Local resident submissions to the City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 22 submissions.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

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

Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Cathy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: Canterbury City Councillors in general do not represent the interests of voters. I strongly support the decision to reduce their numbers. I would welcome further reductions. In my opinion Canterbury City would be better served by a small accountable service with the remit of maintaining public land, keeping streets and roads litter and graffiti free and maintaining law and order. City Councillors are paid a lot of money and do none of these things. Decisions regarding future planning decisions and selling land should be put at county level and kept in the public domain; city councillors seem to have no long-term vision. Tax payers' money should not be wasted in allowing the City Council to pay expensive lawyers to fight residents' legitimate claim to preserve recreational land in densely populated city locations as such while neglecting basic maintenance of the city so harming legitimate business interests.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2692 04/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2692 04/12/2013 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 November 2013 09:07 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: request not to publish my surname

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Cathy Sent: 26 November 2013 20:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: request not to publish my surname

To Whom It May Concern,

My comment is that there are too many city councillors who fail to use tax payer money to maintain the city adequately. I do not feel qualified to talk about boundary changes, except that I think KCC and CCC seem to duplicate each other with CCC contributing very little if anything positive. Canterbury is a small place with a large number of city councillors many who know me or are neighbours. For an easier life I would prefer my surname to be omitted.

Kind regards,

Cathy

1 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 02 December 2013 09:13 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review - Canterbury City Council

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Jeremy Baker Sent: 01 December 2013 20:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review - Canterbury City Council

Dear Sirs, I have learned only very recently about your current consultation and am concerned that a very small proportion of the local population is aware of and involved in it. You should be aware that it coincides with a consultation by County Council, which is running between almost exactly the same dates, regarding a recent failed Traffic Trial in Canterbury which adversely affected thousands of people. Petitions signed by over 4,000 people and over 3,000 people respectively have resulted from this failed Trial, and you should understand that this issue is seen as of far greater immediate significance to most of those who live in Canterbury and the surrounding areas.

I have found a little time to view your consultation website and submit the following comments:-

1. I do not know where the City Council got the "Electorate 2019" figures from, as no explanations and calculations are given. Your process is therefore rendered opaque and untransparent. You should be informed of the basis of these figures, and that basis should be exposed to public scrutiny. For example:- (i) the City Council has recently launched a highly controversial draft Local Plan, which allocates greenfield land for thousands of new houses over the next few years. Some 4,000 of these new houses are in inappropriate locations on Grade 1 Agricultural Land (contrary to Government Policy), and these may be deleted by the Local Plan Inspector in due course. This would result in either a reduction in the number of new houses in the District as a whole, and/or a relocation of some houses to other areas, some being in different settlements. Therefore, I do not see how you can set new Ward boundaries until the Local Plan process has progressed and the location and scale of new housebuilding is determined.

(ii) In my own parish of & , there is a recently-granted planning permission for 19 dwellings (ref. CA/13/00031/FUL) which clearly has not been taken into account in the figures, because the number of electors has only been increased by 21 for the whole of Harbledown and villages put together (including all other sites). Please would you seek clarity from the City Council about how the figures have been calculated, and ensure that the public is consulted about them.

1

2. As a matter of principle, I would ask you to seek to ensure that the University of Kent Campus is separately represented from the surrounding villages (, Rough Common, Tyler Hill) if at all possible. I believe that the concerns, interests, and voting patterns of students are quite different from those of residents, and I believe it suits both groups best if they can be separately represented. This is an increasingly important issue as the University builds more and more onsite accommodation, thus weighing ever more heavily in the electoral stakes against any village(s) with which it is Warded. I note that RBF2 and RBF3 are more than able to support a Councillor in their own right, and I would ask you to consider boundaries around the University carefully with a view to creating a University Ward. If it is necessary to have two Wards which are primarily University Wards, then the most appropriate part of the surrounding residential area to be included within such a Ward would be likely to be part of CSS1 (or possibly part of CSS3), as these areas contain very large numbers of University students "living out".

3. I would ask also that the Parish of Harbledown & Rough Common will continue to be the basis of a Ward, possibly with an immediately-adjoining area such as the London Road Estate (CWE3), if this is necessary to reach the appropriate numbers of electors once these have been verified (see above as to this).

Please would you add me to your mailing list and keep me informed of any future stages of this Review. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

2 Ward, Lucy

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 29 November 2013 09:19 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Changes to the Electoral Boundaries in the Canterbury District

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Morning Lucy,

You have received the attached submission for Canterbury.

Regards, Helen

From: Tim Bentley Sent: 28 November 2013 22:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Changes to the Electoral Boundaries in the Canterbury District

Dear Sirs

I had hoped that your consultation might have included a suggestion as to how the reduction from 50 to 38 councillors could have been achieved but unfortunately all that was provided was raw data from which to draw conclusions.

I have therefore taken as a given that the reduction in numbers will come about and have tried to suggest a couple of ways of coping with this.

