sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aldford, Backford, Burton (near Tarporley), Caughall, Christleton, Churton Heath

Councillor submissions to the West & electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions by councillors.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

From: Gareth Anderson Sent: 02 February 2010 00:00 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Cheshire West & Chester review

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a response from myself and my Conservative councillor colleagues from & regarding the review for CHhshire West & Chester.

I would welcome a note of receipt.

Many thanks, --

Councillor Gareth Anderson Ledsham & Willaston Ward Cheshire West & Chester Council Please visit www.garethanderson.net for news, views and to get in touch.

COUNCILLOR GARETH ANDERSON

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a member of the Electoral Review Working Group of Cheshire West & Chester Borough Council (CWaC) I would like to make a few comments on my own account (and on behalf of my Conservative colleagues who represent most of the areas I am going to focus on in Ellesmere Port & Neston following a meeting we had over this previous weekend) in relation to the council’s submission for our Electoral Review. This is my second personal submission to you regarding this review. My first was submitted as part of Stage One but despite receiving acknowledgement of my email it was not included in any of your documentation nor did it appear to be used in any of your deliberations. I emailed you about this matter on 4/1/2010 but have yet to receive a reply to the concerns I raised then either.

1. Cross-Party Plans. Firstly I feel it is important to stress that the council’s two submissions, first for a pattern of multi-member wards, and now for a mix of wards, was drawn up during almost a year’s worth of detailed work by the Working Group which involved representatives from all parties on the council coming from all parts of the new Borough.

As a working group we had an excellent officer in David Owen who drew up several different warding patterns for us to use as a base for further development, and these included single- member only, multi-member only and a mix of single AND multi-member ward structures. These were very rough and approximate and were there to give us an indication of what was possible, but they all would have required considerable work to create a pattern that met communities of interest AND electoral equality.

We recognised that within the group there were differences of opinion on the issue of single- member versus multi-member wards, however that did not stop every member of that group taking a full and active role in drawing up the official submission from the Borough Council. We relied on the views of the Liberal Democrat member (Cllr Gaskill) in creating our proposals for the area that he hails from, and likewise Cllr Merrick (Labour) was very helpful in working with me to create the proposed pattern of wards in the Ellesmere Port and Neston areas especially.

At Stage One the Boundary Committee received an alternative proposal from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties based on 75 single-member wards. Their proposal was an off-the- shelf model used as a starting point should the working group or council have decided to develop a single-member ward proposal. Neither the working group nor the council as a whole did and thus this plan was not developed beyond this deeply flawed first draft. Therefore not only was the alternative for 75 single-member wards totally under-developed and flawed for a number of reasons, it did not had any cross-party or wider community input to help create it. It lacked broad support, and did not even gain the support of 3 of the 13 members of the council’s Labour Group at Full Council when it was voted on during Stage One. I was pleased, and relieved, to see that you rejected most of these proposals as they neither satisfied communities of interest nor the arithmetical needs of the process. It is likely that the alternative proposals from the Labour Party will rely on much of these original ideas and therefore will still be flawed for many of the reasons I state here. I urge you to reject them again.

2. Why Multi-Member Wards? I believe very strongly indeed that the best model of local representation is in multi-member wards. The council’s submission outlines many of these reasons but I would like to emphasise and explain what I believe are the most important of these. However, I recognise that you did not support this model at Stage One, and we did therefore pragmatically adopt a number of single-member wards from your draft recommendations. There is a request in the council submission for you to address our concerns regarding “convenient and effective local government” and I would welcome such a response. In the meantime please accept this as reasons why we have in several areas chosen to merge some of your single-member proposals.

Democratic Choice. At election time all residents have an active choice between parties and candidates/councillors and can spread their votes accordingly. This competition should improve the quality of councillors and candidates as parties and know voters can choose and split their support across parties. It creates true electoral competition.

