and a Rustington division comprising the district wards of Rustington East and the majority of Rustington West (polling districts CI, CJ and CH). He proposed an East Preston Ferring division comprising the district wards of East Preston with
48 Kingston and Ferring. Finally, he proposed an Angmering Findon division comprising the district wards of Angmering and Findon.
78 We also received submissions from two parish councils. Littlehampton Town Council proposed six divisions in the east of the district which were broadly similar to the County Council’s proposals. Ferring Parish Council opposed the County Council’s proposal to include part of East Preston parish in the existing Findon & Ferring division.
79 We carefully considered the Stage One submissions that we received. Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones because his scheme was based on a different council size. We noted the general consensus for the proposals in the west of the district and we considered that the River Arun is a strong boundary and adopted the County Council’s proposals in this area. In the light of the support received and the excellent level of electoral equality they provided, we adopted all of the divisions proposed by the County Council to the west of the River Arun, without amendment.
80 In the east of the district we carefully considered all of the proposals we received at Stage One. We agreed with the County Council regarding the problems of forming divisions in this area. However, we noted that its proposed Ferring Findon division had no access between the Findon and Ferring wards and we would not generally adopt a division with no access if there were alternative proposals that would meet the statutory criteria. We therefore were not persuaded to adopt a Ferring Findon division as proposed by the County Council, Councillor Freeman and Littlehampton Town Council. Although we are unable to take account of future development possibilities outside the five-year projections, we agreed with Ferring Parish Council that East Preston parish does not share a community of interest with Ferring and Findon district wards. We also considered that this division would have very poor access links between Ferring and Findon district wards, and as noted previously, we would not normally be persuaded to adopt such a division if there were alternative arrangements that would meet the statutory criteria.
81 We were constrained by the fact that the urban district wards in the east of Arun are all situated on the southern coast while the rural district wards in the north do not contain enough electors to form two divisions and contain too many electors to form one division with acceptable electoral equality. To provide a good level of electoral equality, it was therefore necessary to include at least one urban district ward with the rural district wards to the north. We adopted Councillor Deedman’s Arundel Wick division as we considered that it would facilitate divisions that united urban areas and reflected community identities in the rest of the district. We considered that including Wick with Toddington district ward with a rural ward was a better alternative than linking part of East Preston with Kingston district ward with the rural Findon ward. We recognise that uniting urban and rural areas in the same division is not ideal, but in this area we considered it necessary to facilitate an improved level of electoral equality.
82 We adopted all of Councillor Deedman’s proposals to the east of the River Arun. We considered adopting Arun District Council and East Preston Parish Council’s proposals which would provide 100% coterminosity and would ensure that no parish rewarding would be necessary. However, we did not consider that we had received sufficient evidence to enable us to adopt a Rustington division with an electoral variance of 21% above the county average.
49
83 Under our draft recommendations the district of Arun would have 85% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Angmering & Findon, Arundel Wick, Bognor Regis East, Bognor Regis West, Felpham, Littlehampton Central and Middleton divisions would initially contain 20%, 15%, 8%, 5%, 6%, 14% and 3% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (13%, 13%, 7%, 5%, 6%, 14% and 4% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bersted, East Preston Ferring, Fontwell, Littlehampton East, Nyetimber and Rustington divisions would initially contain 16%, 14%, 3%, 12%, 20% and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (15%, 11%, 1%, 9%, 17% and 5% more by 2007).
84 At Stage Three, we received 18 representations regarding the uniform pattern of single-member divisions that we proposed in Arun. The County Council supported our draft recommendations. The County Council noted that the draft recommendations ‘enable Rustington parish to be contained largely within one division and keep East Preston parish wholly in another. Unfortunately, this is at the expense of the proposed Arundel [Wick] division which links … two disparate areas with little in common’. However it went on to note that ‘having considered the alternatives … the Boundary Committee’s proposals are accepted’. It did however propose that we rename the proposed Littlehampton Central division as Littlehampton Town, as this is ‘the familiar and recognised expression for this division’. It considered that ‘Central is meaningless and unrecognised locally’. Councillor Deedman, whose scheme we adopted, supported our decision to adopt his proposal.
85 We also received support for our draft recommendations from Arun District Council. In its submission the District Council included a copy of the minutes of its electoral review working party meeting. The minutes noted that the working party had accepted that there was consensus regarding the divisions in the west of the district and that it was therefore considering the divisions in the east. The working party formulated a number of divisions to recommend to the full council. It considered a two-member Arundel & Arun East division comprising the district wards of Arundel, Angmering, Findon, Ferring and part of East Preston with Kingston (Kingston parish). It considered a two-member Rustington & East Preston division comprising the district wards of Beach, Rustington East, Rustington West and part of East Preston with Kingston (West Preston parish ward of Rustington parish and East Preston parish). It also considered that the draft recommendations be adopted in the west of the district, subject to Bognor Regis West division being renamed Aldwick East & Bognor Regis West.
86 It then submitted these recommendations to the full council who considered them before responding directly to The Boundary Committee with its proposals. The District Council noted that Rustington, East Preston, Findon, Kingston and Ferring parish councils had all responded to the district council with regard to the working party’s considerations. It stated that East Preston, Findon, Kingston and Ferring parish councils opposed the two-member divisions that had been formulated. The District Council stated that these parish councils raised issues ‘about the need for neighbouring parishes to be linked and also the need to recognise identified communities’. It stated that Ferring Parish Council considers that it has no affiliation with ‘the remote downland wards, particularly Arundel’. The District Council stated that Rustington Parish Council supported the revised two-member divisions considered by the working party as it ‘brought both sides of the parish together’.
50 87 Having considered the two-member divisions the District Council noted that there had been some detailed discussion regarding whether to support the working party’s two-member divisions in the east of the district or the draft recommendations. It expressed its concern regarding the proposed Arundel Wick division ‘as there was no clear identity or link between these two parishes’ and it considered that ‘the alternative proposal was seen by some to have offered a suitable compromise to the problems of community identity’. However, ‘following discussion, the Council agreed to support the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations for the east of the Arun District’. The only amendment that it proposed was the name change to Bognor Regis West division, as detailed by the working party.
88 The remaining respondents all made representations regarding the divisions to the east of the River Arun. We received support for our draft recommendations from East Preston Parish Council who noted that our draft recommendations ‘provides the best fit for East Preston, since East Preston and Ferring … share a lot of similarities e.g. both are coastal villages, both have a large proportion of elderly and retired people, both are south of the east/west railway line and experience common access problems to their villages, and importantly, both adjoin an important strategic gap, which they wish to see retained’.
89 The remaining respondents opposed our draft recommendations east of the River Arun. Arun District Littlehampton Labour Party opposed our draft recommendations and stated that Littlehampton Town Council’s Stage One submission comprising single- member divisions provided ‘much greater continuity with the previous arrangements and were therefore considerably less disruptive of local ties than [the draft recommendations]’. However, it also provided some evidence in support of the scheme containing two two-member divisions which was formulated by the District Council working party. It considered that the two-member Arundel & Arun East division ‘provides a reasonable answer to the representation of the area comprising mostly rural areas’. It notes that the ‘Arundel and Angmering connection which has been in place in previous years is preserved’. It considered that a two-member Rustington & East Preston division would unite areas which are ‘difficult to separate … because they are similar to each other’. It noted that this would also remove the need to re-ward Rustington parish. It stated that these proposals in the east of the district ‘provide a team of members in difficult areas who will have a better chance of working together to represent their areas than a single member would have with a divided community’.
90 Rustington Parish Council, whose parish warding arrangements we recommended altering, opposed our draft recommendations. It submitted a copy of the scheme formulated by the District Council working party that comprised two two-member divisions as an alternative scheme for the east of the district. This proposal would unite Rustington parish in one division. It did not however provide any argumentation to support this proposal. Littlehampton Town Council opposed the draft recommendations in relation to the Arundel Wick division and proposed that we adopt its Stage One proposals. It considered that the Arundel Wick division contains areas with ‘no shared interests, no history, heritage or tradition [and is] purely an accommodation to enable other areas of the county to benefit’. It detailed a number of historical links between Toddington and Wick and noted that ‘it has never been considered that Wick or Toddington should be administered through the parish of Arundel’. It stated that it was disappointed that its original Stage One submission was not adopted as it was ‘principally hinged upon the retention largely of the status quo’. Its original proposal was
51 similar to the County Council’s Stage One proposals and linked Ferring and Findon wards with part of East Preston with Kingston ward. It went on to say that Wick ‘is predominantly made with social housing and is an area of deprivation’ while Arundel ‘is recognised as being affluent and prosperous’. It considered that ‘the more commonly affluent areas of East Preston with Kingston [ward], small coastal villages, and rural Findon [share] more … common concerns and interests’. However, it did not specify what these were.
91 Littlehampton Town Council considered that by adopting a scheme based on the existing arrangements it was able to ‘[maintain] local ties … reaffirming an easily identifiable community, identity, interest and boundaries’. It considered that the existing ‘Littlehampton Town and Littlehampton North [divisions] are extremely coherent … based around two of the main routes through Littlehampton … [providing] excellent movement around the divisions which promotes the community identity which has existed over the many years these areas have been connected’.