My starting point is that the Canterbury District comprises two distinct social groups, namely students at the universities here and people who reside in the neighbourhood for family reasons. While it is possible to identify those who live on campus in the Blean Forest area, this does not seem to be easily possible with those students who live off campus throughout the district. Canterbury district houses a lot of very welcome university students!

Under current legislation, I suspect that dwelling location is the only currently acceptable determinant of an electoral boundary, but it would be interesting to consider the possibility of establishing a virtual electoral boundary for university students. Their needs and aspirations differ from those who simply live,work and look after families in the area, yet they must find it extremely difficult to have their voices heard within the current boundary structure, since their needs would inevitably be drowned out by the family groups for whom the boundary structure was created. Further the likelihood of the student population voting is low simply because their focus is, or should be, on obtaining the best possible degree, with little time available to become involved in local affairs. A virtual university ward or wards might possibly start to address this issue, but I have no idea whether this is allowed within existing legislation. I suspect that other districts in the country have the same problem of coping with the differing requirements of what is sometimes referred to as "town and gown" and my proposal might well be relevant in those areas too, even if it does require a change in legislation.

1 As I suspect this is an idea that is unlikely to be pursued at this moment, the most logical approach to at least recognise that the issue exists and to create a separate ward for the University of Kent where its two polling districts would create a ward of 4,844 people in 2019.

That reduces the size of the current Blean Forest Ward to 1,793, but this could be expanded by the addition of Rough Common. The houses in Rough Common merge into Blean and there is a good deal of inter village contact and cooperation so this step has logic.

Under this idea, the Harbledown ward would cease to exist, with Hatch moving to Chartham and Stone Street and Harbledown itself being added into Westgate.

To make the numbers add up I had to suggest the merger of Barham Downs with North Nailbourne, something that creates a large area for one councillor but clearly there will be winners and losers in a reduction of 12 councillors.

I have used your numbers to suggest how the wards might be structured in the future:

Number Ward of Size Councillors Barham Downs 1 2,192 -3% 2,282 -28% 1 4,5 Barton 3 7,341 8% 7,716 -19% 2 7,7

Blean Forest 2 1 2,8 5,710 26% 6,637 5% Chartham and Stone 2 4,499 -1% 4,704 -26% 2 5,1 Street

Chestfield and 3 2 7,1 6,880 1% 7,176 -24%

Gorrell 2 4,805 6% 5,276 -17% 2 5,2 Greenhill and Eddington 2 4,540 0% 4,713 -26% 2 4,7 Harbledown 1 2,070 -8% 2,146 -32% 0 Harbour 2 4,119 -9% 4,345 -31% 1 4,3 3 6,552 -3% 6,973 -27% 2 6,9 Heron 3 6,284 -7% 6,589 -31% 2 6,5 Little Stour 1 2,163 -4% 2,211 -30% 1 2,2 Marshside 1 2,432 8% 2,544 -20% 1 2,5 North Nailbourne 1 2,164 -4% 2,258 -29% 0

2 Northgate 2 5,067 12% 5,715 -10% 2 5,7 3 7,062 4% 7,353 -23% 2 7,3 3 6,416 -5% 6,654 -30% 2 6,6 St Stephens 3 6,821 1% 7,111 -25% 2 7,1 North 1 2,101 -7% 2,177 -31% 1 2,1 Sturry South 1 2,280 1% 2,415 -24% 1 2,4 2 3,810 -16% 4,035 -36% 1 4,0 West Bay 2 4,986 10% 5,167 -18% 2 5,1 Westgate 3 6,547 -4% 7,022 -26% 3 7,6 3 6,264 -8% 7,120 -25% 2 7,1 University 0 -100% 0 -100% 1 4,8 50 113105 -100% 120340 -100% 38 120,33

I cannot see how else the reduction in 12 councillors can be accommodated, and fully recognise that this suggestion is one that will please no one! I have tried to keep the number of constituents per councillor as close to the targeted 3,167 as possible but where I have not managed to do this I have taken account of the density of the housing stock to the of the size of the area. I have used the same numbers as presented by you by ward for 2019 but there is a slight discrepancy in the way your rounded numbers add up.

To make any scheme like this work, I think there is a need to reduce the number of parish councils that service these areas or district councillors will have no chance to attend to district as well as parish business, but I fully recognise that this is outside your remit. I trust , however that Canterbury City Council will recognise the need for action here as and when the changes to ward boundaries and the reduction in councillor numbers comes about.

I hope these thoughts are helpful.

Regards

Tim Bentley ,

3

10 December 2013

Dear Sirs

BOUNDARY REVIEW OF WARD BOUNDARIES CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL

I was surprised when it was agreed to reduce the amount of councillors who serve the wards within the district of Canterbury City Council from 50 to 38. This seemed quite a big reduction and I know there were some good arguments against this change. However, it was agreed.