Community Champions and Leadership Roles. It is acknowledged that in the structure of a modern council (CWaC included) there are positions of varying responsibility. In particular there is a separation encouraged by the Local Government Act 2000 between the management and leadership role of Executive members and the constituency/community champion role of other members of the council. In practice the leadership roles in councils are not confined to the Executive only, but the Chairmen of major committees and the leaders of political groups too. These roles demand considerable extra time from members and make it harder for them to act as effective community champions in the same way as members without these roles can. This would disadvantage residents in single-member wards where their councillor had undertaken a leadership role. It may in fact make it harder for councillors to spend time as effective leaders within the structure of the council if they have nobody else to support them in their role as community champion. Multi-member wards allow for a spread of responsibility, and for real team work between councillors where one may have a leadership role and another’s focus is as community champion.

Limiting Representation for the Public. There are many roles within the structure of the council which councillors take on which limit their ability to act on behalf of their residents (such as a member of Planning Boards or Strategic Planning Committee or Public Rights of Way). Single-member wards immediately mean that those residents are denied an automatic champion on these issues as the law limits what their elected representatives can do. A pattern of single-member wards designed to ape the House of Commons does not reflect the reality of local government where Councillors are frequently responsible for quasi-judicial decisions unlike MPs. Multi-member wards make it far more likely that residents will have a councillor able to speak up for them at these committees and on these issues on their behalf. It is actually limiting the democratic rights of residents in such situations if you have single-member wards. There is a similar situation if a councillor has a prejudicial interest for some reason. In multi-member wards they will have a colleague still likely to be able to assist residents. With planning being one of the most common ways in which residents seek the help of a local councillor people will have to choose to either not serve on planning, a vital function of local councils, or not serve their residents, the most important function of being an elected representative. Multi-member wards can avoid this situation entirely.

Diversity of Councillors. Councils such as CWaC, and our partners, have meetings at various times during the day and evening, and the government (not to mention political parties) is rightly aiming to improve the socio-economic, gender, age etc. backgrounds of members. If residents have just one councillor to turn to for all aspects of local government services then they are much more likely to want someone able to take part in daytime and evening meetings etc. This will severely limit the backgrounds of those able to be councillors to the wealthy, the retired and the unemployed. This will do nothing for good representation. In a pattern of multi-member wards parties and voters are able to select and elect councillors from a variety of ages and backgrounds, thus ensuring a more diverse and representative authority.

Cheshire West & Chester has a relatively diverse range of members serving on it, with several of us in our 20s and 30s, many with young families, a large number who work full or part-time in a variety of public and private sector roles as well as retired members. This would be under severe threat if we have a pattern of all single-member wards. I must declare an interest in this as I am 29 years old, work as a secondary school teacher and thus most of the time cannot make daytime meetings. In my current ward my colleagues are both retired and we share the workload between out so that our residents have a variety of representation at all times of the day and night. Not only that but they benefit from having 3 councillors who take an interest in very different areas and thus have a greater wealth of expertise and knowledge to call upon than they would in a single-member ward.

Councillors are NOT full timers. We receive an allowance which is representative of the work we do in a public service capacity. Multi-member wards reflect this in allowing many more groups of people stand and work as councillors who would otherwise not be able to provide the full-time role that single-member wards would encourage.

Communities of Interest. A more flexible pattern of 2 and 3 member wards also has advantages for the creation of communities of interest. To believe even for a moment that we can identify 75 areas each of around 3300 voters that match communities of interest is laughable. It is never easy but the flexibility of the range provided by 2 and 3 member wards, the 10% tolerance of each providing for a greater variation in the size of acceptable ward populations, makes it more likely that we will create true communities of interest.

This is in fact demonstrated quite clearly by the patterns of wards we propose, compared with the single-member alternative. Taking Whitby in Ellesmere Port as an example, under the council’s proposal Whitby is united in one ward. It is a clear, geographic and interest community which is well known and understood locally yet is currently split between two wards. The alternative single-member proposal splits Whitby 4 ways, and some parts of it are combined with areas that do not share the same community of interest without the benefit of keeping the whole of Whitby together.