92 Councillor O’Neill (Littlehampton North division) and nine local residents all opposed the Arundel Wick division. We also received a petition signed by fifteen residents of Wick who opposed ‘the idea of placing Wick with Arundel [and who requested to] be left with Ham ward with whom we are socially, geographically and historically aligned, and with [whom] we have a great community of interest as well as contiguous borders’. It also noted that ‘Arundel is in another completely rural parliamentary constituency’. One local resident considered that because Arundel ‘is such a tourist area [Wick residents would] miss out on any financial advantages because the bulk of what is on offer will obviously go to Arundel’. The majority of these respondents did not provide any detailed argumentation to persuade us to move away from out draft recommendations. We received some evidence from one local resident who noted that there are poor transport links between Arundel and Wick and who also noted that ‘Wick is very much part of Littlehampton and relies on the town for shopping, entertainment, schools, employment and business’. He went on to note that ‘Wick also has important economic links with Littlehampton; engineering factories, plant nurseries and tradesmen, who serve the town and create employment.
93 Having carefully considered the representations received during the consultation, we have decided to endorse our draft recommendations in their entirety. We note that the majority of the submissions regarding Arun district opposed the Arundel Wick division that we recommended as part of our draft recommendations. While we have some sympathy with the respondents regarding this area we do not consider that we have received sufficient further evidence to persuade us to move away from out draft recommendations. We noted in our draft recommendations that this division was not ideal but that we were proposing it because it provided a good reflection of the statutory criteria in the rest of the district and because we did not consider that we had the evidence to justify the alternative proposal for the east of the district which outlined a Ferring Findon division with poor links and no evidence of community identity, and which we noted was also locally opposed.
94 In order to move away from our draft recommendations in any area we need detailed evidence and argumentation in support of an alternative proposal. We note the feelings of the local residents and respondents who consider that Arundel and Wick with Toddington wards should not be included in the same division. However, the majority of these respondents asserted their opposition to the proposals but did not provide
52 alternative proposals or did not provide any specific evidence to support adopting an alternative proposal.
95 We do not consider that we have received persuasive evidence to justify adopting a scheme that we considered when formulating our draft recommendations. We note that Littlehampton Town Council provided some limited further argumentation in support of its original Stage One scheme which linked Arundel ward with Angmering ward and linked Wick with Toddington ward with Ham ward. However, we consider that the evidence that it provided was based on maintaining the status quo, which is not an argument that we can consider when formulating our proposals. We concur that Wick with Toddington ward is likely to be more ‘closely related’ to Ham ward but it did not provide evidence of community interest in this area. We also do not consider that it provided any specific evidence demonstrating the community of interest in its proposed Ferring Findon division (identical to the County Council’s proposal) that it considers we should adopt as part of our final recommendations and were therefore not persuaded to move away from our draft recommendations.
96 We considered the two-member divisions, formulated by Arun District Council’s working party and proposed by Arun District Littlehampton Labour Party and Rustington Parish Council. We note that Rustington Parish Council provided no evidence to support this scheme for the east of the district and were not persuaded by the evidence provided by Arun District Littlehampton Labour Party to move away from our draft recommendations. We generally seek to adopt two-member divisions only in urban areas where we consider that they will improve the reflection of the statutory criteria. We note that the proposed two-member divisions would both have electoral variances of over 10% and would both be non-coterminous. We would need very convincing and persuasive argumentation supported with detailed evidence to justify adopting a two- member division that combines urban and rural wards. We do not consider that Arun District Littlehampton Labour Party provided enough evidence to persuade us that combining the relatively urban Ferring ward and Kingston parish in a division with the more rural Arundel, Angmering and Findon wards would provide a better reflection of the statutory criteria than the proposed Arundel Wick division which combines just one urban ward with one rural ward. We note that the two-member Rustington & East Preston division would be comprised of urban wards, but we do not consider that we received evidence of community interest in the proposed division that justifies moving away from the draft recommendations. We also note that this division would have 13% more electors than the county average by 2007 which has not been justified.
97 We note that the County Council and District Council recognised the difficulties in forming the divisions to the east of the River Arun and in light of this, supported our draft recommendations as the best available option given the restraints in this area. We note the support for our draft recommendations from East Preston Parish Council who consider that our proposals reflect the community of interest in the area.
98 We acknowledge the opposition to the Arundel Wick division and as noted in our draft recommendations agree that this division is not ideal. We acknowledge the evidence provided by a local resident who provided some evidence detailing the links between Wick with Toddington ward and Ham ward. However, none of the Stage Three respondents provided enough evidence in support of the other areas which would be affected if we amended our proposals in this area. In particular, we do not consider enough evidence of community identity was provided. In conclusion, we do not consider
53 that any of the proposals that we received during Stage Three provide a better reflection of the statutory criteria and do not consider we have received sufficient evidence to justify adopting an alternative scheme at this stage. Therefore we propose to confirm our draft recommendations as final, subject to two division name changes. We propose to rename the Bognor Regis West division as Aldwick East & Bognor Regis West, as proposed by Arun District Council and we also propose to rename the Littlehampton Central division as Littlehampton Town, as proposed by the County Council. We consider that these name changes better reflect the constituent areas and in the case of Littlehampton Town is recognised locally, according to the County Council.
99 Under our final recommendations the district of Arun will have 85% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Aldwick East & Bognor Regis West, Angmering & Findon, Arundel Wick, Bognor Regis East, Felpham, Littlehampton Town and Middleton divisions will initially contain 5%, 20%, 15%, 8%, 6%, 14% and 3% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 13%, 13%, 7%, 6%, 14% and 4% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bersted, East Preston Ferring, Fontwell, Littlehampton East, Nyetimber and Rustington divisions will initially contain 16%, 14%, 3%, 12%, 20% and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (15%, 11%, 1%, 9%, 17% and 5% more by 2007). Our final recommendations are illustrated on Sheet 1 and Sheet 2, Map 2 at the back of this report.
Chichester district
100 Under the current arrangements the district of Chichester is represented by 10 county councillors serving 10 divisions. Chichester East, Chichester North and Fernhurst divisions currently contain 11%, 12% and 2% fewer electors than the county average respectively (11%, 6% and 3% fewer by 2007). Bourne, Chichester South, Chichester West, Midhurst, Petworth, Selsey & Sidlesham and The Witterings divisions currently contain 9%, 3%, 2%, 12%, 10%, 12% and 16% more electors than the county average respectively (8%, 2%, 3%, 12%, 11%, 12% and 18% more by 2007).
101 At Stage One we received six submissions in relation to the district of Chichester. The County Council and Councillor Jones submitted single-member district-wide schemes.
102 The County Council proposed linking each of the four urban Chichester district wards with a number of more rural wards and parishes to achieve divisions that reflect community identity. It proposed a Chichester South division comprising the district wards of Chichester South, Donnington, Sidlesham and part of North Mundham district ward (North Mundham parish) and a Chichester East division comprising the district wards of Boxgrove, Chichester East, Tangmere and the remainder of North Mundham district ward (Oving parish). It proposed a Chichester West division comprising the district wards of Bosham, Chichester West and Fishbourne, and a Chichester North division comprising the district wards of Chichester North, Lavant and Funtington. It proposed a Bourne division comprising the district wards of Southbourne and Westbourne, and a Selsey division comprising the district wards of Selsey North and Selsey South. It also proposed The Witterings division comprising the district wards of East Wittering and West Wittering.
54 103 The County Council noted that the north of the district is sparsely populated, with just three main settlements: Fernhurst, Midhurst and Petworth. It proposed that each of these settlements should be combined with the surrounding parishes to provide divisions with good levels of electoral equality that would reflect community identity. It proposed a Fernhurst division comprising the district wards of Bury, Easebourne, Fernhurst and part of Stedham (the parishes of Cocking, Heyshott and West Lavington). It proposed a Midhurst division comprising the district wards of Harting, Midhurst and Rogate and the remainder of Stedham (the parishes of Bepton, Stedham and Woolbeding) and a Petworth division comprising the district wards of Petworth, Plaistow and Wisborough Green.
104 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 60% coterminosity would be secured between district wards and county divisions with four divisions having electoral variances of over 10% by 2007.
105 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones because the divisions in his scheme were of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size.
106 We received four other submissions regarding Chichester district. Sidlesham Parish Council stated that it supported the County Council’s proposed Chichester South division. Easebourne Parish Council and Linch parish meeting stated that they were satisfied with the existing arrangements. Another parish council had no specific comments.
107 We noted that the County Council proposed separating the urban Chichester district wards so that they would be combined with more rural wards. It stated that it had considered uniting two of the Chichester wards in a single-member division, with the other two wards being combined with rural wards and parishes in a ‘doughnut’ formation. It stated that this would result in divisions ‘which were not considered to have any common community identity’. It also noted that Chichester District Council did not support any of the schemes that united the district wards in this way. We do not generally seek to adopt divisions that combine urban and rural wards and therefore considered a two-member Chichester division comprising the four Chichester district wards. This division would have an electoral variance of 15% above the county average by 2007, and the adoption of such a division in Chichester would force us to consider divisions in the rest of the district that were not proposed locally. We received little evidence regarding community identities in Chichester at Stage One and were therefore concerned that in the rural area any divisions of our own that we proposed would have a very poor sense of community identity.