I was given to understand from the local press, that the ruling party, despite opting for the reduction, was not going to submit a proposal but it would be left to the various bodies and residents to put forward their suggestions. I have seen and heard from other groups various proposed submissions but nothing on Canterbury City Council’s website indicated that the Council had proposed or agreed one. However, at this late stage I now hear that the Council is holding a special meeting tonight to put forward a submission. I don’t know the final outcome because the meeting is underway as I write. It probably will be agreed because the Conservative group on the council is the majority and it is their submission (I doubt whether it will be cross party) and therefore will be voted through. Not very democratic but this I find is one of the problems of the Executive style of local government.

That’s why at this late stage, I now feel I should submit my views and my point in writing is to say that the option I personally prefer is the one put forward by the local Labour Party which is opting for one member wards. This is not politically biased as are one or two other proposed submissions – Labour has nothing to gain in this district where it only holds 3 seats. This submission views it as the fairest way forward.

No amount of ‘fors or against’ can take away the bottom line - the most democratic way to the future would be one member wards which results in ONE RESIDENT / ONE VOTE.

Yours faithfully

Brenda Bowden

Local Govt. Boundary Commission for England.

Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Charles French

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: As a voter in Gorrell Ward, and given that the ward is Geographically small in area, I see no justification for two representatives. The argument that two councillors give greater coverage to the electorate is a very weak one. I have lived in this ward for over six years and never had contact with either of the current councillors, whether at election time orduring the course of their office.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2714 10/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2714 10/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Steve Furber

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: Single member wards are the best method of councillor accountability. There is also more likelihood that the councillor knows his area and it's people and resources well. It should also mean a democratic relationship.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2720 12/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2720 12/12/2013 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 09 December 2013 09:12 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electorial review of Canterbury, Kent

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Peter Gingell Sent: 08 December 2013 12:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electorial review of Canterbury, Kent

Dear The Review Officer (Canterbury)

I am writing to give me views on the review that is currently being undertaken into the ward boundaries and the number of councillors. I currently live in South Tankerton and feel that and loss out to Canterbury in councillor matters and decisions. I wish to see better demoncracy wityhin the current structure.

It seems that he decision to reduce the number of councillors from 50 to 38 is to be made first and then the boundaries changed to accommodate the reduced number of councillors. This is obviously the wrong approach to such an exercise as it presupposes that the whole area covered by the council is homogenous and thus averages for the whole area can be applied.

It also seems less than sensible to reduce the number of councillors when the number of people to be represented is expected to increase in absolute terms. This would push the average per councillor up even more than it should.

Rather than just approach this exercise in a mathematical exercise it should be approached in terms of where people now live and where increases are due to be made. This would then allow nature boundaries to be drawn for wards. To have Blean and Tyler Hill in the same ward and, likewise, Seasalter and in the same ward is nonsensical; they would be competing for funds and development within the same ward and give the councillors a difficult dilemma.

So the first stage would be to establish the urban areas and their hinterlands and draw the ward boundaries based on that. Once the wards are established a national average for councillors to electorate could then be used to establish the correct number of councillors required.

I therefore do not agree with the current proposal to reduce the number of councillors to 38 from 50 on the grounds it is conceptually wrong, does not allow for growth in the electorate over the next few years and thus reduces democracy.

Regards

Peter Gingell

1

2 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Steve Harris

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: Abolish all parish councils, total waste of public money!

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2677 22/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2677 22/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Roger Kember

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I am in favour of single member wards

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2716 10/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2716 10/12/2013 Ward, Lucy

From: on behalf of Wes McLachlan Sent: 05 December 2013 18:25 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Personal Submission regarding electoral boundaries in Whitstable Attachments: Wards for Whitstable.xls

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Ms Ward

I trust this is a format in which I can make a formal layman's submission to the Boundary Commission

As a resident and past Councillor for Whitstable I wish to submit this outline proposal for the town of Whitstable for consideration.

My starting point for this is my acceptance of the imposed and potentially anti-democratic reduction in the number of total Councillors for the district of Canterbury from 50 to 38. There have been other anti-democratic decisions made regarding the the electoral organisation of this district and many of of these have been visited on Whitstable. A particular problem in this area has been the unjustified tendency to produce what could be called "super-wards". Under the 50 Councillor arrangements such wards had two and three Councillors per ward and such wards invariably reached over far more than one individual community. The example of the so called and Swalecliffe ward shows this well where this mongrel was created out of the community of Chestfield, an inter-war community made up primarily of high value housing and post war additional estates, combined with the entirely separate and traditional community of Swalecliffe on the other side of the tracks and sundry chunks of streets a distance away on both sides of the Old Thanet Way. Such ridiculous artificial creations can give people the impression of manipulation. On this basis I felt that it was appropriate to see if a level playing field were possible and if wards could be constructed which would enable each voter to be voting for one Councillor and one Councillor only. It is inherently undemocratic that across a district like Canterbury voters could have one, two or even three votes according to where they live.

