Mayers, Mishka From: Nigel West Sent: 09 February 2016 13:48 To: Porter, Johanna; reviews Cc: Paul Ashforth Subject: Lincolnshire response to the consultation Attachments: Consultation response - February 2016 final.docx; West Lindsey Alternative Proposal.pdf; Copy of West Lindsey Alternative Proposal data.xlsx Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Johanna, My earlier message below has bounced back because of the file size, so I am separating one of the maps from the message and resending. I will forward the map in another email in the hope that it gets through. Nigel West Dear Johanna, I have attached Lincolnshire County Council's response to the consultation on the Boundary Commission's draft recommendations. The response is that of the Administration Group, with support from political Group Leaders where mentioned. In addition there are new maps for the districts of North Kesteven and West Lindsey, and associated data for West Lindsey. Please let me know if you require anything else. Also, I have been asked to forward the following added response from the Leader of the Independent Group on the Council, who represents the current Spalding West Division and is a member of the Administration coalition. This relates to point 2 in the submission relating to South Holland. "The largest town of the District, Spalding, with a population of 28,722 (2011 census) could be left with only one representative under the proposals put forward by the Boundary Commission. Residents in the West of Spalding, that the commission have suggested be put with Crowland, have absolutely no affinity with Crowland (10 miles away) Spalding residents NEVER go to shop in Crowland, never go to school in Crowland, never go to Church in Crowland, never use the Doctors in Crowland and do not wish to be represented by a Crowland Councillor. Similarly, residents in present Spalding South Division have no affinity with the Crowland Division nor the SH6 division suggested by the Commission." Kind regards, Nigel West Head of Democratic Services Lincolnshire County Council 1 ----------------------------------------- Note: We are a Microsoft Office site. Our base version is 2010. Please make sure that files you send can be read in this format. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited save unless expressly authorised by the sender. The information contained in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee, you may not copy, distribute or take action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender(s) immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete as soon as possible the message from your computer. ********************************************************************************* ********************************************************************************* 2 Consultation response to the draft recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). The draft recommendations for the review of boundaries published by the LGBCE in December 2015 were based on a council size of 70 councillors, a reduction of seven on the current number. The previous submission by the County Council had been based upon a council size of 71. This response is submitted as part of the consultation on the draft recommendations, which ends on 8 February 2016. Because the district council boundaries cannot be changed by the review, this has in effect created seven separate reviews. District Council area Current number of divisions Proposed number of divisions Boston 7 6 East Lindsey 15 13 Lincoln 10 8 North Kesteven 11 11 South Holland 9 9 South Kesteven 15 14 West Lindsey 10 9 TOTAL 77 70 We have achieved consensus from political group leaders on the council in a number of areas, however there have been some areas where this has not been possible. BOSTON In Boston the Administration Group agreed with the boundary changes recommended by the LGBCE, but expressed concern about the renaming of the electoral divisions. It was felt that the changes proposed would be divisive and cause confusion. The LGBCE are proposing that the former Boston West Division is renamed Boston South, but it is recognised locally as Boston West and the division contains Boston West Primary School. To avoid perceived favouritism to one or more parishes it is felt the proposed Wyberton and Marshes Division would be better named Boston South; the proposed Holland Fen and Sutterton division would be better named Boston Rural; and it would be more appropriate for the proposed Butterwick and Wrangle division to be named Boston Coastal. We understand the LGBCE is likely to receive similar comments from Boston Borough Council. 1 EAST LINDSEY In East Lindsey the Administration Group support the boundary changes as recommended by the LGBCE, but the Commission should expect to receive at least one further proposal from the Independence from Europe Group. LINCOLN In Lincoln there was agreement from all Group Leaders for the LGBCE proposals. NORTH KESTEVEN In North Kesteven the Administration Group have a number of concerns. They are particularly at odds with the proposal to include polling district AB001 in the newly named Rowston division. They contest that there would be no access to this polling district from the Rowston division without crossing the border with the Ruskington division. The suggested connecting road from the north is in fact a NO THROUGH ROAD and access is prohibited by the Ministry of Defence. To correct this, RAF Cranwell in polling district AB001 should be included in the new Ruskington division. The knock on effect of this would increase the electorate to a level beyond the 10% variance. To balance this, polling district QB001 (Holdingham) should be included in the Sleaford Division as this village is within the Sleaford Town boundary. From the information we have the Sleaford Division is ‐10% in electorate, and therefore is able to accommodate the increase in the 2021 figures. To balance this, we are recommending Rowston Division takes the village of Dunston, (north of Metheringham) which is in the Potterhanworth and Coleby Division. In addition we would recommend amending the Potterhanworth and Coleby Division in the village of Heighington, as this village has been split in half and we believe it would be more beneficial to divide the village south of the Washingborough Road and Park Lane in Heighington. It would be much better for the community to have a more defining line than splitting the village by streets on the housing development which appear very confusing. It is felt that a more appropriate name for the proposed new Rowston division would be Metheringham Rural. The Commission may receive at least one further proposal from the Lincolnshire Independent Group. The Council is also aware of objections to the Commission's proposals from Canwick Parish Council, North Kesteven District Council and district councillors. SOUTH KESTEVEN In South Kesteven concern has been expressed about the size of the Colsterworth Rural Division, which stretches from Thurlby in the south to Harlaxton in the north. The Administration Group believes its original proposal, which included Thurlby connected to Bourne, provides a better option and a more even spread of the electorate, although the south west corner of the proposed Greenhill division could logically be extended westwards south of the A52 road to make the A1 the border with the proposed Barrowby division. 2 It is felt that a more appropriate name for the proposed new division of Upper Glenns would be Folkingham Rural. The names proposed for the Grantham divisions, Belton Park, Spittlegate, Barrowby and Greenhill should be changed to Grantham North East, Grantham South East, Grantham South West and Grantham West respectively. Should the Commission insist on their preferred names the Council would ask that the name 'Grantham' should precede them (i.e Grantham Belton Park, Grantham Spittlegate, Grantham Barrowby and Grantham Greenhill). SOUTH HOLLAND The Administration Group prefers the proposal that it originally submitted last year for the South Holland district, for the following reasons: 1) The electorate figures in the Council's submission were within the 10% variance. 2) The town centre of Spalding has no affinity with the proposed divisions of Moulton Seas End and Crowland. 3) The Boundary Commission proposal divides the parish of Holbeach since its inception, by removing Holbeach St Marks, Holbeach Bank and Holbeach Clough. 4) The original proposal submitted by the Administration Group retained Pinchbeck within one division, something promoted in the Local Plan. 5) There is reduced coterminosity between county and district boundaries with the Boundary Commission proposals. WEST LINDSEY The Administration Group's original proposal for West Lindsey was based on there being ten divisions within the district. Having now been asked to comment on an arrangement with nine divisions, we have revisited this area and the Administration Group submits a new proposal for West Lindsey (see attached map and supporting data). This new proposal retains Gainsborough Trent and Gainsborough Hill as suggested by the Commission, but all other divisions have been redrawn using district wards, with only a small change (moving polling districts Claxby [24B], Normanby le Wold [24F], Stainton le Vale [24H] and Kirmond le Mire [24D] from the new North Wolds into the new Market Rasen) to reduce the electorate in North Wolds to be within the 10% variance. This new proposal, which improves coterminosity, also avoids the need to have two parts of the village of Welton in two different divisions. The Labour Group's overall position is as follows: 1) It supports the LGBCE proposals for Lincoln 2) It supports the Administration Group's position on South Kesteven 3) It is taking no position on the proposals for the remaining five district council areas.