108 We considered that a two-member Chichester division with a relatively poor level of electoral equality and a number of rural divisions based on little community identity evidence would not facilitate effective and convenient local government in Chichester. Consequently we adopted a uniform pattern of single-member divisions based on the County Council’s scheme that combined both urban and rural district wards in single- member divisions. However, we amended the scheme where we could improve electoral equality without a resultant deterioration in coterminosity.
55 109 We adopted five of the divisions that the County Council proposed, without amendment: Fernhurst, Midhurst, Petworth, Selsey and The Witterings. We proposed a Chichester East division comprising the district wards of Chichester East, North Mundham and Tangmere, and a Chichester North division comprising the district wards of Boxgrove, Chichester North and Lavant. We also proposed a Chichester South divison comprising the district wards of Chichester South, Donnington and Sidlesham, and a Chichester West division comprising the district wards of Chichester West, Fishbourne, part of Bosham (the parish of Bosham) and part of Funtington (the parish of Funtington). Finally, we proposed a Bourne division comprising the district wards of Southbourne, Westbourne, the remainder of Bosham (the parish of Chidham) and the remainder of Funtington (the parishes of Compton, Marden and Stoughton).
110 We considered that our proposals would provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, and invited comments at Stage Three on a two-member division in Chichester and on community identities across the district.
111 Under our draft recommendations the district of Chichester would have 60% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Chichester North, Selsey and The Witterings divisions would initially contain 4%, 1% and 6% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1%, 1% and 4% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bourne, Chichester East, Chichester South, Chichester West, Midhurst and Petworth divisions would initially contain 7%, 5%, 2%, 7%, 4% and 13% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 7%, 1%, 8%, 3% and 13% more by 2007). Our proposed Fernhurst division would initially have an electoral variance equal to the county average (1% fewer by 2007).
112 At Stage Three, we received six representations regarding Chichester district. The County Council opposed the draft recommendations and proposed that we adopt its original Stage One submission in its entirety. It acknowledged that although the draft recommendations improve the level of electoral equality in the south of the district, it considered the amendments we made to its scheme do not reflect community interest. The County Council considered that our proposed Chichester East and Chichester South divisions do not reflect community interests. It stated that North Mundham and Oving parishes are ‘physically separated by the A259 and have little in common’ and should not both be contained in the proposed Chichester East division. However, it did not provide any further evidence in support of its Stage One scheme.
113 Chichester District Council stated that it had considered the possibility of creating a two-member division in the town of Chichester itself but noted that ‘this was not supported’. It noted the representations in respect of the splitting of Bosham, Funtington and Stedham district wards but considered that the draft recommendations were ‘unlikely to be improved by any changes’ and therefore supported the draft recommendations.
114 The County Council considered that Funtington district ward should remain in its proposed Chichester North division. It stated that ‘local organisations, both political, and non-political, have … been amalgamated to work together in the interests of the area’. It stated that linking Funtington parish with Bosham parish and Chichester West ward ‘appears illogical’. It considered that Bosham and Chidham parishes are both ‘harbour and yachting communities and, as such, have developed close links’ and should be united in the same division, as outlined in its Stage One proposals. Funtington Parish
56 Council and a local resident supported the County Council’s proposals in this area and requested that Funtington ward should not be divided between divisions. The Parish Council noted that there are ‘strong community ties between Funtington and Lavant, which we want to maintain’.
115 West Dean Parish Council supported our draft recommendations for its parish where it is included in the Chichester North division with Lavant ward. It noted that it has ‘common links with other parishes in the area, in particular, the Lavant Valley Partnership Community’. Singleton Parish Council stated that it had no objections to the proposed changes.
116 We have carefully considered the representations received during the consultation period and propose confirming our draft recommendations as final. We note the representations opposing Funtington ward being split between divisions. However, we do not consider that sufficient evidence has been provided to persuade us to move away from our proposals, in light of the support that they received and the improved level of electoral equality that they would provide. We acknowledge that some evidence of a community of identity has been provided in this area. However, very little evidence of community identity has been provided regarding the rest of the south of the district which would be affected by any amendment to the Chichester North division. We do not consider that the County Council’s comments regarding the lack of community interest between North Mundham and Oving parishes justifies adopting its Stage One proposals in this area which would result in Chichester East and Chichester South divisions having electoral variances of 16% and 13% more electors than the county average, respectively by 2007. We did not receive any evidence to justify the County Council’s proposed Bourne division which would have 15% fewer electors than the county average by 2007 and have therefore not been persuaded to move away from our draft recommendations.
117 We also note that our proposals are supported by West Dean Parish Council who submitted similar evidence of community identity in support of our draft recommendations as the County Council, Funtington Parish Council and local resident did in support of the County Council’s Stage One submission. We also note Chichester District Council, having noted and considered that Funtington ward would be split between divisions support our draft recommendations. We note that Singleton Parish Council provided no objections to our proposals.
118 In conclusion, we propose confirming our draft recommendations as final in their entirety as we consider that we have not received sufficient evidence of community identity across the south of the district that justifies adopting divisions with significantly poorer electoral equality than the draft recommendations.
119 Under our final recommendations the district of Chichester will have 60% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Chichester North, Selsey and The Witterings divisions will initially contain 4%, 1% and 6% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1%, 1% and 4% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bourne, Chichester East, Chichester South, Chichester West, Midhurst and Petworth divisions will initially contain 7%, 5%, 2%, 7%, 4% and 13% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 7%, 1%, 8%, 3% and 13% more by 2007). Our proposed Fernhurst division will initially have an electoral variance
57 equal to the county average (1% fewer by 2007). Our final recommendations are illustrated on Sheet 1 at the back of this report.
Crawley borough
120 Under the current arrangements the borough of Crawley is represented by nine county councillors serving nine divisions. Gossops Green, Ifield, Langley Green, Northgate Three Bridges and Tilgate divisions currently contain 13%, 26%, 16%, 6% and 11% fewer electors than the county average respectively (12%, 22%, 16%, 6%, and 11% fewer by 2007). Broadfield, Furnace Green and Pound Hill divisions currently contain 4% more, 62% more and 8% fewer electors than the county average respectively (3%, 59% and 4% more by 2007). Bewbush division would initially have an electoral variance of 0% (2% fewer by 2007).
121 At Stage One we received nine submissions in relation to the borough of Crawley. The County Council, Councillor Jones, the Gossops Green Branch Labour Party and Councillor Mullins (Gossops Green division) all submitted single-member borough-wide schemes.
122 The County Council proposed retaining nine councillors to represent Crawley, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. It proposed a Broadfield division comprising the borough wards of Broadfield North and Broadfield South, and a Tilgate Park division comprising the borough wards of Tilgate and Furnace Green. It stated that this division ‘has been named after the main amenity area in the area’. It proposed a Northgate Three Bridges division comprising the borough wards of Northgate and Three Bridges, which it noted is largely the same as the existing division. It proposed a Langley Green division comprising Langley Green borough ward and part of West Green borough ward, the area broadly to the north of West Green Drive and Ewhurst Road. It proposed an Ifield division comprising Ifield borough ward and the remainder of West Green borough ward. It proposed a Bewbush division comprising Bewbush borough ward and part of Gossops Green borough ward, the area ‘to the east and south of Gossops Drive, including Gossops Drive itself,’ and a Southgate division comprising Southgate borough ward and the remainder of Gossops Green borough ward, the area ‘to the north and west of Gossops Drive’.
123 The County Council considered the London to Brighton railway line in the east of the borough a strong boundary and did not breach it in its recommendations. It proposed a Maidenbower division comprising Maidenbower borough ward and the area broadly to the south of Worth Road and Turners Hill Road in Pound Hill South & Worth borough ward. It proposed a Pound Hill division comprising Pound Hill North borough ward and the remainder of Pound Hill South & Worth borough ward.
124 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 33% coterminosity would be secured between borough wards and county divisions. None of the proposed divisions would have electoral variances of over 10% by 2007.
125 We received five other submissions. Councillor Smith (Furnace Green division) stated that he supported the scheme proposed by the County Council but proposed one name change in the east of the borough. He contended that the proposed Maidenbower division be renamed Maidenbower Worth to ‘officially recognise this historic area and make all electors in the division feel much more included’. Councillor Sully (Bewbush
58 division) opposed Councillor Smith’s proposal, stating that if the name Worth is to be included in the name of a division it should be the proposed Pound Hill North division, ‘so that it becomes Pound Hill North Worth’ because ‘by far the greater number of Worth residents live in the new proposed division of Pound Hill North’. She also stated that ‘as Worth is one of the largest parishes in the country stretching almost to East Grinstead, it is quite appropriate to preserve the name in the Mid Sussex division of Worth Forest’.