My starting point was to identify what the practical communities were in Whitstable and it became immediately apparent that there were two defining features of the town that had a large impact on what was an effective community and these were the Thanet/London railway tracks and the Old Thanet Way (a major artery originally linking the A2 and Thanet). I therefore divided the town defined by the current wards into three. One part was north of the railway, another part was south of the Old Thanet Way and a third part fell between the railway and the Old Thanet Way. Doing a calculation of electors it was clear that with some limited variation the north area would contain three wards, the middle area would contain 4 wards and the south area 2. Thus having taken these as boundaries it quickly became clear that there were very distinct communities partly defined by these major barriers/boundaries which on the face of it would be proportionate to the average size of a 38 Councillors Canterbury ward division.

In the north the breakdown was clear and if divided by three exactly the ward sizes would be on the slightly high side but within limits of the district average. The three distinct communities are long standing and each has a focus. The ward called Harbour is the town centre ward with the High Street and the Horsebridge as its focus. Tankerton, an early twentieth century grid form estate of primarily evenly spaced detached houses has its own high street referred to locally as "Tankerton High Street" with a large number of shops one block from

1 the seafront. Its particular character is readily recognised. The third ward is Swalecliffe, a once medieval hamlet at the mouth of the Swale Brook with a focus of shops and pubs at one of the few narrow crossing points of the railway. Housing has splayed out around the old church and includes a council estate and various periods of further estate development before the old road to Herne Bay, locally called "The Bends" peters out into pasture and open land. As these communities are part of an urban whole the options for drawing ward boundaries are pretty ready and flexible. I have chosen in this submission to make the boundary between Harbour and Tankerton the old railway embankment which runs north to south between the two wards and can only be crossed by either car or pedestrian at either end in Harbour Street and Teynham Road. The result of this is that the total electorate of Harbour Ward may exceed the total variation permitted (is exception possible?). If not, some of the streets from the west side of the embankment could be incorporated in Tankerton and the Swalecliffe boundary adjusted accordingly though ideally this artificial option would be less effective in community terms. Nonetheless by natural or artificial means three wards are the only appropriate course.

Because of the total in the three north wards I averaged the 4 middle wards and attempted to identify 4 valid communities sharing this average.

The two communities to the west of Borstal Hill are best sub-divided between the part focused around Seasalter and the shops, churches and community facilities in and around Faversham Road and the streets decanting into Joy Lane and Borstal Hill linking to the rest of Whitstable at the Tollgate junction. The community distinction here are between the area where the focus is in Seasalter is in Faversham Road and the shops and facilities there. In the main they use Joy Lane to access the town centre. The second community provisionally called Joy Lane is made up of those homes that more directly access the rest of the town via Joy Lane, Borstal Hill and The Old Thanet Way. The boundary between the two is based on the best division of the area.

The remaining two wards are made up of one which is largely part of the old Gorrell ward and has been provisionally named Gorrell. The remainder of the old ward combined with a section of old Chestfield ward which appeared to have been dragged into that old ward as a way of making up numbers has been provisionally named All Saints. In the case of Gorrell the focus is primarily around Canterbury Road and the shops there and incorporate the estates to the east of Canterbury Road who primarily access the centre of the town via Canterbury Road and Belmont Road. This community is based on its shared focus as well as Duncan Down and the Grimshill Estate. All Saints ward primarily focuses around the railway station and the Old Church in Church Street. This reincorporates a part of the town that had been bizarrely included in old Chestfield ward to make up numbers and now returns to its far more natural community. The junction between this ward and Gorrell will benefit from examination as it remains a question as to the best assignment of the properties in Belmont Road.

The remainder of the town south of The Old Thanet Way divides quite naturally into two wards. In the case of Chestfield this creates a ward which comfortably conforms to the number of electors required for a single Councillor and puts a stop to the process of pasting on sundry communities from all over the place to justify 3 Councillors. It is a free standing single member ward. The remainder of the town very provisionally named South Street and Yorkletts to the south of The Old Thanet Way incorporates the more dispersed semi-rural parts of the town and though they do not represent a single internally focused community they do have great commonality with each other in seeking the extension and recognition of the rest of the town. The nature of the demands being made on any Councillor would thus have a great deal in common.

These proposals have demonstrated that a town with 9 communities each with a single Councillor is well achievable. Nonetheless this layman's outline could and will be developed and improved by the professionals in the Boundary Commission with their experience and greater access to detailed and up to date information. This submission has been design to demonstrate that single member wards are relatively easy to create and of course have the real advantage of ensuring that in Whitstable it will at last be 1 person 1

2 vote, a far more democratic option. The google map below graphically demonstrates this proposal for Whitstable wards and I note in particular it confirms the compact and logical appearance of each of the most urban wards. The bulk of the two wards with the larger areas are farm and woodland. https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zbum-7RMahGo.kgpDDMjSkVa4

