Final Recommendations for West Lindsey District Council

Final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for West Lindsey District Council

Electoral review

September 2011

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2011 Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and final recommendations 5

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 8 Gainsborough 9 West 9 Central and south 10 East 12 Conclusions 13 Parish electoral arrangements 13

3 What happens next? 15

4 Mapping 17

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 19

B Code of practice on written consultation 22

C Table C1: Final recommendations for West Lindsey 24

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of West Lindsey District Council to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.

This review was conducted as follows:

Stage Stage starts Description Council 20 July 2010 Submission of proposals for council size to the Size LGBCE One 28 September 2010 Submission of proposals of warding arrangements to the LGBCE Two 21 December 2010 LGBCE’s analysis and deliberation Three 29 March 2011 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them Four 20 June 2011 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations

The Commission proposed a council size of 36 comprising a pattern of seven three- member wards, four two-member wards and seven single-member wards. The proposals were broadly based on the West Lindsey District Council’s authority-wide scheme with some modifications. The draft recommendations would provide good levels of electoral equality. Submissions received

During Stage Three the Commission received 28 submissions, including an authority- wide submission from West Lindsey District Council. The remainder of the submissions received were localised comments from district councillors, parish councils and members of the public. Some alternative proposals to the draft recommendations were put forward relating to the proposed wards in the south of the district, and in the north east of the district. All submissions can be viewed on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk.

Analysis and final recommendations

Electorate figures

West Lindsey District Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2016, a date five years on from the scheduled publication of our recommendations in 2011. These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 7% over this period. Although we had concern that this level of growth appears somewhat high, we noted that Gainsborough, the largest settlement in the district, was given Growth Point status in 2008 and there is significant development planned for the town in the coming years. We are therefore content to accept the Council’s electorate forecasts as the basis for our final recommendations.

General analysis

Throughout the review process, the primary consideration has been to achieve good electoral equality, while seeking to reflect community identities and securing effective and convenient local government. Having considered the submissions received during Stage Three, we have sought to reflect community identities and improve levels of electoral fairness. Our final recommendations take account of submissions received during Stage Three. We have moved away from the draft recommendations in two areas, in the south and in the west of the district in order to reflect the evidence received.

Our final recommendations for West Lindsey are that the Council should have 36 members, with six three-member wards, four two-member wards and 10 single- member wards. Three wards would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% by 2016.

What happens next?

We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for West Lindsey District Council. The changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Parliament can either accept or reject our recommendations. If accepted, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the next elections for West Lindsey District Council, in 2015.

We are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the review through expressing their views and advice. The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk.

1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review West Lindsey District Council’s electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 We wrote to West Lindsey District Council as well as other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals first on the council size and then on warding arrangements for the Council.

3 The submissions received during Stage One of this review informed our Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for West Lindsey District Council, which were published on 29 March 2011. We have now reconsidered the draft recommendations in light of the further evidence received and decided whether or not to make modifications to them.

What is an electoral review?

4 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

5 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Why are we conducting a review in West Lindsey?

6 We decided to conduct this review because, based on the December 2009 electorate figures, 44% of wards in the district have electoral variances of over 10% from the average. Most notably, the existing Caistor ward has 31% fewer electors per councillor than the district average.

How will our recommendations affect you?

7 Our recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also determine which electoral ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward and, in some instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your electoral ward name may change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. If you live in a parish, the name or boundaries of that parish will not change.

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

8 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

4 2 Analysis and final recommendations

9 We have now finalised our recommendations for the electoral arrangements for West Lindsey District Council.

10 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for West Lindsey is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 20092 with the need to:

 secure effective and convenient local government  provide for equality of representation  reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular - the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable - the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

11 Legislation also requires that our recommendations are not based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but reflect estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the end of the review. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward.