126 Councillor Sully also proposed that the proposed Tilgate Park division be renamed Furnace Green Tilgate. She also noted that the proposal to divide Gossops Green between divisions was not supported by residents of Gossops Green. Tilgate Branch Labour Party and two local residents also proposed renaming the County Council’s proposed Tilgate Park division, stating that it should be called either Tilgate & Furnace Green or Furnace Green & Tilgate, in order to reflect the identity of the area and to reduce confusion among the electorate.
127 Having carefully considered the submissions received during Stage One we formed our draft recommendations based on the County Council’s scheme. Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones, the Gossops Green Branch Labour Party and Councillor Mullins. We noted the excellent levels of electoral equality in the scheme proposed by the County Council. However, we identified a number of areas that we considered could be amended to further improve electoral equality. We proposed three two-member divisions in this urban borough as this would enable us to improve the level of coterminosity in Crawley and would also slightly improve electoral equality across the borough. We agreed with the County Council that the London to Brighton railway line forms a strong boundary which we did not breach. We proposed a coterminous two- member Pound Hill & Maidenbower division comprising the borough wards of Pound Hill North, Pound Hill South & Worth and Maidenbower to the east of the railway line. We considered the comments of Councillor Smith regarding the inclusion of the name Worth in this area, but were not persuaded to adopt this proposal. We noted that the County Council had considered this proposal before deciding not to adopt it in its submission, and we also note Councillor Sully’s opposition to this proposal. Therefore we did not consider we had received enough evidence to include it in the name of the division.
128 We proposed a two-member Gossops Green & Bewbush division comprising the borough wards of Bewbush, Gossops Green and Southgate. This combined the Bewbush and Southgate divisions that the County Council proposed. We also proposed a two-member Langley Green & Ifield division comprising the borough wards of Ifield, Langley Green and West Green. This division combined the Langley Green and Ifield divisions that the County Council proposed at Stage One.
129 In the remainder of the borough we adopted the County Council’s proposals as we considered that they provided excellent levels of both electoral equality and coterminosity. However, in light of the submissions regarding the name of the Tilgate Park division we proposed renaming this division as Tilgate & Furnace Green.
130 Under our draft recommendations the borough of Crawley would have 100% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. Our proposed Gossops Green & Bewbush, Langley Green & Ifield, Northgate & Three Bridges and Pound Hill & Maidenbower divisions would initially contain 5%, 8%, 8% and 1% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 7%, 7% fewer and 4%
59 more by 2007). Our proposed Broadfield and Tilgate & Furnace Green divisions would initially contain 2% and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average (1% and 4% more by 2007).
131 At Stage Three, we received seven representations regarding our proposals for Crawley borough. The County Council opposed our draft recommendations because of the two-member divisions that we recommended. It opposed the proposed Pound Hill & Maidenbower division as it considered that the single-member division that it proposed to the south comprises the ‘old village of Worth…which merges well with Maidenbower’. It stated that this area has ‘little in common with Pound Hill and Burley Wood, to the north’. It also considered that Worth Avenue is a ‘strong east-west road boundary’. It considered that the single-member divisions it proposed to the west are ‘well known by local electors and party organisations’ and should therefore be adopted in place of the coterminous two-member Langley Green & Ifield division outlined in our draft recommendations. It stated that the two-member Gossops Green & Bewbush division would cause voter confusion. The County Council provided no further evidence in support of its Stage One proposals for any of these divisions.
132 Crawley Borough Council also opposed our draft recommendations and supported the County Council’s Stage One proposals. It considered that two-member divisions would add ‘complexity to an already confusing electoral process [which] will have the effect of holding down or reducing turn-out’. It did not provide any further evidence in support of the County Council’s Stage One proposals. It noted that it ‘feels strongly that the names of each electoral division should reflect all the constituent district wards’.
133 Councillor Smith (Furnace Green division) also opposed the two-member divisions outlined in our draft recommendations, stating that although they ‘are appropriate for certain types of local authorities, usually more densely populated district authorities’ they are not ‘appropriate or relevant’ for a ‘strategic authority across a large area’. Again, we did not receive any evidence in support of alternative single-member divisions. Councillor Smith also reiterated his comments regarding the naming of a division in the east of the district. He proposed that ‘the place name of Worth be officially recognised along with Maidenbower’s in any electoral division’s title for this area’. He considered the ‘ancient settlement name’ should be officially recognised and that ‘those living in Worth are also physically cut off from Maidenbower by a busy road’.
134 We received support for our draft recommendations from four respondents. Southgate Branch Labour Party stated that it supported the proposals for Crawley ‘in their entirety’. Three other respondents all supported the proposed Gossops Green & Bewbush division outlined in our draft recommendations. Bewbush Labour Party, Gossops Green Branch Labour Party and Councillor Mullins (Gossops Green division), considered that the two-member division reflected community identities as it ‘avoid[s] splitting neighbourhoods’. Councillor Mullins proposed that the division should include Southgate in its title.
135 We have carefully considered the representations received during the consultation period and propose confirming our draft recommendations as final. We note the general opposition to two-member divisions in both Crawley and West Sussex. However, as noted in our draft recommendations, we consider that the urban nature of Crawley borough allows for the provision of two-member divisions that are not ‘unworkably’ large geographically. In the absence of evidence or argumentation in support of adopting the
60 single-member divisions that were proposed by the County Council during Stage One we propose confirming each of the two-member divisions, as well as the single-member divisions we proposed in our draft recommendations, as final. In light of the proposal from Crawley Borough Council, Councillor Smith and Councillor Mullins to name each of the constituent wards we propose renaming Gossops Green & Bewbush division as Bewbush, Gossops Green & Southgate. We propose to rename Langley Green & Ifield division as Ifield, Langley Green & West Green. Finally, we propose to rename Pound Hill & Maidenbower division as Pound Hill, Worth & Maidenbower. We consider that these name changes will provide a better reflection of the constituent parts in these two- member divisions.
136 Under our final recommendations the borough of Crawley will have 100% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. Bewbush, Gossops Green & Southgate division, Ifield, Langley Green & West Green division, Northgate & Three Bridges division and Pound Hill, Worth & Maidenbower division will initially contain 5%, 8%, 8% and 1% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5% fewer, 7% fewer, 7% fewer and 4% more by 2007). Our proposed Broadfield and Tilgate & Furnace Green divisions will initially contain 2% and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average (1% and 4% more by 2007). Our final recommendations are illustrated on Sheet 1 at the back of this report.
Horsham district
137 Under the current arrangements the district of Horsham is represented by 11 county councillors serving 11 divisions. Billingshurst, Hurst and Warnham divisions currently contain 11%, 24% and 12% fewer electors than the county average respectively (8%, 25% and 13% fewer by 2007). Henfield, Holbrook, Pulborough, Roffey, Southwater, Steyning and Storrington divisions currently contain 5%, 42%, 13%, 7%, 35%, 3% and 2% more electors than the county average respectively (7%, 40%, 14%, 5%, 35%, 2% and 3% more by 2007). Riverside division currently contains 1% more electors than the county average and will have an electoral variance equal to the county average by 2007.
138 At Stage One we received 11 submissions in relation to the district of Horsham. The County Council and Councillor Jones both submitted single-member district-wide schemes.
139 The County Council proposed retaining 11 councillors to represent Horsham district, to which it would be entitled under a council size of 70. In the north of the district it proposed a Holbrook division comprising the district wards of Holbrook East and Holbrook West and a Roffey division comprising the district wards of Roffey North and Roffey South. It proposed a Horsham Riverside division comprising the district wards of Horsham Park and Forest. It also proposed a Horsham Carfax division comprising the district wards of Denne and Trafalgar, ‘named after the historic centre of Horsham, called the Carfax’. It also proposed a Warnham Rusper division comprising the district wards of Broadbridge Heath, Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham and Rusper & Colgate.
140 In the more rural south of the district, the County Council proposed a Billingshurst division comprising the district wards of Billingshurst & Shipley and Rudgwick, and a Southwater division comprising the district wards of Nuthurst and Southwater. It proposed a Bramber Castle division comprising the district wards of Bramber, Upper
61 Beeding & Woodmancote and Steyning, and a Henfield division comprising the district wards of Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead and Henfield. Finally, it proposed a Pulborough division comprising Pulborough & Coldwaltham district ward and part of Chanctonbury district ward (the parishes of Thakeham and West Chiltington) and a Storrington division comprising Chantry district ward and the remainder of Chanctonbury district ward (the parishes of Ashington and Wiston).
141 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 82% coterminosity would be secured between district ward and county divisions. One division would have an electoral variance of over 10% by 2007.
142 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a different council size and therefore the divisions in his scheme were a different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size.
143 During Stage One, Horsham District Council supported the scheme proposed by the County Council. Councillor Watson (Southwater division) supported the County Council’s proposals and also proposed that the name Nuthurst be reflected in the proposed Southwater division, which comprises Southwater and Nuthurst district wards. He stated that ‘Southwater parish has the majority of the electoral numbers, but the Nuthurst parish has the bulk of the land area’. Nuthurst Parish Council and four local residents also proposed that the name of Nuthurst be included in the County Council’s Southwater division. Slinfold Parish Council objected to the County Council’s proposals as it considered that the proposed division in its area was geographically too large. Southwater Parish Council stated that it was happy with the existing arrangements. North Horsham Parish Council stated that it had no comments to make.