The council’s preference for maintaining communities of interest within the same ward by including other whole communities of interest where necessary is far preferable than creating artificial divisions within communities of interest.

Public Understanding. Every voter in Cheshire West & Chester has always had at least two councillors, one district and one county, and most have had at least 3 if not 4. This pattern continued when Cheshire West & Chester was elected in 2008, having 3 members from each County Division, whereas it would have been possible to have just one. The reason why this was not proposed by anybody is that the public understands and prefers the choice of multi-member wards. And that is not just in Cheshire West & Chester but across the vast majority of councils in the entirety of . Therefore the majority of councillors have worked within this system and understand it too. Larger wards also make it more likely that people can be served by councillors who live within the ward and therefore can make councillors more effective community champions.

3. Proposed Warding Arrangements. I would like to briefly outline why I support the council’s proposals for warding in the north- west area of the Borough, as this is the place I know best.

A very important thing this boundary review has given us the chance to do is to reflect in more flexible warding arrangements the real communities of interest in Ellesmere Port & Neston. We took the view that using housing types/estates, public service access, local shopping recreation areas as foci for wards would enable us to create the heart of communities of interest, and that there were several natural boundaries between wards which are an improvement on what we currently have.

Neston. In the area of the old Neston Urban District Council, “Project Rural Matters” has been operational for a number of years now, and links closely with the western rural area of the new council’s are working and the services provided by Cheshire Police. There is one town centre focus, a single state secondary school and a similar reliance on the same local transport links. By separating this unit from the remainder of Ellesmere Port it became obvious that it should be represented by 5 councillors. The next question was how to ward these and again with the flexibility multi-member wards allow it was clear that Neston & Parkgate which are inter-dependant should themselves form one 2 member ward. It is easily identified and understood locally and is the tourism and economic hub of the area. It is much better to have a team representing the town centre and river front working together than it is to separate them. Your proposed Neston and Parkgate single-member wards actually separate communities of interest by combining large swathes of Neston into the Parkgate ward so that the numbers add up. My colleagues and I would request that this area remain linked in representation as it is in community terms.

Together the remaining urban and rural villages create a strong 2 member ward as we have proposed with , & Ness. Issues affecting residents in the Deeside of Little Neston also affect residents in Burton and Ness, and likewise the transport and housing issues of other Little Neston residents are reflected across this area. It is hard to see how this area could be equitably divided up 4 or more separate ways and still retain a coherence of representation.

Ellesmere Port. Clearly the town in which I live has several identifiable communities, many of which are far too small to have their own councillor, but are of such obvious commonality that they are easily linked together whilst utilising the natural boundaries I spoke of before. Ellesmere Port Town Ward is a no brainer for starters. Combining the housing estates that all would describe themselves as Ellesmere Port with their economic drivers such as the Town Centre and Cheshire Oaks, include the industrial zones that have such an environment impact upon the town centre’s residents and follow the natural boundaries as outlined in the council’s case and you have a coherent and meaningful ward which should have a team of councillors working together for the same ends in this deprived area.

The boundary proposed by the council in this area is better and reflects true community identities.

I would prefer the Boundary Committee adopt the council’s alternative pattern of joining our proposed single member wards of Grange and Village into one 2 member ward as it otherwise creates an odd boundary for numerical reasons which crosses the valley area. The variance is also better as a two member ward.

Rossmore & Rivacre ward brings together the established and new areas of development in the most sustainable way possible from the point of view of representation. Having the riverfront area in the one ward will enable a sensible approach to its development in future and also allow councillors to work together to ensure it has access to the services it requires without adversely affecting existing residents. We have discussed the names long and hard and believe these now reflect the true local understanding in the area. Your draft proposal which links the areas north and south of the railway line in a strange “bulge” effect does not meet any locally understood pattern of community identity and is totally unsuitable for the area. That is why we are proposing that the entire area north of the railway line is combined into the two member ward Rossmore and Rivacre.