12 The achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that, in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. We aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five- year period.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of West Lindsey or the external boundaries or names of parish or town councils, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that our recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

14 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, where a council elects by thirds or halves (as opposed to the whole council being elected every four years), there is a presumption that the authority should have a uniform pattern of three-member and two-member wards respectively. We will only move away from this presumption where we receive compelling evidence to do so and where it can be demonstrated that an alternative warding pattern will better reflect our statutory criteria. Accordingly, our starting point for this review was that West Lindsey should have a uniform pattern of three-member wards given its electoral cycle at that time. However, on 13 December 2010, West Lindsey District Council resolved to change its electoral cycle in order that all councillors are elected

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 every four years. As a consequence of this decision, the presumption outlined above no longer applies in respect of this review.

Submissions received

15 Prior to and during the initial stages of the review, members and officers of the Commission visited West Lindsey and met with officers, members and parish and town councils. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. Seventeen representations were received during Stage One and 28 during Stage Three, all of which may be inspected at both our offices and those of the West Lindsey District Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

16 We take the evidence received during consultation very seriously and the submissions received were carefully considered before we formulated our final recommendations. Officers from the Commission have also been assisted by officers at West Lindsey District Council who have provided relevant information throughout the review. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance.

Electorate figures

17 As part of this review, West Lindsey District Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2016, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 7% over the period from 2010 to 2016.

18 We had some concerns about whether a rate of 7% growth would be realised. However, we note that the Office of National Statistics is projecting a similar increase in population over the period in the district.

19 We also note that Gainsborough, the largest settlement in the District, was granted Growth Point status in 2008 and that significant housing development is planned in and around the town. Given the number of projected development areas in and around Gainsborough, we are satisfied with the methodology provided by the Council and are therefore content to accept its forecasts as the basis of our final recommendations.

Council size

20 West Lindsey District Council currently has 37 councillors elected from 25 district wards. During our initial consultation, we received a number of proposals for council size, ranging from 25 to the existing 37. The Conservative Group on West Lindsey District Council proposed a council size of 32.

21 We considered carefully the issue of the appropriate number of councillors for West Lindsey. On balance we were minded to adopt a council size of 33 subject to further discussions with the local authority, as we considered that little evidence had been provided to justify any council size proposal received. This decision was also in accordance with the 2009 Act which provides that, for authorities that elect by thirds, there should be a presumption in favour of three-member wards. Therefore, at that stage, we sought to put forward a council size that was divisible by three.

22 In October 2010, we met with the Leader of the Council, the opposition Leader, and council officers to secure more evidence on the Conservative Group’s council size proposal and to discuss the review.

23 Following that meeting, the Council informed us that it wanted to propose a different council size, one that reduced the number of members from 37 to 36. We invited the Council to provide us with a rationale to support this number. The Conservative Group also provided a submission proposing a council size of 36 members.

24 Some evidence was received that justified such a council size in the context of the Council’s political management and committee structure, and relating to elected members’ representational role in the community.

25 The Council noted that having a 36-member scheme ‘will sustain decision making and scrutiny…whilst ensuring that the needs of individual citizens and local communities are addressed through the representative work of the Councillors’. The Council proposed no changes to its existing political management structure. It also noted that West Lindsey is a largely rural authority, which means that many councillors represent wards which are sparsely populated.

26 During Stage Three we did not receive any representations on council size. The scheme proposed by the District Council during this stage was based on a council size of 36 members.

27 We consider that, on balance, there is sufficient rationale to justify reducing the council size by one member. Furthermore, doing so would not adversely impact on the capacity of the authority to perform its statutory functions and would provide adequate representation for local people.

28 Based on the evidence received we have decided to confirm a council size of 36 elected members for West Lindsey as part of our final recommendations. We are of the view that a council size of 36 members would provide for effective and convenient local government in the context of the District Council’s internal political management structure and will facilitate the representational role of councillors.

Electoral fairness

29 As discussed in the introduction to this report, the prime aim of an electoral review is to achieve electoral fairness within a local authority.

30 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations will provide for electoral fairness, reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

31 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The district average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the district (71,859 in 2010 and 77,033 in December 2016) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 36 under our final

7 recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our final recommendations is 1,996 in 2010 and 2,140 in 2016.