144 We noted the excellent level of both electoral equality and coterminosity that the County Council’s scheme provided. We also noted that it was supported by the District Council and Councillor Watson. However, in the north of the district we were concerned that the railway line created a barrier between the Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham and Rusper & Colgate district wards that the County Council proposed uniting in its proposed Warnham Rusper division. This railway line would prevent direct access between the east and west of the divison, and we would not normally adopt a division that has no internal links if there is an alternative scheme for the area that we consider provides a good balance between the statutory criteria. Having looked at a number of alternative schemes we considered that we would not be able to adopt a scheme that was proposed locally and any divisions that we proposed would be arbitrarily formed throughout the majority of the district. We received no strong evidence detailing the communities of interest in the district and were therefore reluctant to propose divisions where we had no evidence there is any community of interest. We therefore considered that the County Council’s proposals provided the best balance between the statutory criteria and adopted them with one minor amendment. In light of the support for the inclusion of the name Nuthurst in the County Council’s proposed Southwater division, we proposed to name the division Southwater & Nuthurst to reflect its constituent parts.
145 Under our draft recommendations the district of Horsham would have 82% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Billingshurst, Henfield and Warnham Rusper divisions would initially contain 1%, 3% and 2% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (2% more, 1% fewer and
62 2% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bramber Castle, Horsham Carfax, Horsham Riverside, Pulborough, Roffey, Southwater and Storrington divisions would initially contain 9%, 3%, 4%, 4%, 14%, 8% and 8% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 1%, 3%, 5%, 12%, 8% and 9% more by 2007). Our proposed Holbrook division would initially contain 1% more electors than the county average (2% fewer by 2007).
146 We received seven responses regarding our draft recommendations in the district of Horsham. The County Council whose scheme we adopted with amendment, which was the renaming of its proposed Southwater division as Southwater & Nuthurst supported the proposals. It made one minor suggestion to the naming of the Southwater & Nuthurst division and requested that it be renamed Southwater Nuthurst ‘to be consistent with the naming of other divisions that comprise two or more wards’ in the district. Southwater Parish Council stated that it was ‘happy with the [division] to be renamed Southwater & Nuthurst’. Lower Beeding Parish Council commented on the name of the district ward of Nuthurst and also opposed that any division be named Southwater (as originally proposed by the County Council during Stage One) as this ‘bears no relation to the Nuthurst/Lower Beeding area’ and would be confusing.
147 Shipley Parish Council opposed being in a division with Billingshurst parish in a Billingshurst division. It considered that the proposed division ‘represents the tacking on of a sparsely populated very rural parish to a densely populated growing village/town with complete disregard for the very different nature of the environment in each’. However it did not provide an alternative proposal and acknowledged that ‘residents in the west of [Shipley] parish use Billingshurst for shopping and medical facilities’. Woodmancote Parish Council opposed the draft recommendations for its area as it considered that the parish ‘has no affinity whatsoever with Upper Beeding and/or Bramber’. It proposed that it should be in a division with Henfield parish where it is ‘entirely dependent … for its local shopping, post office, banks, medical centre etc. and for most of its social activities’. It noted that there are no public transport links within the proposed Bramber Castle division and that ‘it is necessary to take separate buses in and out of Henfield’.
148 Horsham Conservative Association stated that it broadly supported the draft recommendations but proposed one name change. It considered that the proposed name of Horsham Carfax would be ‘misleading for residents as the area known as The Carfax … is… situated in the proposed new [division] of Horsham Riverside. It proposed that a more suitable name would be ‘Horsham West’. North Horsham Parish Council stated that it had no comments regarding the review.
149 We have given careful consideration to the evidence and representations received, and propose confirming our draft recommendations as final, subject to two name changes. We note the representation of Shipley Parish Council. However, we note that it has not provided an alternative scheme and acknowledges that there are some links within the proposed division. Therefore, we have not been persuaded to move away from our draft recommendations in this area. We also note the submission from Woodmancote Parish Council. We have some sympathy with the Parish Council in this area and acknowledge the links it has with Henfield. However, we note that Woodmancote parish is contained in a district ward with Bramber and Upper Beeding parishes and therefore moving away from our draft recommendations in this area would reduce the level of coterminosity in both the Bramber Castle and Henfield divisions.
63 Given the argumentation provided we do not consider that it has provided sufficient evidence to justify such a decrease in coterminosity.
150 We have not been persuaded to move away from the draft recommendations, which were based on the County Council’s proposals and therefore propose adopting them, as final, subject to two name changes. We are adopting the division name change proposed by the County Council to ensure consistency in naming of the divisions within the district and are renaming Southwater & Nuthurst division as Southwater Nuthurst. We note the support for the inclusion of Nuthurst in the naming of this division and consider that we are still reflecting the wishes of Southwater and Lower Beeding parish councils by making the amendment proposed by the County Council. We are also proposing one other name change based on Horsham Conservative Association’s proposal. We propose renaming Horsham Carfax division as Horsham Town West. We consider that by including ‘town’ in the naming of this division we will reduce confusion over whether the division is in the west of the district or west of the town.
151 Under our final recommendations the district of Horsham will have 82% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Billingshurst, Henfield and Warnham Rusper divisions will initially contain 1%, 3% and 2% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (2% more, 1% fewer and 2% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bramber Castle, Horsham Riverside, Horsham Town West, Pulborough, Roffey, Southwater Nuthurst and Storrington divisions will initially contain 9%, 4%, 3%, 4%, 14%, 8% and 8% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 3%, 1%, 5%, 12%, 8% and 9% more by 2007). Our proposed Holbrook division will initially contain 1% more electors than the county average (2% fewer by 2007). Our final recommendations are illustrated on Sheet 1 at the back of this report.
Mid Sussex district
152 Under the current arrangements the district of Mid Sussex is represented by 12 county councillors serving 12 divisions. Burgess Hill East, Cuckfield Rural, East Grinstead East, East Grinstead South, Haywards Heath East, Lindfield and Mid Sussex South divisions currently contain 12%, 10%, 12%, 8%, 13%, 9% and 16% fewer electors than the county average respectively (13%, 9%, 13%, 10%, 12%, 10% and 13% fewer by 2007). Burgess Hill Central, Hassocks & Burgess Hill West, Imberdown and Mid Sussex North divisions currently contain 17%, 22%, 27% and 3% more electors than the county average respectively (14%, 22%, 23% and 3% more by 2007). Haywards Heath West division currently contains 13% fewer electors than the county average, and 4% more by 2007.
153 At Stage One we received 13 submissions in relation to the district of Mid Sussex. The County Council and Councillor Jones both submitted single-member district-wide schemes.
154 The County Council proposed retaining 12 councillors to represent Mid Sussex district, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. In its submission the County Council noted that the size of the district wards in Burgess Hill, East Grinstead and Haywards Heath does not facilitate divisions that are coterminous whilst also providing a good level of electoral equality. It also noted that some of its divisions combine urban and rural areas in the same division. In the south of the district it
64 proposed a Hurstpierpoint division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Dunstall, Hurstpierpoint & Downs and part of Bolney (the parishes of Albourne and Twineham). It also proposed a Hassocks division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Victoria and Hassocks. In the rest of Burgess Hill it proposed a Burgess Hill Town division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Leylands and Burgess Hill Meeds, and a Burgess Hill East division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill St Andrews and Burgess Hill Franklands.
155 The County Council proposed a Haywards Heath Town division comprising the district wards of Haywards Heath Heath and Haywards Heath Ashenground. It proposed a Haywards Heath East division comprising the district wards of Haywards Heath Bentswood and Haywards Heath Franklands. It also proposed a Cuckfield division comprising the district wards of Cuckfield, Haywards Heath Lucastes and part of Bolney (the parish of Bolney and Slaugham & Warninglid parish ward of Slaugham parish).
156 In the north of the district the County Council proposed an East Grinstead Meridian division comprising the district wards of East Grinstead Ashplats and East Grinstead Baldwins, and an East Grinstead South division comprising the district wards of Ashurst Wood, East Grinstead Herontye and East Grinstead Town. It also proposed an Imberdown division comprising East Grinstead Imberhorne district ward and part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill district ward (Crawley Down parish ward of Worth parish) and a Worth Forest division comprising the district wards of Ardingly & Balcombe and Copthorne & Worth and the remainder of Crawley Down & Turners Hill (Turners Hill parish). In the east of the district it proposed a Lindfield division comprising the district wards of High Weald and Lindfield.
157 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 67% coterminosity would be secured between district wards and county divisions. Eight divisions would have electoral variances of over 10% by 2007.
158 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a different council size and therefore the divisions in his scheme were of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size.
159 Mid Sussex District Council supported the County Council’s scheme. Burgess Hill Town Council opposed the County Council’s proposals and proposed that ‘Burgess Hill, as the largest town in Mid Sussex, should be represented by three County Councillors and not shared with rural communities’.