Wes McLachlan

3

Current Overall OPTION #1: 38 WARDS Electors per Councillor 2262.1 Electors per Councillor 3127 BASED ON REVISED Max target 3439 2019 ELECTORATE Min target 2814 ESTIMATE (Originally Variance Area Cllrs per Electorate notified) Electorate Within Area Name of ward Area Ward Group from target Area electors per ward 2012 Electorate 2019 range? total range ward 2019 Barton 3 7,341 7702 CITY 1 #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY Northgate 2 5,067 5379 CITY 2 #REF! #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY St Stephens 3 6,821 7097 CITY 3 #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY Westgate 3 6,547 7022 CITY 4 #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY Wincheap 3 6,264 6688 CITY 5 #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY Greenhill and Eddington 2 4,540 4713 HERNE 6 #REF! #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY Herne and Broomfield 3 6,552 6973 HERNE 7 #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY Heron 3 6,284 6589 HERNE 8 #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY Reculver 3 7,062 7353 HERNE 9 #REF! #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY West Bay 2 4,986 5167 HERNE 10 #REF! #REF! HERNE BAY #REF! #REF! Barham Downs 1 2,192 2282 RURAL 11 2852 OK WHITSTABLE Blean Forest 2 5,710 5907 RURAL 12 3600 HIGH 161 WHITSTABLE Chartham and Stone Street 2 4,499 4704 RURAL 13 3383 OK WHITSTABLE Chestfield and Swalecliffe 3 6,880 7176 RURAL 14 3302 OK WHITSTABLE Harbledown 1 2,070 2146 RURAL 15 2888 OK WHITSTABLE Little Stour 1 2,163 2211 RURAL 16 2902 OK WHITSTABLE Marshside 1 2,432 2544 RURAL 17 2832 OK 18 WHITSTABLE North Nailbourne 1 2,164 2258 RURAL 18 2910 OK WHITSTABLE Sturry North 1 2,101 2177 RURAL 19 2856 OK WHITSTABLE 27525.7 3058.4 Sturry South 1 2,280 2415 RURAL 20 #REF! #REF! RURAL Gorrell 2 4,805 5276 WHITSTABLE 21 #REF! #REF! #REF! RURAL Harbour 2 4,119 4345 WHITSTABLE 22 #REF! #REF! #REF! RURAL Seasalter 3 6,416 6654 WHITSTABLE 23 #REF! #REF! RURAL Tankerton 2 3,810 4035 WHITSTABLE 24 #REF! #REF! RURAL 50 113,105 118,814 25 #REF! #REF! RURAL 26 #REF! #REF! #REF! RURAL Total 27 #REF! #REF! RURAL #REF! #REF! 50 38 28 #REF! #REF! CITY Electors per Councillor 2013 2262.1 29 #REF! #REF! #REF! CITY 30 #REF! #REF! CITY 31 #REF! #REF! #REF! CITY 32 #REF! #REF! #REF! CITY 33 #REF! #REF! CITY "DO NOTHING" IMPACT 34 #REF! #REF! #REF! CITY City Whitstable Herne Rural 35 #REF! #REF! CITY Electors per Councillor 2013 2169.7 2339.0 2263.4 2320.8 36 #REF! #REF! CITY Electors per Councillor 2015 2421 2256.6 2368.9 2415.7 37 #REF! #REF! CITY 38 #REF! #REF! CITY #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2712 10/12/2013 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 09 December 2013 09:06 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Canterbury

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Doreen Rosman Sent: 09 December 2013 08:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Canterbury

I write in reference to the proposed boundary changes for Canterbury District Council. I think it is essential that we move to SINGLE MEMBER WARDS. With the reduction in the number of councillors from 50 to 38 it will be much more difficult for councillors to maintain close contact with the people they are elected to represent. Single member wards would ensure that the number of electors each councillor represents is not too big and would continue the link between councillors and their wards which is essential if local government is to be truly democratic.