32 Under our final recommendations, the number of electors per councillor in three of the 20 wards will vary by more than 10% from the average across the authority by 2016. Overall, we are satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our final recommendations for West Lindsey. General analysis

33 As indicated above, our draft recommendations were based broadly on the proposals of the District Council with some modifications to reflect comments received during consultation.

34 During Stage Three, the majority of submissions focused on specific areas, with only the submission from the District Council covering the district as a whole. Its submission stated that it agreed with many of our proposed wards, and proposed some amendments to some wards, namely Caistor & Yarborough, Cherry Willingham, Dunholme & Welton, Lea & Torksey, and Nettleham & Sudbrooke.

35 We received some opposition to the draft recommendations, in the areas of Nettleham, Cherry Willingham, Lea, Dunholme & Welton and Caistor. We considered that the evidence put forward in these submissions was compelling enough to amend our recommendations in some of these areas, but not all.

36 Our final recommendations are for a pattern of 10 single-member wards, four two-member wards, and six three-member wards. We consider our recommendations to provide good electoral equality while providing an accurate reflection of community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

37 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table C1 (on pages 24–25) and Map 1.

Electoral arrangements

38 This section of the report details the submissions we have received, our consideration of them, and our final recommendations for each area of West Lindsey. The following areas of the authority are considered in turn:

 Gainsborough (page 9)  West (pages 9-10)  Central and south (pages 10–12)  East (page 12)

39 Details of the final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 24–25, and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Gainsborough

40 The draft recommendations were for three-member wards for Gainsborough East and Gainsborough North, and a two-member ward for Gainsborough South- West. We received no submissions regarding this area during the consultation, and we are content to confirm the draft recommendations as final.

41 We therefore confirm as final our draft recommendations in Gainsborough. The wards of Gainsborough East, Gainsborough North and Gainsborough South-West would contain 3% more, 6% fewer and 2% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2016, respectively. These wards can be seen in detail on Map 2 accompanying this report.

West

42 The rural west of the district consists of the area west of the A15, which runs north/south through the centre of the district, from Scotter in the north-west corner to Saxilby in the south. It contains several sparsely populated rural parishes with, leaving aside Gainsborough, the main areas of population being the villages of Scotter, Blyton and Morton.

43 The draft recommendations for this area were for a three-member Scotter & Blyton ward, two-member wards for Lea & Torksey and Saxilby, and single-member wards for Hemswell, Scampton and Stow.

44 At Stage Three, in addition to the submission of the District Council, we received two further submissions relating to this part of the district. The District Council suggested splitting our proposed two-member Lea & Torksey ward into single-member wards for Lea and Torksey. The District Council argued that our proposed two-member Lea & Torksey ward would not reflect community identities or provide effective and convenient local government. A representation was also received from Councillor Milne (Lea) who also opposed the proposed two-member Lea & Torksey ward on account of its size, expressing her concern that it would be very difficult for a councillor to cover all areas of the ward.

45 We consider that we received sufficient evidence at Stage Three to amend our draft recommendations for this part of the district. We are therefore proposing a modification to our proposed two-member Lea & Torksey ward, which would result in single-member wards for Lea and Torksey on the same boundaries as at present.

46 A representation from Heapham Parish Council indicated that the parish has close links to neighbouring Springthorpe parish, stating that Heapham residents cast their votes in Springthorpe. The Parish Council also noted that residents of the two villages use Springthorpe’s village hall as a ‘meeting place for events’. In the draft recommendations, Heapham Parish Council was part of our proposed two-member Lea & Torksey ward and Springthorpe part of our proposed single-member Hemswell ward. As part of our final recommendations, Heapham and Springthorpe parishes are both to be included in a single-member Hemswell ward. This would result in the single-member Lea ward having 12% fewer electors than the district average by 2016, and the single-member Hemswell ward having 3% more electors than the district average by 2016. The electoral variance in Lea ward is slightly higher than we

9 would normally seek to recommend. However, in this case we consider that there is strong community identity evidence to warrant such an imbalance.