160 Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Parish Council did not wish ‘to see Hurstpierpoint included with Burgess Hill Dunstall’. The Hurstpierpoint Society stated that the ‘neighbouring rural villages’ of Hurstpierpoint and Albourne should be united in the same division. Haywards Heath Town Council opposed the County Council’s proposals as they considered ‘it was inappropriate for [a Haywards Heath district ward] to be shared with Bolney and Cuckfield. Councillor Collins (East Grinstead division) and Ashurst Wood Parish Council requested that the County Council’s proposed East Grinstead South division be renamed East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wood in order to recognise the parish of Ashurst Wood. East Grinstead Town Council supported the name East Grinstead South. Ardingly Parish Council stated that it had a preference for
65 no change to its division. Turners Hill Parish Council supported the County Council’s proposals. Worth Parish Council had no comment to make regarding the review.
161 We noted that in Mid Sussex the size of the wards in Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and East Grinstead makes it difficult to form divisions that provide a good level of both coterminosity and electoral equality without mixing urban and rural areas. Although we recognised that joining urban and rural wards in one division is not ideal, we are constrained by the need to provide divisions with good electoral equality and coterminosity and therefore in Mid Sussex we considered that a number of divisions that mix urban and rural areas provided the best balance between the statutory criteria, given the constraints.
162 In Burgess Hill we proposed a two-member division which united the majority of Burgess Hill in a wholly urban division and also improved electoral equality and coterminosity in the south of the district. We proposed a Burgess Hill division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Dunstall, Burgess Hill Franklands, Burgess Hill Leylands, Burgess Hill Meeds and Burgess Hill St Andrews. The remaining urban Burgess Hill Victoria district ward would be joined with Hassocks district ward in a Hassocks division, as proposed by the County Council. We proposed a Hurstpierpoint & Bolney division comprising the district wards of Bolney and Hurstpierpoint & Downs.
163 In Haywards Heath we were again constrained by the size of the urban district wards. We noted that there are too many electors to justify the whole town being represented by two councillors and too few electors for three councillors. We therefore proposed two divisions in this area that combined urban and rural areas. We adopted the County Council’s proposed Haywards Heath East, Haywards Heath Town and Lindfield divisions and proposed our own Cuckfield division comprising the district wards of Cuckfield and Haywards Heath Lucastes.
164 In East Grinstead, in the north of the district, we used the County Council’s proposals as a basis for our draft recommendations. We adopted its proposed Imberdown division comprising East Grinstead Imberhorne district ward and part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill district ward (Turners Hill parish ward of Worth parish) and its Worth Forest division comprising the district wards of Ardingly & Balcombe and Copthorne & Worth and the remainder of Crawley Down & Turners Hill district ward (the parish of Turners Hill). In the town of East Grinstead itself we combined the County Council’s proposed East Grinstead Meridian and East Grinstead South divisions in a two-member East Grinstead division. This improved electoral equality and united the majority of the town in one division.
165 In Mid Sussex the size of the electorate in the three towns is not conducive to forming divisions that contain only urban wards. However, the primary objective of the review is to attain a good degree of electoral equality across the district, and we considered that combining urban and rural district wards was necessary to achieve this in Mid Sussex.
166 Under our draft recommendations the district of Mid Sussex would have 80% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Cuckfield, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath East, Haywards Heath Town, Hurstpierpoint & Bolney and Imberdown divisions would initially contain 25%, 4%, 14%, 10%, 12% and 9% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 6%, 14%, 12%, 9%
66 and 12% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Lindfield and Worth Forest divisions would initially contain 5%, 13%, 10% and 5% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (3%, 13%, 7% and 4% more by 2007).
167 We received eight responses regarding our draft proposals for Mid Sussex district. The County Council stated that it ‘rejects the draft recommendations for the creation of two-member divisions in Burgess Hill and East Grinstead [but] accepts the other changes made by the Boundary Committee’. The County Council opposed the two- member divisions as it considered that the disadvantages, including voter confusion ‘outweigh the limited improvement in electoral equality’. It proposed that we adopt its single-member divisions that it proposed during Stage One by dividing the two-member division that we recommended. In Burgess Hill, it considered that the whole town should be consistently represented by one councillor. Having supported the proposed Hurstpierpoint & Bolney division outlined in the draft recommendations, it then proposed that we divide the two-member Burgess Hill division that we proposed into single- member divisions. It proposed that, using polling districts as building blocks, we divide Burgess Hill Meeds ward between divisions. This proposal would provide two divisions with electoral variances of under 10%. However it did not provide any evidence in support of this alternative arrangement.
168 Mid Sussex District Council supported the County Council’s single-member divisions in East Grinstead as it considered the electoral variances are acceptable, although it did not provide any further evidence. In Burgess Hill, however, it stated that while ‘creating two single-member divisions … would be the best solution’ this could only be achieved by ‘dividing up existing communities’. It therefore ‘considered that in this situation it was better for a natural community to stand as a single division’ and that ‘it regretfully accepts the proposal for Burgess Hill’. It also requested three name changes to reflect the constituent parts of the divisions. It proposed that Lindfield division be renamed Lindfield & High Weald. It proposed that Hassocks division be renamed Hassocks & Burgess Hill Victoria. Finally, it proposed that Cuckfield division be renamed Cuckfield & Haywards Heath Lucastes. West Hoathly Parish Council supported the Lindfield division but proposed that we rename it High Weald & Lindfield ‘in order to retain the identity of all areas’.
169 East Grinstead Town Council opposed the two-member East Grinstead division that we proposed stating that it would ‘create lesser direct accountability’. Cuckfield Parish Council considered that its parish ‘would be better represented by a member more focussed on rural areas’ but did not provide any further evidence opposing our draft recommendations and did not provide an alternative scheme. Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Parish Council supported the creation of a Hurstpierpoint & Bolney division but expressed concern regarding ‘the mixing of rural areas with sections of urban areas’. Twineham Parish Council stated that it had ‘no objections’ to the proposed Hurstpierpoint & Bolney division’. Worth Parish Council stated that it had no comments to make regarding the review.
170 We have given careful consideration to the evidence and representations received during Stage Three and propose confirming our draft recommendations as final, subject to three name changes. We note the support for our single-member divisions from the County Council and also note its opposition to the two-member division that we proposed in East Grinstead. However, neither the County Council nor East Grinstead Town Council provided any further evidence in terms of community identity to persuade
67 us to adopt the County Council’s Stage One scheme in the town. We do not consider that the County Council provided any further evidence of community identity in support of its amended single-member divisions in Burgess Hill and have therefore not been persuaded to adopt them. We also note the support for the two-member Burgess Hill division from Mid Sussex District Council who considered that it provided the best option available given the difficulties in forming divisions that reflect the statutory criteria in this area and are therefore confirming this division as final.
171 We note the concerns regarding mixing urban and rural wards in the same division as raised by Cuckfield Parish Council. However, as noted in the draft recommendations the size of the three main settlements in Mid Sussex makes it difficult to form divisions that do not combine urban and rural areas. We did not receive any further evidence to persuade us to move away from our draft recommendations in this area and are therefore confirming our proposals as final. We note the concerns of some of the respondents in Mid Sussex but did not consider that we received further evidence in any areas to persuade us to move away from our draft recommendations. However, we propose to adopt the name changes proposed by the Mid Sussex District Council to reflect the constituent parts of three divisions. We note West Hoathly Parish Council’s proposal to rename the Lindfield division and consider that by adopting the District Council’s proposal in this area we are still able to reflect the constituent parts of the division. We propose to rename Lindfield division as Lindfield & High Weald. We also propose to rename Hassocks division as Hassocks & Burgess Hill Victoria. Finally, we propose to rename Cuckfield as Cuckfield & Haywards Heath Lucastes. We consider that by naming each of the wards in these divisions we are able to provide a better reflection of the constituent parts.
172 Under our final recommendations the district of Mid Sussex will have 80% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Cuckfield & Haywards Heath Lucastes, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath East, Haywards Heath Town, Hurstpierpoint & Bolney and Imberdown divisions will initially contain 25%, 4%, 14%, 10%, 12% and 9% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 6%, 14%, 12%, 9% and 12% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Burgess Hill, Hassocks & Burgess Hill Victoria, Lindfield & High Weald and Worth Forest divisions will initially contain 5%, 13%, 10% and 5% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (3%, 13%, 7% and 4% more by 2007). Our final recommendations are illustrated on Sheet 1, Map 1 at the back of this report.
Worthing borough
173 Under the current arrangements the borough of Worthing is represented by 10 county councillors serving 10 divisions. Broadwater, East Worthing, Goring-by-Sea, Maybridge, Richmond, Salvington and West Tarring divisions currently contain 10%, 4%, 4%, 15%, 15%, 4% and 7% fewer electors than the county average respectively (12%, 5%, 7%, 19%, 11%, 8% and 10% fewer by 2007). Cissbury and West Parade divisions currently contain 3% and 4% more electors than the county average respectively (1% fewer and 2% more by 2007). Durrington division currently has an electoral variance equal to the county average (8% more by 2007).