Dr Doreen Rosman

1 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Julia Seath

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I wish to make comment about the area which I know best and in which I have lived for nearly 50 years. It has been known as Harbour ward since local government re-organisation in 1974. It's boundary with Tankerton ward was extended at the last boundary review by a few roads beyond the historic Crab & Winkle railway line (now a cycle track between Whitstable Harbour and Canterbury)but the major part of the ward is bounded between the coast, by this cycle track and the main London to Thanet railway line. This geographically compact area with such obvious boundary lines comprises a)the harbour with maritime activities, b)the Whitstable Yacht Club, c) the main central retail area and d)older historic residential area consisting mainly of close terraced pre-war Victorian houses, many with traditional shiplap faced cottages formerly occupied by artisans and seafarers. Virtually all post war development in this area has been infill with some small scale replacement development. The area has historically spread out either side of the B2206 (bus route to Canterbury and Herne Bay); comprising Oxford Street, High Street and Harbour Street)in which are located the library, museum, Whitstable Umbrella Community Support Centre, the town centre St. Alphege Church and 6 others and Health Centre. Whitstable has developed as an Arts Centre with its core in Harbour ward where the Horsebridge Community Arts Centre is located and where most of the town's artists live. There is a strong vibrant community of residents and traders who have frequently come together to campaign to protect the integrity of this community e.g. keeping a working harbour, saving local shops, conserving the local environment. It is in the windows of properties in this area that posters championing these campaigns can be seen more than in other parts of the town. There is a strong sense of community identity here with residents regarding themselves as a distinct cohesive community, differing from those in other adjacent wards. I believe separating this ward area into other wards risks dividing a community and as such, would be a serious mistake. If the recommendation to reduce the number of councillors to 38 is implemented I would submit that this ward has an electoral size able to be represented by one councillor as I believe could all council wards. 38 councillors in single member wards would result in more wards in the district but each would be smaller than current wards with a smaller electorate, thereby offering more effective representation and more democratic accountability. This could also extend democracy with a wider diversity of representation resulting from greater opportunity for individuals or minority groups seeking election. I wish to make another observation. The Canterbury City Council Leader announced in October that there would be no Council submission on warding arrangements. However,today, 10th December, the last day of your public consultation, The Council will meet at 6 pm for an extraordinary meeting scheduled for 30 minutes in which a vote will be taken on a single Council submission about warding arrangements. Until earlier today there has been no publically available report on the proposal and therefore members of the public have been deprived, until today, of the opportunity to make representation about the proposal to the council. This afternoon I have seen the proposals on the Council's website and note that there are fundamental inaccuracies contained therein. In particular I observe that the notation accompanying the proposal to abolish Harbour ward, dividing it between two others, states that the 'main shopping area' lies within the proposed Gorrell ward. This is incorrect because the main shopping area, under the

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2719 12/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

proposals in the Council report, will be in the newly named 'Coastal' ward which is combined with the former Tankerton ward. This error is misleading in terms of any justification of community identity.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2719 12/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Beatrice Shire

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: myself

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: Very large wards with many councillors reduce the possibility of proper representation. You have not said how many voters you want to be represented by each of the new councillors. You also have major plans for housing development which should be taken into account for the not-too-distant-future. I would prefer more single councillor wards, in particular the ward I live in (Harbledown), which has one councillor should not be merged with others nearby. If areas need changing to increas the number of voters that is different, and small areas may be added to Harbledown without merging with neighbouring wards. Neighbouring wards have some similar problems to deal with, but also differences. My opinion is that it is better to have truly local representation of particular areas by one councillor each. I am writing for myself only here, though I am aware that members of the Parish Council share the same views.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2699 04/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2699 04/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I think my area of Chartham would be more effectively represented if it were split into two. One councillor would represent Chartham, the largest community in the ward, and the other councillor would represent the smaller villages of , Waltham etc. There is little sense of community I am aware of between the various villages. Everybody goes to Canterbury for services. My proposal would allow clear accountbility between one individual and their constituents, along the lines of the development of mayors for cities and towns. It could also help ensure that a village like Chartham had its own resident city councillor rather than being represented by individuals from other parishes and wards. This is a point of democratic principle and not an adverse comment on serving councillors.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2705 06/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2705 06/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Spaul

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: Having read much of the comments from interested parties about the number of Councillors & the anticipated increase of workload which will inevitably arise from the proposed boundary changes and more importantly the impact or otherwise on the democratic process within the Council, I find I am prepared to endorse the reduction in the number of Councillors but only where the process of governance, at Council Level, can be shown not to have an adverse effect on the Democratic Process and against the best interest of the local population, which they purport to represent. It occurs to me that this can best be conducted my an outside, all party audit, to test the case for Local Democratic Accountability and, to ensure that The Executive does not act unconstitutionally and in a manner likely to act against the best interest of its constituents.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2698 04/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2698 04/12/2013 CANTERBURY WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW - a submission from Michael Steed, retired political scientist (Hon Lecturer at University of Kent), former Canterbury City Councillor (2008-11) and local residents group activist in S-E Canterbury (1990-2012); currently Kentish Gazette community news correspondent for Sturry.

General principle:

STICK TO VARIABLE-SIZE, MAINLY MULTI-MEMBER WARDS (MMWs)

One of the local political parties has gone for rigid, universal single-members wards (SMWs), and by putting out a press release which spuriously argues this would be more democratic, has made this a local issue. Why does this matter so much?

1. Political parties may like the monopoly of representation which SMWs give them within each patch; voters do not. They like to be able to choose individual councillors, as anyone attending counts in Canterbury can witness from the many split-ticket ballot papers. At every election, voters return councillors from different parties for some MMWs – currently Barton (2 Cons 1 LD), Heron (2 Cons 1 LD) and Northgate (1 Cons 1 Lab).

2. MMWs give a push towards gender balance (and also ethnic minority representation) as parties tend to look for balanced tickets – especially if 3-member (an all-male ticket of three looks bad). This effect is proved by extensive cross-national research; the House of Commons had fewer women MPs after 1950 as a result of the Attlee government abolishing double-member constituencies. In France the Socialist government has proposed to switch next year’s departmental elections from SM to double-member divisions precisely to achieve gender balance.