47 Therefore, the single-member wards of Hemswell, Lea and Torksey would have 3% more, 12% fewer and 10% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2016, respectively.

48 Aside from the District Council’s submission, we received no submissions concerning the remaining wards in this part of the district. Therefore we confirm as final the wards of Saxilby, Scampton, Scotter & Blyton, and Stow.

Central and south

49 The central and south part of the district is composed of the wards east of the A15 from the northern boundary of the district south to the boundary with Lincoln. The southern part of this area looks mainly to Lincoln, with the A46 road running through two of the wards. As with other parts of the district, this area is characterised by many sparsely populated rural parishes.

50 Our draft recommendations for the area were three-member wards for Cherry Willingham, Dunholme & Welton, and Nettleham & Sudbrooke and single-member wards for Bardney and Waddingham & Spital.

51 The majority of the submissions received during Stage Three were about this area, specifically seeking to change some of our proposed three-member wards into two-member and single–member wards.

52 We received two submissions regarding our proposed three-member Dunholme & Welton ward, from District Councillor Rawlins (Dunholme) and a local resident. The District Council also commented on this ward and proposed it be divided in two, resulting in a two-member Welton ward and single-member Dunholme ward. Both the Council’s and Councillor Rawlins’ submission stated that ‘the two communities are proudly independent and quite distinctive in the way in which they operate’.

53 We observed on a visit to the area that there are significant and obvious links between the two villages of Dunholme and Welton. Dunholme village’s website states that residents of both villages use services such as the health centre and library (both in Welton). Dunholme is also part of the Welton and Hemswell Neighbourhood Policing Team. Furthermore, Welton Parish Council’s parish plan mentions working with Dunholme Parish Council on some local issues. Given these close relationships and interactions between the two parishes and their residents, we do not consider that we have received compelling evidence to move away from our draft recommendations for this area. We therefore confirm as final our draft recommendations. The three-member Dunholme & Welton ward would have 3% more electors than the district average by 2016.

54 We received six submissions regarding our proposed three-member Cherry Willingham ward during Stage Three, two from parish councils, two from district councillors, and two from local residents. The District Council also commented on our proposed ward, expressing concern that Cherry Willingham, as the largest settlement in the ward, might ‘dominate and effectively choose the representative for the entire ward whatever the smaller community wishes’. The District Council suggested a two-

10 member Cherry Willingham ward, and a single-member Fiskerton. A two-member Cherry Willingham, containing the parishes of Cherry Willingham, Reepham and Greetwell would have 7% more electors than the district average by 2016. A single- member Fiskerton ward containing the remaining rural parishes in our proposed Cherry Willingham ward would have 30% fewer electors than the district average by 2016. This proposal does not, therefore, meet the criterion of good electoral equality, and falls far outside our acceptable range of variance.

55 As noted above, a single-member Fiskerton ward would have a prohibitively low number of electors to be a viable ward. We also note that Fiskerton parish could only access the rest of the Fiskerton ward by going via adjacent wards. We considered carefully if there was a viable way of dividing the proposed three-member Cherry Willingham ward. However, we do not believe that there is a better alternative arrangement for this part of the district. Therefore, we confirm our draft recommendation of a three-member ward for Cherry Willingham as final. This ward would have 5% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2016.

56 We received nine submissions regarding our proposed three-member Nettleham & Sudbrooke ward. Two came from district councillors (one of these submissions was from two district councillors), two parish councils and five local residents. These respondents favoured dividing our proposed three-member ward into a two-member Nettleham ward and a single-member Sudbrooke ward.

57 Councillor Curtis (Sudbrooke) commented on the links between Scothern and Sudbrooke, noting that the parishes are served by the same primary school and their churches have the same vicar. Councillor Curtis also indicated that the parishes share concerns over the same issues, such as highways, gas storage, public footpaths and planning matters. Councillor Curtis also mentioned the different interests that Nettleham has from those of Scothern and Sudbrooke. He stated that Nettleham is a ‘large settlement joining the City of Lincoln boundary’ and that the Parish Plans for Sudbrooke and Scothern ‘have nothing in common with those aspirations for Nettleham’.