174 At Stage One we received three submissions in relation to the borough of Worthing. The County Council, Councillor Jones and Councillor Deedman all proposed single-member borough-wide schemes.
68
175 The County Council proposed a decrease in the number of councillors representing Worthing from 10 to nine, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. It noted that the Portsmouth to Brighton railway line ‘which runs east – west forms a natural boundary that has been used in establishing the warding structure in the Borough [and the] County Council has continued this approach in its review of county electoral arrangements’. It proposed a Durrington division comprising the borough wards of Durrington and Northbrook.
176 To the north of the railway line it proposed a Salvington division comprising Salvington borough ward and ‘that part of the Offington ward that turns southwards from the northern boundary of the borough through the Findon valley’. It proposed a Broadwater division comprising Broadwater borough ward and the remainder of Offington borough ward, ‘which includes Broadwater Green’. It also proposed a Palatine division comprising Castle borough ward and part of Tarring borough ward, the area broadly to the west of Rectory Road, north of Parkfield Road and to the west of Upton Gardens and the allotment gardens. It noted that ‘the boundary that splits [Tarring borough ward] has been drawn to keep the older part of Tarring in one division’. The County Council proposed a Gaisford division comprising Gaisford borough ward and the remainder of Tarring borough ward.
177 To the south of the railway line the County Council proposed a Goring division comprising Goring borough ward only. It stated that this division was proposed to improve coterminosity and is ‘an identifiable community’. It proposed a Worthing West division comprising Marine borough ward and part of Heene borough ward. It stated that ‘the A259 has been chosen to provide the eastern boundary … as it is a clear physical feature in the area’. It proposed a Worthing Pier division comprising parts of Central and Heene borough wards. It stated that the ‘eastern boundary of the division is formed by the A24, North Street and High Street on the basis that it keeps the main shopping area in one division and provides good electoral equality’. It proposed a Worthing East division comprising Selden borough ward and the remainder of Central ward.
178 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 22% coterminosity would be secured between borough ward and county divisions. Goring and Worthing East divisions would initially contain 19% and 4% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (22% and 6% fewer by 2007). The proposed Broadwater, Gaisford, Palatine and Salvington divisions would initially contain 15%, 12%, 19% and 18% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (12%, 8%, 13% and 13% more by 2007). The proposed Durrington, Worthing Pier and Worthing West divisions would initially contain 5% fewer, 1% fewer and 1% more electors than the county average (2% more, 3% more and 2% fewer by 2007).
179 Councillor Deedman proposed a scheme that was similar to the County Council’s scheme, but breached the Portsmouth to Brighton railway line by including part of Castle borough ward in a Goring division to improve electoral equality. His scheme would secure just 11% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries.
180 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a
69 different council size and therefore the divisions in his scheme were of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size.
181 We noted the poor levels of coterminosity provided in the schemes proposed by the County Council and Councillor Deedman and looked at ways of improving this. However, with the exception of Durrington and Northbrook, the borough wards in Worthing are forecast to have an electorate of between 6,117 and 6,876 by 2007, which would provide an electoral variance of between 21% and 30% below the county average if each single-member division comprised one borough ward. If two borough wards were contained in a single-member division this would provide an electoral variance of at least 40% above the county average. We did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to justify such high levels of electoral inequality and therefore proposed a number of two-member divisions to improve the level of coterminosity while providing an acceptable level of electoral equality.
182 We proposed a two-member Salvington division comprising the borough wards of Durrington, Offington and Salvington, and a two-member Gaisford division comprising the borough wards of Broadwater, Gaisford and Tarring. We also proposed a two- member Castle division comprising the borough wards of Castle, Goring and Northbrook. We noted that the proposed Castle division breaches the Portsmouth to Brighton railway line, which the County Council proposed using as a boundary. However, we considered that by breaching the railway we were able to provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, given the constraints in the borough. In the remainder of the borough we adopted the three Worthing divisions proposed by the County Council as these provided excellent levels of electoral equality.
183 Under our draft recommendations the borough of Worthing would have 50% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. Worthing East and Worthing Pier divisions would initially contain 4% and 1% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (6% fewer and 3% more by 2007). Our proposed Gaisford and Worthing West divisions would initially contain 17% and 1% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (13% more and 2% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Castle and Salvington divisions would initially contain 2% fewer and 4% more electors than the county average respectively (both will have electoral variances equal to the county average by 2007).
184 At Stage Three, we received five representations regarding Worthing borough. The County Council submitted a scheme, broadly similar to its Stage One proposal with an amendment to improve electoral equality. It considered that by including part of Castle ward in the Goring division it proposed at Stage One, the level of electoral equality could be improved to an acceptable standard. Its proposal would affect two of the divisions it proposed during Stage One. The amended Goring and Palatine divisions would have electoral variances of 6% and 2% away from the county average by 2007, respectively. However, by transferring part of Castle ward in to the Goring division, the division would become non-coterminous, resulting in just one division, Durrington, being coterminous in the whole of the borough.
185 The County Council also provided some further argumentation in support of its Stage One scheme in the rest of the borough. It considered that the two-member Castle division, comprising Northbrook, Castle and Goring wards, that we proposed, ‘links communities which have little or no common interest and which are divided by the
70 substantial barriers of main roads and the railway line’. It proposed that we should adopt its Durrington division as it considered that Northbrook ward ‘has much more in common with the Durrington ward, which together form a single distinct area of new development with its own identity’. It stated that both wards ‘include areas of considerable social deprivation’. It considered that Goring ward is ‘completely different in character, being a much more affluent area with a more elderly electorate’. It stated that it has ‘historically seen itself as an integral community looking to the coast’.
186 It also opposed the proposed two-member Gaisford division, comprising Broadwater, Gaisford and Tarring wards. It stated that ‘Broadwater has strong commercial and industrial interests and has little in common with Tarring, which is largely residential and has much closer links with the similarly residential nature of Castle ward’. It opposed the proposed two-member Salvington division, comprising Durrington, Offington and Salvington wards. It did not provide strong argumentation but stated that ‘Salvington ward has nothing in common with the eastern part of Offington ward, which looks to Broadwater for community purposes’.
187 Councillor Deedman opposed our draft recommendations and proposed the same scheme as the County Council’s Stage Three scheme as it considered this reflected the community identities that exist in the area. He stated that the proposed two-member Castle and Salvington divisions ‘each bring together different community areas that do not relate to each other’. He also noted that ‘Durrington is an established community that differs in particular in the background of the people, the housing and community organisations from Salvington and Offington to the east and Goring to the south’.
188 Worthing Borough Council submitted a borough-wide scheme that had been prepared by the Liberal Democrat Group on the Council. It stated that it accepted the recommendation for a council size of 70 and consequently accepted the allocation of one fewer councillors for Worthing borough, although it was ‘disappointing for Worthing members’. It also noted that the size of the borough wards necessitated ‘one or more divisions crossing the railway line’. It provided some evidence of community identities detailing why it opposed the draft recommendations. It stated that ‘Goring has little in common with Castle and Northbrook wards’. It also opposed the Gaisford division as it ‘forces together … Broadwater and Tarring which have little in common’.
189 It considered that a uniform pattern of representation would be a better alternative than a mix of single-member and two-member divisions which it considers are unclear and confusing. It stated that it had ‘examined options for a uniform pattern of single- member divisions, which could provide continuity with previous boundaries and stronger identification with communities’. It noted however that this was not possible without providing a very poor level of coterminosity. It therefore proposed a uniform pattern of three-member divisions in order to achieve ‘electoral equality, a high degree of coterminosity, consistent representation, and respect for natural and existing boundaries and communities’.
190 It proposed a Worthing East division comprising Broadwater, Gaisford, Offington and Selden wards and a Worthing South division comprising Central, Goring, Heene and Marine wards. It also proposed a Worthing North West division comprising Castle, Durrington, Northbrook, Salvington and Tarring wards. It considered that the Worthing East division ‘brings the industrial and commercial areas of Selden and Broadwater together’. It considered that this division would ‘give the residents [of Selden and
71 Broadwater] a strong voice’ regarding the County Council’s ‘plans for East Worthing access roads’. It provided some further information regarding the fact that this division would include ‘all of the existing Broadwater division, together with that part of Gaisford which includes a considerable section of the shops in the Broadwater district shopping centre’.
191 It considered that its proposed Worthing South division ‘aggregates four wards with a common coastal interest’. It stated that in this division there are strong east-west communications and that ‘development and protection of the seafront’ is a common link between the wards. It also noted that it ‘continues the links between Goring and Marine’ wards and that Heene and Central wards which suffer from deprivation are also brought together. It provided very little argumentation or evidence in support of its proposed Worthing North West division but noted that it ‘allows the reinstatement of the natural community of Durrington’ by combining Northbrook and Durrington wards in the same division. It also noted that it maintained the links in the remaining area of this division. In support of its proposal it noted that the three-member divisions would ‘match the county divisions to the parliamentary constituencies’. Worthing Borough Council’s proposals would provide 100% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. Worthing East, Worthing South and Worthing North West divisions would have electoral variances of 1%, 1% and 9% more electors than the county average, respectively. By 2007, they would have 1% fewer, equal to the county average and 8% more electors than the county average, respectively.