Groves and Whitby has been one of the most well recognised and understood local boundaries for over 30 years now. It focuses on the local shopping areas and Whitby High School as its core. The three ward councillors for the area who represented individual parts of it prior to LGR all believe firmly that a 3 member ward, slightly expanded from the present one, maintains Whitby in one community and prevents areas such as Strawberry Fields (where I live) from being separated from all of the local amenities we rely on, Your proposal for this area contains only houses with no distinct community – we link with the other areas around and our proposed Groves and Whitby recognises this.

Ledsham & Manor takes the established and new mini estates of recent decades and brings them together again. It is a similar mix of housing types, has the same issues to do with planning, development on its greenfield fringes and access to local services and open spaces. Please do not be confused or misled by the rather strange shape of this area on the mao. Having previously lived in this area and now representing part of it, it DOES work as a community. The A41 is a natural and clearly understood barrier and boundary and has been used for all local elections except County Council where the old Sutton & Manor division was devoid of any local meaning or understanding. These proposals are in fact merely an amalgamation of two old Borough Council wards minus the area north of the railway line.

The alternative single-member wards proposal is utterly bizarre when it comes to Ellesmere Port. It takes no account of natural boundaries, historic links or wards, communities of interest or even local geography. It tears similar places apart and links them with others with which they have no community of interest. It criss-crosses the A41 and such natural boundaries without any regard for what is accessible or sensible, and then throws individual roads into whichever new single-member ward it feels like. On top of all of these problems it creates a pattern of wards which has a serious imbalance in terms of electoral equality, and Ellesmere Port is not even the most seriously affected area of the Borough under these alternative proposals. It makes a mockery of our attempts to create wards which both keep communities of interest together AND maintain a high level of electoral equality. In fact it would in most areas leave us with a worse level of fair representation than we have now.

4. Conclusion. Finally, no boundary proposal is perfect and doubtless the Boundary Committee will propose some amendments to this scheme although I hope it will take it on in bulk as it is one which has been developed by members from all parties and all parts of the Borough.

The Working Group explored countless options and this is the scheme which it believes is the best fit for our new Borough. I reject the alternative 75 single-member wards proposal because I believe it tears communities of interest apart, creates artificial boundaries where none exist, worsens the levels of electoral equality almost everywhere and will create in the end a less representative, less diverse and therefore less effective council for the people of Cheshire West & Chester.

I thank you for your time and the opportunity to express my views. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be if any further help or assistance.

Yours,

Gareth Anderson.

From: BOARD, Keith (Councillor) Sent: 22 January 2010 12:05 To: Reviews@ Subject: Cheshire West and Chester Boundary review

Dear Sir/Madam,

First of all, I would very much like to thank the Boundary Commission for their consideration on this matter. Unfortunately the first draft proposals are totally unacceptable to me.

I understand that living in in a rural area has too few voters to justify having their own councillor, which would be my first choice but due to Pulford/ ’s geographical location within the borough, it requires to be combined with an urban area to be a viable ward. To combine with Huntington as proposed in the Draft Recommendations, will put the voters of Dodleston at a disadvantage, with Huntington having the majority of registered voters. But if combined with Huntington and , making a three member ward as proposed by CWaC, the chance of having a rural representative within a party ticket is greater, if not guaranteed. This is the present situation and is working very much to my satisfaction.

Yours sincerely

Regards Cllr Keith Board Boughton Heath and

From: CROWE, Brian (Councillor) Sent: 31 January 2010 10:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: BC's Draft Proposals for CW&C

Cheshire West and Chester Boundary proposals

Saughall and Elton.