58 Nettleham Parish Council expressed concern that district councillors may not adequately represent the whole of the ward, and may only focus on the parish in which they lived. Sudbrooke Parish Council voiced a similar concern, that the ward may not have a councillor who lives in the parish. Sudbrooke Parish Council was also concerned that their views may be ‘lost’ in a ward containing the much bigger Nettleham village.

59 Several other local residents responded stating that they disagreed with the proposal for a three-member Nettleham & Sudbrooke ward. In general, the views expressed were that Scothern and Sudbrooke are different in character from Nettleham, and that the two areas have little in common. There was no support for the proposed three-member ward.

60 In light of this evidence, we are amending our draft recommendations. We are proposing a single-member Sudbrooke ward, containing the parishes of Scothern and Sudbrooke, and a two-member Nettleham ward containing the parishes of Nettleham, Riseholme and Grange de Lings. The single-member Sudbrooke and two-member Nettleham wards would have 1% more and 13% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2016, respectively. We consider that this higher than normal variance in the Nettleham ward is acceptable, in light of the 11 evidence received and from our own observations on a visit to the area.

61 The remaining wards we proposed in this part of the district, Bardney and Waddingham & Spital, attracted no comments during the consultation. We therefore confirm these single-member wards as final. The wards would have 1% fewer and 4% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2016, respectively.

East

62 This part of the district has two small towns, Caistor and Market Rasen, to its east and outside the district is Grimsby. In keeping with the rest of the district, there are many rural parishes.

63 At Stage One, we received several submissions proposing a single-member ward for Caistor. As part of our draft recommendations, we proposed a two-member ward, bringing in parishes to the north–east of Caistor.

64 During the consultation on the draft recommendations, we received six submissions regarding Caistor. The District Council also suggested a change to the proposed two-member Caistor & Yarborough ward, arguing that it ought to be split in to two single-member wards.

65 District Councillor Caine (Caistor) and Caistor Town Council both argued that there should be a single-member ward based on Caistor town. Councillor Caine sent a submission identical to the submission he sent at Stage One, arguing that there is no community link between Caistor and the parish of Keelby, which is to Caistor’s north. Whilst acknowledging this view, a single-member Caistor ward would have 19% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2016, which is significantly higher than we would normally propose.

66 Having visited the area, we also considered the possibility of splitting the parish to reduce the electoral imbalance resulting from including the whole parish in a single-member ward. However, this would be inconsistent with the desire of having a single-member ward for whole of the town and would result in an arbitrary split of the Caistor community.

67 Accordingly, in the absence of a satisfactory alternative, we are confirming as final our draft recommendation for a two-member Caistor & Yarborough ward. This ward would have 12% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2016.

68 The only other representation received for this part of the district was from Councillor Strange (Kelsey), who proposed re-naming North Kelsey ward as ‘Kelsey Wold’ ward, on the grounds that this name better reflects the characteristics of the ward. We are content to adopt this alternate ward name as part of our final recommendations.

69 We did not receive any comments on the other proposed wards in this area, the single-member Kelsey Wold ward, the three-member Market Rasen ward and single- member Wold View ward. These wards would have 4% more, 8% more, and 4% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2016, respectively. We confirm these wards as final.

Conclusions

70 Details of our final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 24–25, and illustrated on the large maps we have produced. The outline map, which accompanies this report, shows our final recommendations for the whole authority. It also shows a box for where we have produced a detailed map. These maps are also available to be viewed on our website.

71 Table 1 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2010 and 2016 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations 2010 2016 Number of councillors 36 36 Number of electoral wards 20 20 Average number of electors per councillor 1,996 2,140 Number of electoral wards with a variance 4 3 more than 10% from the average Number of electoral wards with a variance 0 0 more than 20% from the average

Final recommendation West Lindsey District Council should comprise 36 councillors serving 20 wards, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

72 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

73 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, West Lindsey District Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

74 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parish of Gainsborough.