192 Councillor Stevens (Salvington division) also opposed our draft recommendations. He noted that the existing division ‘is primarily residential with the necessary supporting infrastructure’. He also opposed the use of two-member divisions, in principle for the county of West Sussex. Councillor Waight (Goring-by-Sea division) opposed two- member division in West Sussex as they ‘have no local support ... and are democratically unworkable’. He specifically opposed the two-member Castle division but did not provide any evidence in support of an alternative scheme.
193 We have given careful consideration to the evidence and representations received during Stage Three and propose confirming our draft recommendations as final, in their entirety. We note the County Council and Councillor Deedman’s proposal, based on the County Council’s Stage One scheme, with amendments to improve electoral equality. However, we note that the amendments would provide a very poor level of coterminosity, with just one division being coterminous in the borough. We note that the Stage Three proposals are very similar to the County Council’s Stage One proposals which we did not adopt as we did not consider they were supported by sufficient supporting evidence. We consider that to justify adopting a similar scheme, at Stage Three, albeit with improved electoral equality in two divisions, a very persuasive argument, supported by strong evidence of community identities must be provided. We do not consider that the County Council or Councillor Deedman provided such evidence and we have therefore not been persuaded to adopt any part of their scheme. We note the support for Durrington and Northbrook wards being contained within the same division, as they share a similar level of deprivation. However, we do not consider that a similar level of deprivation necessarily demonstrates community identity between the two wards. We also note that the other argumentation in support of combining Durrington and Northbrook wards was based on retaining similar divisions to the existing arrangements. Again, we do not consider that this demonstrates community
72 identity within an area and were consequently not persuaded by the arguments provided to amend our draft recommendations.
194 We note, with interest, the uniform pattern of three-member divisions proposed by Worthing Borough Council. We consider that these proposals have some merit and note the excellent levels of coterminosity and electoral equality that they provide. We note that Worthing North West division would include Durrington and Northbrook wards in the same division which was also proposed by the County Council and Councillor Deedman. However, we are reluctant to adopt three-member divisions at this stage as we consider that they will not have been consulted on and are substantially different to the single-member divisions that were outlined in our draft recommendations. We also consider that Worthing Borough Council did not provide strong evidence of community identity to support its proposals.
195 We note the opposition to including Goring ward with wards to the north and acknowledge that it would be preferable to include it with wards which are also bounded to the south by the sea. However, as recongised by a number of respondents during Stage One, as well as by Worthing Borough Council during Stage Three, at least one ward has to be linked with other wards north of the railway line if an adequate level of electoral equality is to be achieved. We do not consider that any evidence has been provided that has persuaded us that an alternative coastal ward has a better community of interest with a ward to the north of the railway line and have therefore not been persuaded to amend our proposals in this area.
196 We consider that the urban nature of Worthing borough allowed for the provision of two-member divisions that are not ‘unworkably’ large geographically and we proposed these two-member divisions as they provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity.
197 Under our final recommendations the borough of Worthing will have 50% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. Worthing East and Worthing Pier divisions will initially contain 4% and 1% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (6% fewer and 3% more by 2007). Our proposed Gaisford and Worthing West divisions will initially contain 17% and 1% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (13% more and 2% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Castle and Salvington divisions will initially contain 2% fewer and 4% more electors than the county average respectively (both will have electoral variances equal to the county average by 2007). Our final recommendations are illustrated on Sheet 1 and Sheet 2, Map 3 at the back of this report.
73 Conclusions
198 Having considered carefully all the representations and evidence received in response to our consultation report, we propose:
• there should be 70 councillors, a decrease in one, representing 62 divisions, a decrease of nine;
• the boundaries of all divisions, except Northgate & Three Bridges will change.
199 We have decided to substantially confirm our draft recommendations subject to ten name changes:
• in Adur, Chichester and Worthing districts we propose confirming our draft recommendations as final, in their entirety;
• in Arun district we propose to name the Littlehampton Central division Littlehampton Town and the Bognor Regis West division Aldwick East & Bognor Regis West;
• in Crawley borough, we propose to name the Bewbush & Gossops Green division Bewbush, Gossops Green & Southgate and the Langley Green & Ifield division Ifield, Langley Green & West Green. Finally, we propose to name the Pound Hill & Maidenbower division Pound Hill, Worth & Maidenbower;
• in Horsham district, we propose to name the Southwater & Nuthurst division Southwater Nuthurst and also propose to name the Horsham Carfax division Horsham Town West;
• in Mid Sussex district, we propose to name Lindfield division Lindfield & High Weald and Hassocks division Hassocks & Burgess Hill Victoria. Finally, we propose to name Cuckfield division Cuckfield & Haywards Heath Lucastes.
200 Table 4 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, comparing them with the current arrangements, based on 2002 and 2007 electorate figures.
74
Table 4: Comparison of current and recommended electoral arrangements
2002 electorate 2007 forecast electorate Current Final Current Final arrangements recommendations arrangements recommendations Number of 71 70 71 70 councillors Number of 71 62 71 62 divisions Average number of electors 8,288 8,406 8,583 8,705 per councillor Number of divisions with a variance more than 36 17 34 16 10% from the average
Number of divisions with a variance more than 8 1 9 1 20% from the average
201 As Table 4 shows, our final recommendations would result in a reduction in the number of divisions with an electoral variance of more than 10% from 36 to 17, with one division varying by more than 20% from the county average. By 2007, 16 divisions are forecast to vary by more than 10%, and one division will have an electoral variance of over 20%. Our final recommendations are set out in more detail in Tables 1 and 2, and illustrated on Sheets 1 and 2 at the back of this report.
Final recommendation West Sussex County Council should comprise 70 councillors serving 62 divisions, as detailed and named in Tables 1 and 2, and illustrated on the large map inside the back cover.
75 Parish council electoral arrangements
202 When reviewing parish electoral arrangements, we are required to comply as far as is reasonably practicable with the rules set out in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act. The Schedule states that if a parish is to be divided between different county divisions, it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division of the county. Accordingly, in our draft recommendations report, we proposed consequential changes to the warding arrangements for Rustington parish to reflect the proposed county divisions in those areas.
203 The parish of Rustington, in Arun district, is currently served by 16 councillors representing three wards: Rustington East (returning six councillors), Rustington West (returning nine councillors) and West Preston (returning one councillor). In order to reflect the county divisions in the area, the County Council, Councillor Freeman and Littlehampton Town Council proposed rewarding East Preston parish and Councillor Deedman proposed re-warding Rustington parish. All of the proposals that involved re- warding of either of these parishes improved the level of electoral equality of the schemes.
204 In our draft recommendations we adopted Councillor Deedman’s scheme in its entirety and therefore proposed to re-ward Rustington parish. We proposed that the existing parish wards of Rustington East and West Preston should be retained. Under our draft recommendations part of the existing Rustington West parish ward, the area broadly north of Worthing Road, but also including the electorate of Conbar Avenue and Jubilee Avenue, would become Rustington North parish ward. The remainder of the existing Rustington West parish ward would retain the name Rustington West.
205 In response to our consultation report, we received opposition to the divisions outlined in our draft recommendations that resulted in the need to change the warding arrangements of Rustington parish. However, we did not receive any specific comments regarding the arrangements that we proposed, and therefore, having considered all the evidence received, and in light of the confirmation of our proposed divisions in the area, we confirm our draft recommendation for warding Rustington parish as final.
Final recommendation Rustington Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Rustington East returning six councillors, Rustington North returning two councillors, Rustington West returning seven councillors and West Preston returning one councillor. The boundaries between the parish wards should reflect the proposed county division boundaries, as illustrated on Sheet 2, Map 2 at the back of the report.
76 6 What happens next?
206 Having completed our review of electoral arrangements in West Sussex and submitted our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by SI No. 3962).
207 It is now up to The Electoral Commission to decide whether or not to endorse our recommendations, with or without modification, and to implement them by means of an Order. Such an Order will not be made before 26 October 2004, and The Electoral Commission will normally consider all written representations made to them by that date.
208 All further correspondence concerning our recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to:
The Secretary The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Fax: 020 7271 0667 Email: [email protected] (This address should only be used for this purpose.)
77 78 Appendix A
Final recommendations for West Sussex County Council:
Detailed mapping
The following maps illustrate our proposed division boundaries for West Sussex County Council.
Sheet 1 of 2, inserted at the back of this report illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for West Sussex, including constituent district wards and parishes.
Sheet 2 of 2, inserted at the back of this report includes the following maps:
Map 1 illustrates the proposed boundary between the proposed Kingston Buci, Southwick and Shoreham divisions in Adur district.
Map 2 illustrates the boundary between the proposed Littlehampton East and Rustington divisions in Arun district.
Map 3 illustrates the boundaries between the proposed Worthing East, Worthing Pier and Worthing West divisions in Worthing borough.
79