Thank you for your consideration for this ward in your Draft Proposal, whilst dividing and Elton into two seperate wards no doubt meets the number of residents criteria,it poses a very uncomfortable ...many are saying unacceptable...state of affairs, here in the community.. The parishes of Lea,,Chorlton and are and have always been as one with Mollington--Church --School--Village Hall--WI--Flower Club--Hospice Support Group and so many more small organised groups that make this communtity so vibrant. I ,of course realise the criteria that you are having to work to..where as others do not or are not aware of that fact. To keep to the scope of eligibility of numbers it is not possible just to transfer this group of nearly 400 residents out of one ward into another. To be acceptable and to address this problem the simple answer is to combine the two wards into a two member ward of Elton and Saughall . This proposal ,I am very pleased to say,found favour with CheshireWest and Chester Council, who had been approached by many of the organiseations quoted above. I would,therefore wish to register my support for the proposal for a two member ward of Elton and Saughall.

Kindest regards Councillor Brian Crowe( Ward) *********************************************************************** *

From: DONOVAN, Paul (Councillor) Sent: 18 January 2010 16:35 To: Reviews@ Cc: MERRICK, Pat (Councillor) Subject: Cheshire west Proposals

Dear Sir/Madam Having read the boundary review for Cheshire west area I would like to pass comment on the following. In the Ellesmere Port area one of the proposals of the name of a ward is HEATH, I am assuming this is derived from Whitby Heath, although there is a school in the town with this name it is not within the boundaries of the proposed ward, and I cannot see much in the way of resident association/belonging/identification with such a name. The proposed ward consists of areas of the previous wards of Pooltown/Sutton/Whitby (hope farm) Might I suggest that a more relevant name could be chosen from something like SUTTON ST JOHNs, BROOKSIDE or NORTH WHITBY (as part of the area was post marked in 1960,s) Regards Cllr Paul Donovan Sutton & Manor Ward

From: RITCHIE, Neil (Councillor) Sent: 31 January 2010 17:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Boundary Committee-Comments on draft recommendations for Cheshire West and Chester Council

Dear Review Officer,

I attach a final version of my response and would be grateful if you would substitute it in place of the previous one, referred to below.

Regards, Neil

From: RITCHIE, Neil (Councillor) Sent: 27 January 2010 22:57 To: '[email protected]';

Subject: Boundary Committee-Comments on draft recommendations for Cheshire West and Chester Council

Dear Review Officer,

I attach my representation in response to the Boundary Committee’s draft proposals for Cheshire West and Chester.

Regards, Neil ********************************************************************* *** Note: This E-Mail is intended for the addressee only and may include confidential information.

BOUNDARY COMMITTEE’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER COUNCIL – JANUARY 2010

COMMENTS BY COUNCILLOR NEIL RITCHIE, WARD COUNCILLOR

SINGLE MEMBER WARDS

1.0 From the experience of being a member in a single member ward on Chester City Council and one of three in a three member ward in the new Council I feel that residents have better representation in a three member ward and that those in a single member ward will be at a disadvantage. 1.1 Two or three members will offer a greater range of skills and experience to each member of the electorate. 1.2 In the new, larger wards than those of the former City Council, members are more thinly spread in proportion to the electorate. There are now only three members for every seven before. Therefore there is a greater chance in a single member ward of the individual member not being available to attend meetings, meet residents or of having a conflict of business. There is a greater chance that three members covering a ward three times the size will be available for their residents and their local organisations and parish councils, of which there are a great number. I have had several experiences where this has been the case over the past nine months. 1.3 Three members will inevitably cover a wider range of Council Committees, Boards, Executive memberships, Panels, Task Groups and Outside Bodies than one member. All this is to the advantage of each resident and enables each resident and the residents as a whole to have a greater representation in and access to the Council’s decision making. 1.4 If one member is absent through sickness, leave or other business, or disqualified through conflict of interest, other members in a three member ward can take their place, assist or represent the residents and progress the work of the absent member. 1.5 In a three member ward every resident has the chance of three members voting in their favour and representing their interests, whereas in a single member ward there is of course only one. This gives the multi-member ward greater influence. 1.6 It may be said that in a single member ward there is a clear accountability of one member to the ward. Conversely it can be said that in a single member ward there is a monopoly of representation. Who does the resident go to if he or she disagrees with the one member or can’t get service from him or her? 1.7 Where the three members are from different political parties there will be active competition between members for the electorate’s support, which drives up the level of service. Where the three members are from the same party there will be a greater level of co-operation, also to the residents’ advantage, as well as competition between the three members for their party’s continued support at the next selection process, again driving performance. 1.8 In reality, in the previous two tier system, there were always at least two members representing each constituent – their district councillor and their county councillor. The proposal for single member wards represents a regression in the range and diversity of each resident’s representation. 1.9 It is sometimes claimed by Independent councillors that multi member wards disfavour them at elections. This is not my experience in the wards included in the previous Broxton Division. Two of those wards, Malpas and , used to be two member wards. For many years each ward was represented by one Conservative and one Independent. Former Councillors Doug Haynes and Charles Higgie were the Independents.