75 As a consequence of the proposed final recommendations, revised parish electoral arrangements are required in the parish of Gainsborough. In the parish of Gainsborough, we propose retaining the existing number of 18 parish councillors with new parish warding to reflect the proposed district wards. We propose the parish ward names of Gainsborough North (returning seven members), Gainsborough East (returning six members), and Gainsborough South-West (returning five members).

Final recommendation Gainsborough Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Gainsborough North (returning seven members), Gainsborough East (returning six members) and Gainsborough South-West (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 2.

3 What happens next?

76 We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for West Lindsey District Council. The changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Parliament can either accept or reject our recommendations. If accepted, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the next elections for West Lindsey District Council in 2015.

4 Mapping

Final recommendations for West Lindsey

77 The following maps illustrate our proposed ward boundaries for West Lindsey District Council:

 Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for West Lindsey District Council.

 Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed wards in the Gainsborough area.

Appendix A

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or ward than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town Council’

Parish (or Town) Council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Committee for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town Council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or ward than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or ward varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

Appendix B

Code of practice on written consultation

The Cabinet Office’s Code of Practice on Consultation (2008) (http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf) requires all government departments and agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, are encouraged to follow the Code.

The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 November 2008, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed.

Table B1: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s compliance with Code criteria

Criteria Compliance/departure Timing of consultation should be built into the planning We comply with this process for a policy (including legislation) or service from requirement. the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what We comply with this questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. requirement.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise We comply with this as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at requirement. most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

Documents should be made widely available, with the We comply with this fullest use of electronic means (though not to the requirement. exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered We consult at the start of the responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks review and on our draft should be the standard minimum period for a consultation. recommendations. Our consultation stages are a minimum total of 16 weeks.

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly We comply with this analysed, and the results made widely available, with an requirement. account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, We comply with this designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the requirement. lessons are disseminated.

Appendix C

Table C1: Final recommendations for West Lindsey District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2010) (2016) councillor % councillor % 1 Bardney 1 1,885 1,885 -6% 2,109 2,109 -1% Caistor & 2 2 4,401 2,201 10% 4,801 2,401 12% Yarborough Cherry 3 3 5,804 1,935 -3% 6,086 2,029 -5% Willingham Dunholme & 4 3 6,550 2,183 9% 6,618 2,206 3% Welton Gainsborough 5 3 5,037 1,679 -16% 6,582 2,194 3% East Gainsborough 6 3 5,310 1,770 -11% 6,018 2,006 -6% North Gainsborough 7 2 3,780 1,890 -5% 4,211 2,106 -2% South-West 8 Hemswell 1 2,170 2,170 9% 2,194 2,194 3%

9 Kelsey Wold 1 2,167 2,167 9% 2,232 2,232 4%

10 Lea 1 1,850 1,850 -7% 1,873 1,873 -12%

11 Market Rasen 3 6,559 2,186 10% 6,940 2,313 8%

12 Nettleham 2 3,205 1,603 -20% 3,733 1,867 -13%

Table C1 (cont): Final recommendations for West Lindsey District Council

14 Scampton 1 2,084 2,084 4% 2,092 2,092 -2% Scotter & 15 3 6,167 2,056 3% 6,320 2,107 -2% Blyton 16 Stow 1 1,922 1,922 -4% 1,950 1,950 -9%

17 Sudbrooke 1 2,154 2,154 8% 2,166 2,166 1%

18 Torksey 1 2,323 2,323 16% 2,356 2,356 10% Waddingham & 19 1 2,013 2,013 1% 2,061 2,061 -4% Spital 20 Wold View 1 2,166 2,166 9% 2,217 2,217 4% Totals 36 71,859 – – 77,033 – – Averages – – 1,996 – – 2,140 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by West Lindsey District Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.