3. Variable size wards make it easier to avoid artificial boundaries and to keep natural communities together. Two parishes in Canterbury at the moment are divided to achieve uniform size SMWs – Chartham and Sturry. In Sturry’s case this is particularly unfortunate since, as the parliamentary Boundary Commission uses wards as building blocks, it has meant this village is artificially split between two parliamentary constituencies. It is better to identify strong boundaries, taking account of historic alignments, transport routes and the mild barriers of woods or sparsely populated green wedges, and then see whether this makes for one-, two-, three- or four- members as locally appropriate.

4. Most councillors work hard for their residents, but some do not – especially towards the end of their term. There is a recurrent pattern of councillors moving away from Canterbury, and resigning their seats just under six months before due for re-election, thus leaving the seat unfilled for nearly six months. In a local case known to me, a councillor had left the area five months before resigning but was “persuaded” by her party leadership to postpone resignation to avoid a by-election. Some councillors fall ill for long periods and a very few are just lazy. With SMWs, residents with a missing or non-functioning councillor have no one else to turn to; with MMWs most residents still have another councillor to turn to for help.

5. When reviews are required, using MMWs with strong boundaries and natural groupings makes it easier to maintain previous (especially if historic) ward boundaries

1 by changing the number of seats in a ward rather than drawing new lines on the map. This helps people to keep an identity with their ward. Further, drawing new and so often more artificial lines make it easier for parties to propose boundaries to their political advantage.

6. In the three towns all wards should be MMWs, preferably with 3 members at least. Herne Bay and Whitstable are seaside towns, stretching along the coast so in each case a division into Western, Central and Eastern divisions (or just Eastern and Western) would fit local community ties and transport patterns. Canterbury has radial routes from its centre, which correspond well to distinct historic suburbs and the more modern developments which have spread out from the city in the last century. Its historic wards have mostly fitted this pattern, which should guide any new ward boundaries.

7. In the rural zone, more discretionary judgement should used and where a single parish, or natural cluster of parishes is the appropriate size, a SMW may be best. As the villages each lie astride one of the historic routes out of the city, and both historic and modern movements tend to fit those routes, with green wedges in between, grouping parishes should be by those routes. This will make for 3-member wards only where sufficient people live along one of these routes.

8. There is considerable advantage in observing Kent CC electoral division boundaries to retain those identities, and reduce further disturbance when those are next revised.

Accordingly in the following observations, I work through these divisions (KCCEDs), using current (2013) electorates; the 2019 ones show suspiciously very little differential in growth rates, ignoring likely housing development.

Total 113,105 divided by 38 gives 2,976 per councillor, the quota.

The two-member Whitstable electoral division follows the historic boundary of the pre-1974 Whitstable Urban District, comprising the following wards: Chestfield & Swalecliffe 6880 Gorrell 4805 Harbour 4119 Seasalter 6416 Tankerton 3810 WHITSTABLE 26,030 = 8.75

This is close enough to 9 seats to allow three 3-member wards, essentially Central, East and West divisions of the town.

The two-member Herne Bay electoral division no longer follows the historic boundary of the pre-1974 Urban District; it comprises the following wards: Greenhill & Eddington 4540 Heron 6284 Reculver 7062 West Bay 4986 HERNE BAY 22,872 = 7.69

2 This requires a top-up to qualify for 8 seats. The easiest is to take in the small part of Herne & Broomfield ward which is not in Herne & Broomfield parish (287), making 23,159 or quota 7.78. Herne Bay used to have a simple East/West KCC division, and could return to that with two 4-member wards. Or three wards comprising one 2-member and two 3-member.

The Herne & Sturry KCC division has strong boundaries in the Blean woods which bound it to the east and Trenley Park woods/the lower Great Stour lakes to the south.

Herne & Broomfield 6552 (or 6265 for the parish only) Marshside 2432 Sturry North 2101 Sturry South 2280 HERNE & STURRY 13,365 = 4.49 (or 13,078 = 4.40)

Sturry parish, with (now in Sturry South) along with and (both now in Marshside) totalling 6,367 (2.14) make a natural cluster along the A28 route, a two- member ward. parish would fit naturally with Herne & Broomfield parish at 6711 (2.26), also a two- member ward.

If these are judged oversized, a portion of Herne & Broomfield parish could be switched to Herne Bay. That in turn would allow part of Studd Hill to be added to West Whitstable to produce almost perfect numbers (though there would be loud local protests about bridging the Whitstable/Herne Bay green gap). The total for Herne Bay, Whitstable and Herne & Sturry KCCEDs (62472, 20.93 quota) gives so exactly 21 members that if numerical equality is the overwhelming criterion, any breach of parish or historic boundaries should be in that direction. But I would prefer not to breach historic or parish boundaries.