2.0 BOUNDARY COMMITTEE PROPOSAL FOR FARNDON AND WARD

2.1 The creation of three single member ward out of the Council’s proposed Broxton Ward has produced in the Farndon and Aldford ward a very long and attenuated entity which appears to be an aggregation of parishes to make up the required electoral numbers, but while each parish has a connection to the one above or below, those in the south have entirely different and community ties from those in the north, which although stronger than those within the proposed ward are now to be severed into an adjoining ward.

2.2 The parishes south of the A534, namely , , Carden and Stretton, but not by Farndon, look more closely to Malpas than to Farndon for their shops, services and community facilities, because of the greater range of facilities there and because of the local bus service, which does not link to Farndon.

2.3 The parishes to the East of Farndon, namely Barton, Coddington, and Clutton look as much or more to Tattenhall for those facilities as to Farndon and Tilston.

2.4 Aldford, , Buerton, and look more to Tattenhall, , Boughton Heath and Huntington for those facilities, rather than to Farndon and Malpas.

2.5 The 41 Bus Service links the villages of the Broxton ward except those of Farndon, Churton and Aldford which are served by the Chester to bus.

2.6 The Clutton Primary School catchment area includes Broxton and , which are proposed to be in the Tattenhall ward.

2.7 Shocklach Primary School catchment area includes which is here proposed to be in the Malpas ward.

2.8 The Bishop Heber High School catchment area consists of almost the whole of the present ward as well as some of the area of . It is now proposed to be split between three wards. The advantage of the previous county division was that it gave rise to the Broxton Federation Group of Primary Schools under one county councillor. This group was set up to foster greater co-operation between these rural schools, their staffs and their governing bodies. As a governor of Tilston school I can attest to the virtue of this arrangement. Furthermore the LEA had set up a shared nursery service among these schools. Now these arrangements are going to be ever more vital in ensuring the survival of these schools in a more challenging financial environment. This co-operation could be put at risk if these schools are to be represented by different ward councillors as opposed to the single county councillor as previously or the group of three ward councillors as now.

2.9 Coddington Parish Room serves Handley Parish Council in the proposed Tattenhall ward.

2.10 Tilston Day Nursery serves residents from the whole surrounding area, including from the proposed Malpas ward and Tattenhall ward. 2.9 The inclusion of the name of Aldford, one of the smaller parishes along with Farndon in the name appears inconsistent with the other two proposed wards of Malpas and Tattenhall, both of which are named after the largest village in their area. Farndon is in the same size bracket as those two and Tilston is the next parish in size so the ward might better have been named “Farndon” or “Farndon and Tilston”.

3.0 BROXTON WARD SHOULD BE RETAINED AS A SINGLE WARD

3.1 This would continue the tradition of this area’s identity as a single county council division.

3.2 The villages and parishes within the ward have strong connections with each other.

3.3 They have longstanding and traditional family connections with each other.

3.4 They have a shared pool of employment locations.

3.5 They have a shared interest in agriculture and the same landed estates.

3.6 They have shared scheduled bus services and community transport and dial a ride service linked to the Bishop Heber High School transport service.

