Ashfield District Council Response to LGBCE Proposals for Warding of the District
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Boundary Review Ashfield District Council Response to LGBCE Proposals for Warding of the District The Council has welcomed the opportunity to respond to the LGBCE warding proposals. A detailed response to each proposal is shown below. Overall The Council has considered the key factors of electoral equality and community identity in its review of the LGBCE proposals and all suggestions/ recommendations for change have been made on the basis of improving or addressing these factors. During the period 17 th February to 21 st March, 2014, the Council conducted a resident perception survey ‘ Helping Shape the Future of Ashfield’, to assess resident attitudes towards the LGBCE proposals. The outcome of the survey has informed the Council’s suggestions. Sutton in Ashfield The LGBCE proposal suggests that the whole Sutton in Ashfield area is represented by 14 Councillors, incorporating both of the additional 2 Councillors which have been agreed by the commission in respect of Council Size of the district. The electorate forecast is 37,098, averaging 2,650 electors per councillor and most wards in the proposal are lower than the district average. Should further developments planned for the Hucknall area be realised the electoral equality area will be significantly impacted upon by this proposal. The Council suggests that there should be 13 councillors representing the Sutton in Ashfield area, an average of 2,854 electorate per councillor, allowing the additional councillor to be allocated to the Hucknall area. 45% of Sutton residents responding to the ‘Helping Shape the Future of Ashfield’ survey stated they knew where their current ward boundaries are, whilst 40% did not know. More residents were in favour of the LGBCE proposals (35% as opposed to 25%) and felt they reflected community identity of their area (33% as opposed to 17%). Therefore the Council’s proposals are in close alignment with the commissions, and suggestions have been made, where relevant, to improve community identity. Stanton Hill and Teversal The Council agrees with this proposal. Skegby The Council is generally in favour with the commission’s proposal other than the position of the southern boundary. The Dalestorth Street area is more associated with the New Cross area of Sutton, having similar housing, rather than the Skegby area. The Hill Crescent estate is not included in the proposal, however, this does have an affinity to the Dalestorth Road area and associated school catchment area. Proposal 1 It is proposed that the southern boundary of the Skegby ward is amended to exclude Dalestorth Street but include the Hill Crescent estate, the retail park and the hospital. See attached map in Appendix 1. It is agreed that this ward should be represented by 2 councillors. The 2019 estimated electorate forecast is 5,771, which equates to 2,886 electorate per councillor, +4% from the district average and therefore within the recommended +/- 10%. Huthwaite and St Mary’s The Council supports the proposal for a ward which reflects the Huthwaite community identity. The LGBCE proposal however, extends beyond the Huthwaite area into the centre of Sutton in Ashfield and includes an area which is not associated with Huthwaite. Huthwaite has a very strong community identity. The proposal also includes the name St Marys, however the ward area does not include the streets associated with St Mary’s Church, such as Church Street, Church Lane and Church Hill. Proposal 2 It is proposed that this ward should strongly reflect the Huthwaite community identity, thereby the eastern ward boundary is amended to incorporate Ashland Road West and the streets off this as this area which overlook the Brierley Forest Park area, but to exclude those areas which sit outside of Huthwaite and are part of the Sutton town area. See attached map in Appendix 1. It is also proposed to amend the ward name to Huthwaite and Brierley reflecting the strong Huthwaite community identity. It is proposed that this ward should be represented by 2 councillors. The 2019 estimated electorate forecast is 5,568, which equates to 2,784 electorate per councillor, very similar to the district average and therefore within the recommended +/- 10%. Carsic The LGBCE proposal does not include a substantial part of Carsic Lane, and Ashgate, known key streets of the Carsic Estate. Proposal 3 It is proposed that the ward boundary incorporates all of the Carsic Estate area as shown in the map attached in Appendix 1, to ensure the ward represents a whole community. It is agreed that this ward should be represented by 1 councillor. The 2019 estimated electorate forecast is 2,922 electorate,+5% to the district average and therefore within the recommended +/- 10%. Quarrydale The Council is generally in favour of the proposal other than the following:- • Slater