I have seen draft proposals from one party which move Fordwich into Little Stour to make up numbers; I don’t know whether it has been submitted. This would be a bad breach of historic and natural alignments. Fordwich extends (in a part of the parish which was historically in Westbere parish) almost into the centre of Sturry village (from the pavement outside the bungalows nos 23-29 Fordwich Road, Sturry one can see into Sturry High Street) – it is much closer than most of Sturry parish. All community groups in the Sturry area embrace Fordwich along with Broad Oak and (part of the parish) and Westbere – known locally as the quintet. The local shops for Fordwich, and the bus stop to Canterbury, Herne Bay or Thanet, are all just across its border in Sturry.

That leaves 17 seats for Canterbury and the remaining villages to the NW, SW and SE, comprising the KCCEDs as follows:

CANTERBURY WEST 12,279 = 4.13 CANTERBURY SOUTH-EAST 13,860 = 4.66 CANTERBURY NORTH-EAST 11,888 = 3.99 CANTERBURY SOUTH-WEST 12,766 = 4.30

I am in discussion the Canterbury Society and other local group representatives about submitting a plan for this part of the district.

MS 8.12.2013

3 CANTERBURY WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW (2) - Further observations

In my earlier submission, I stated I was in discussion with Canterbury local group representatives about submitting a plan for the 17 remaining seats. In the time available, we have decided not to attempt to put forward a plan. The principles underlying such a plan – the pattern of city wards fitting along the main radial routes, the importance of not subdividing parishes and the need to group parishes in natural clusters have already been covered by several submissions.

In this supplementary submission, I cover one specific point, reflecting my two decades of involvement in the local residents society covering this part of this the city, as well as my period of service on the city council for Barton ward. I have also recently edited a local history study: Old Dover Road – Past and Present.

In Canterbury, most radial routes along with their feeder roads are in a single ward, reflecting the way the city has grown, traditional ties (e.g church parishes), modern ties of secular community groups and the way people share shops, local social facilities, bus routes, primary schools etc.

The exception is the Old Dover Road. The road itself is in Barton ward, as are all feeder roads to its north, one to its south ( Road) and all closes to its south (Holman Mews, Hoystings Close, Randolph Close, The Drive and St Lawrence Forstal). But three feeder roads, Nunnery Fields*, Puckle Lane and Ethelbert Road were placed in Wincheap ward at the last review. They join along South Canterbury Road, and this area is known locally as South Canterbury. It only connects to the Wincheap area along two quiet suburban roads, Norman Road and Nunnery Road.

(* in a quirky exception, the left hand side of Nunnery Fields below the railway bridge, with one dwelling, remains in Barton)

As a the result, the current Barton/Wincheap boundary is a ragged, jiggling about line fitting back garden fences rather than a clear feature on the ground; it artificially dissects the South Canterbury area, and the area served by two vigorous local residents associations, the Oaten Hill & District Society and the South Canterbury Residents Association.

I hope that the pattern of wards elsewhere and the numbers will allow the reunification of South Canterbury in the same ward, embracing the whole community that uses the Old Dover Road as its focal route in and out of the city centre.

As the Old Dover Road and the New Dover Road are very closely associated, they ought if possible to be in the same ward.

Michael Steed 10 December 2013

1 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: David SURRIDGE

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I am generally in support of the proposed reduction in the number of councillors. That said, those remaining will, by definition ,be required to carry a slightly heavier burden. I believe Ward boundaries should,where possible,encapsulate community groups rather than be determined by physical boundaries such as main roads/rivers etc.which can sometimes be damagingly divisive. That said, the number of councillors must always be sufficient for their business to be conducted eficiently, and be capable of sub-group management. The alternative is that a smaller group would assume too much un-challenged authority, and democratic process lost as a consequence. The proposed boundary changes seem to be a sensible response.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2700 04/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2700 04/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Thomas

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I suggest that the northern boundary of the Herne and Broomfield ward should follow the line of the A299 (the Thanet Way). The boundaries of the Reculver ward and the Greenhill and Eddington ward would also need to be adjusted in order to accommodate this proposed change.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2552 23/10/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2552 23/10/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Joyce Wilson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I believe that it is not only important that each Councillor represents the same number of voters, but that each voter has the opportunity to vote for the same number of Councillors. In the current arrangements the numbers of councillors per ward varies between 1 and 3. My ward, Little Stour, has only one councillor whereas voters in Barton, Chestfield, Herne and Heron each get to vote for three. This is clearly undemocratic. I therefore hope that in the future warding arrangements there would be the same number of Councillors in each ward. I also believe that all wards should be single member wards. In rural areas like Little Stour the reduced number of Council seats must mean much larger wards in terms of voter numbers. Here, that means larger geographies to be covered. Multi-member wards would make it virtually impossible for Councillors to provide any meaningful coverage across the ward - in practice they will have to split the wards geographically between them just to be in contact with their voters. Also, if there is a major infrastructure project affecting large parts of the district (like the Richborough HV power line or the local plan) how can Councillors possibly represent fairly the views of all the many communities within their area? Keeping wards sizes smaller will allow a much more representative relationship. On that basis, and to improve the accountability of councillors, single member wards seem like by far the best solution to the reduction in the number of elected representatives.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2715 10/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2715 10/12/2013