3.7 They share Bishop Heber High School, which is also a community school and provides leisure, recreation, sporting and social facilities to the whole area and acts as a major community focus.

3.8 Their primary schools work together in a single federation.

3.9 They share a common ambulance location and fire service location, with a local first responder service.

3.10 They share the same planning problems and require a combined approach to both planning and transportation in what is a well defined geographical area bounded by the River Dee to the west and the Bickerton Hills to the East, bounded by the urban settlements of Chester, Wrexham and Whitchurch and centering on the major road links of the A41 and the A534.

Neil Ritchie

Ward Councillor, Broxton Ward

Ms Jessica Metheringham Review Officer Cheshire West & Chester Review The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street SW1P 2HW 21st January 2010

Dear Miss Metheringham

Re Boundary Review

I am a Cheshire West and Chester Councillor and live in the current Overleigh ward and would like to provide comment on the area I live in and the area of which I represent. I have also stood as a candidate in both Handbridge and Curzon and Westminster, both only part of Overleigh ward since LGR in 2008, and have therefore spoken with many of their residents and am very well aware of their views.

Regarding Overleigh, it is very appropriate that you have separated the area of Lache into a single member ward. You have correctly established that the characteristics of this area are quite distinct from those of the remainder of this ward. In fact the area of Lache is the most deprived in all of the borough of CW&C and as such it requires quite individual and intensive support. This is quite unlike the rest of Overleigh which consists of Handbridge and Curzon and Westminster which you have decided should form one 2 member ward. There are distinguishing features in this are which should also provide a natural boundary between the two. Firstly is the socio-economic factor, that Handbridge has a large cohesive social housing sector which does not identify with its more affluent neighbour from which it is quite distinct. Then there is the major intersection between the two areas which physically separates them. Handbridge has it’s own social identity, around the schools, shopping and community centre which provides a youth club, older persons bingo club and group which maintains the upkeep of the historic Edgar’s field adjacent to the Dee. Curzon and Westminster are physically separated from Handbridge, by the A483 and large scale Overleigh roundabout and have no social or community connection. They do not identify with each other on any way. Handbridge has become subsumed by it’s more affluent neighbour for example, when it comes to having any say in local funding opportunities. This is demonstrated by the recent funding of a development of the Westminster Park leisure facilities including a BMX track which would have been most welcome in other more deprived parts of the borough. Before 2008, when the two areas were separate wards, local councillors were able to focus on their single ward both offering residents very accessible outdoor, weekly surgeries at the Dee bridge in Handbridge and outside the local shops in Curzon and Westminster. This is not practically possible when representing such a diverse area thus vastly reducing the close community contact, built up over so many years. I would ask that you give serious consideration to making Handbridge a single member ward separate from Curzon and Westminster in line with their very separate identities.

Regarding the area of Blacon which I represent, I would ask that you consider that whilst it is very pleasing that you have taken account of the very special reasons for maintaining Blacon as one ward, it is also clear that due to it’s multiple deprivation, it produces a considerable volume of issues which require attention. This would be far more effectively attended if separated into 3 single member wards as the residents would have a single port of call for attention and the ward councillors would have only one third of the ward to attend. This would greatly improve the response and attention provided to very needy residents in this very large area of very high deprivation. Whilst it is extremely satisfying to provide a service to residents, it is clear that were the residents able to identify with a single dedicated, ward member they would receive a more focussed and efficient service delivery.

I hope you are able to take account of these views whilst determining the final boundaries of our Borough.

Many thanks for your kind attention

Regards

Alex Tate CW&C Councillor for Blacon Ward

From: WRIGHT, Ann (Councillor) Sent: 28 January 2010 10:23 To: Reviews@; Subject: Boundary Committee-Comments on draft recommendations for Cheshire West and Chester Council

Please find attached my representation in response to the Boundary Committee’s draft proposals for Cheshire West and Chester.