street, John Street, Redcliffe Street and the part of Mansfield Road these streets join, are more aligned with the New Cross area of Sutton rather than the proposed ward area. • All properties on Stoneyford Road from Fisher Close to Priestic Road belong to this community however have been excluded from the proposed ward. Proposal 4 It is proposed to amend the boundary of the ward excluding Slater Street, John Street, Redcliffe Street and the part of Mansfield Road these streets join whilst incorporating all properties on Stoneyford Road from Fisher Close to Priestic Road to ensure electoral equality for this ward. See attached map in Appendix 1. It is also proposed to amend the ward name to ‘the Dales’ which the area is more appropriately known as and several street names reflect this. It is agreed that this ward should be represented by 1 councillor. The 2019 estimated electorate forecast is 2,595 electorate, -6% to the district average and therefore within the recommended +/- 10%. Sutton Junction The Council agrees with this proposal. Kings Mill and Sutton Lawns The Council agrees with the LGBCE proposal that the A38 as a major road is a clear community eastern boundary for this ward. However, the proposal, by following Outram Street, Forest Street and High Pavement as a western ward boundary, divides the well known communities in the centre of Sutton, and New Cross area, thereby excluding the centre of Sutton shopping area and the Police Station, the whole of Priestic Road and streets off, the supermarket area, the New Cross area and related streets such as Redcliffe Street, Dalestorth Street and Downing Street. These areas have common identity with streets to the eastern side of Outram street and Sutton Forest Side. Outram Street is a well known central area of the town. The Hill crescent estate does not align itself with the Sutton Eastfield Side community, being more aligned to Skegby area of the town. Proposal 5 It is proposed that the centre of Sutton is recognised within this ward, keeping all of the streets together which represent the known communities in the town centre, the New Cross area and Sutton Eastfield Side. The A38 and Mansfield Road (from Skegby Road to A38) are identifiable distinct major road boundaries which separate communities and are therefore reflected in the proposed boundaries for this ward. See attached map in Appendix 1. It is also proposed to name this ward Central and New Cross, to reflect those distinct community areas. The New Cross is a well known landmark in the Sutton area. It is agreed that this ward should be represented by 2 councillors. The 2019 estimated electorate forecast is 5,628, which equates to 2,814 electorate per councillor, only +1% higher than the district average and therefore within the recommended +/- 10%. Sutton Central In its proposal above for Central and New Cross ward, the Council recognises the community as represented by the eastern half of the LGBCE proposal for Sutton Central. However, the Council does not agree that Sutton Forest Side should be divided from Outram Street and the New Cross area, as these are a clearly defined community with similar characteristics and social makeup. The community around Church Street and Lane, West End and Willowbridge lane contain more affluent housing and are more aligned with the St Marys church community. Proposal 6 In alignment with the above proposal for Huthwaite and Brierley, it is proposed that the known community surrounding St Marys church be reflected in an identified ward, which includes the area of Sutton around Huthwaite Road that sits outside of the Huthwaite area boundary, the streets reflected by the St Marys church community and the school catchment area, all of Alfreton Road and Willowbridge Lane area. See attached map in Appendix 1. It is also proposed to name this ward St Marys to reflect the identity with the church. It is agreed that this ward should be represented by 1 councillor. The 2019 estimated electorate forecast is 3,048, +10% higher than the district average and therefore within the recommended +/- 10%. Ashfields The Council is generally in favour of the LGBCE proposal for this ward, however, believes that the ward boundaries proposed do not fully consider the definitive community boundaries as reflected by the major roads of Common Road, the A38, and Kirkby Road. Proposal 7 It is proposed that the ward boundary is amended to follow the major roads as identifiable community boundaries along Common Road, the A38 and Kirkby Road. See attached map in Appendix 1. It is agreed that this ward should be represented by 1 councillor. The 2019 estimated electorate forecast is 3,018, +9% higher than the district average and therefore within the recommended +/- 10%. Leamington The commission’s proposal excludes key streets which are known elements of the Leamington community area, such as Coronation Street, the whole of the Twitchell, Henry Street and Coburn Street.