Regards,

Ann Wright

Broxton Ward Councillor

Cllr. Mrs A Wright,

Ms. Jessica Metheringham, Review Officer (Cheshire West & Chester Review) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyn House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

Dear Ms Metheringham,

RE: Boundary Review – Broxton Ward.

I am writing to strongly object to the draft proposals to divide the existing Broxton ward into three single member wards, for the following reasons:- 1. I believe the proposed wards divide areas into ‘unnatural communities’ for example the placing of the village of Tilston into the Farndon and Aldford ward separates Tilston from its natural community of Malpas, the majority of its residents use services including the doctors and dentist in Malpas also Malpas is the nearest place for Tilston residents to shop. It should also be noted that there is no frequent bus service from Tilston to Farndon. 2. As with the example above it is extremely difficult to divide the Broxton ward without dividing communities it therefore makes more sense to allow the ward to continue as a multi-member ward. As a rural area the villages in the existing ward although all unique share common concerns for example loss or closure of services including buses, schools and churches. They also face common issues regarding planning and provision of housing; they are for example all eager to retain their unique identities, many are now in the process of developing Village Design Statements and are learning from the experiences of other villages/parish councils who have already carried out this process. 3. There are common factors which unite the Broxton ward, which included:- - The Bishop Heber High School, the only secondary school which serves the ward. - The partner primary schools which feed into the Bishop Heber have a long running network which fits within the Broxton ward, Broxton Federation Group (BFG). - A41 forms the spine of the Broxton Ward forming the main route for the businesses in our ward. 4. The emergency services are based and work within the Broxton ward, the a police station (Dragon Hall) based at , Tattenhall, the ambulance station at Milton Green and a Fire Station at Malpas. 5. The existing Broxton Ward is working well despite the short length of time it has been in existence, the new Community Forums have been well attended and have brought together like minded members of the community allowing good practice to be shared. I strongly believe that because this Forum represents one ward it has developed its own strength and identity. The sense that a problem when it is raised is ‘not our’ problem because it is in a different ward represented by a different councillor has gone. The problems communities face are all ‘our’ problems and can only be resolved if we all work together. 6. Single member wards do not take into account the work load and pressures placed on councillors, it also does not give residents a choice about who they can speak to over an issue. I have often heard supporters of single member wards say that residents can be represented by councillors from neighbouring wards particularly on planning matters if the local councillor is away, ill or has a prejudicial interest in the matter. This may well be the case however this does nothing to enhance democracy; there is no mandate or legitimacy to support their actions. 7. Single member wards representing small villages and hamlets standing alone in council meetings do not have the same weight and influence as large urban areas such as Ellesmere Port, Winsford or Chester which due to their populations will be represented by more than one councillor. This believe is held very strongly by the majority of residents in rural areas such as the Broxton ward and a move towards single member wards will strengthen this feeling and result in increased apathy and disillusionment. 8. As a councillor I am already seeing joint working across the ward where community groups and parish councils are working together, Broxton & District Parish Council (one of the smaller parish councils in the area) held a very successful consultation workshop to which all the parish councils and parish meetings in the ward were invited. A Youth Council has been formed reflecting the Broxton ward, The Broxton Youth Council. Malpas Parish Council are forming a business forum which also crosses parish council boundaries. 9. I believe as a relatively new councillor with a young family that multi- member wards provide the support I need to be confident that I can fulfil my role as a councillor effectively. I believe a framework of multi- member wards will encourage more people to stand as councillors from different backgrounds and with different experience and expertise. This will in turn mean our residents will be better represented.

I am proud to represent the Broxton ward and I am excited by the way communities, parish councils and groups are working together to get things done in a positive way and I strongly believe this is a result of the Broxton Ward providing an identity which they can relate and respond to. The Broxton ward is truly an example of a ward where local government is getting closer to the residents.

Yours sincerely,

Ann Wright 27th January 2010