Parish and Town Council submissions to the City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 11 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.

I trust the views will be taken into consideration when recommendations are put forward.

Kind Regards

Dr Andrea Nicholson Chairman Ward, Lucy

From: Council Sent: 10 December 2013 14:47 To: Ward, Lucy Cc: Subject: Canterbury District: Proposed Boundary Changes

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Lucy,

At the meeting of Blean Parish Council last evening (9th December) it was unanimously agreed to concur with the letter sent to you by the Chairman of Parish Council.

This being, that it is proposed that a new Ward of three Members be created, which encompasses the present Hackington, Blean and parishes plus all those residences on the North side of Giles Lane, which are presently in St Stephen’s Ward, and all those properties North of the A28 which presently border the south side of Harbledown Parish.

Blean also agrees with Hackington that the name of the new Ward should be the Blean Forest Ward.

Kind regards Denise Horswell Clerk to Blean Parish Council

1

Ward, Lucy

From: Ray Evison Sent: 08 December 2013 17:08 To: Ward, Lucy Cc: William Leetham; Denise Horswell; J. D. Larkinson Subject: Canterbury District: Proposed Boundary Changes.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

8th December 2013

Dear Lucy Ward.

I write as Chairman of Hackington Parish Council which is within the present Blean Forest Ward of the District Council.

Our Council has considered the options available for recommending to the Commission and we have consulted with our neighbouring councils of Blean and Harbledown.

I think Blean P C are broadly in agreement with the proposal that follows. Harbledown P C are adopting a wait and see stance.

Hackington Parish Council proposes that a new Ward of three members be created which encompasses the present Hackington, Blean and Harbledown parishes plus all those residences on the north side of Giles Lane which are presently in St Stephen's Ward and all those properties north of the A28 which presently border the south side of Harbledown parish.

By our calculation the total number of electors in this area would be approximately 9,000 and therefore close to the required number for a three member Ward.

The three parishes have similar community interests and responsibilities. They are astride major roads from the coast leading into and out of the City and have shared concerns about traffic management, road conditions and maintenance.

They are all within and surrounded by the Blean woodlands. The concern for the environment within the woods and for the maintenance of good access to the several aspects of their hinterland is a shared responsibility.

Of more concern to Hackington and Blean parishes than perhaps to Harbledown parish is the increase in Houses of Multiple Occupancy, driven by the shortage of student accommodation on campus at the University of , which is fundamentally changing the cohesion of our villages.

We feel that there would be a commanality of interests in the proposed new Ward to which District Councillors could collectively and therfore effectively direct their attentions.

Given the location north of the City and our surrounding landsacpes we feel the name of the new Ward should be the Blean Forest Ward.

1

In Broomfield the parish council created a Community Park from a former land-fill site, which includes a regional standard BMX track. There are regular training sessions and competitions held at the BMX track by the local club. The Parish Council has leased land for an allotment site in Broomfield. Plots have just been made available to the local residents in the parish. The parish council produces a newsletter 4 times a year and local residents deliver these to every household in the parish. The parish council also organises events during the year and they rely on local volunteers to help with these. A Garden Safari is held annually and local residents open their gardens to allow visitors to look and the money raised from this goes to charity and community projects. The parish council also organises a Family Fun Day annually and could not do this without the volunteer help from local residents, the money raised again goes to a local charity and the community fund. At Christmas a party is held for the younger children, this is all provided free by the parish council; a disco, children’s entertainer and food are all provided. Father Christmas visits on his sleigh and gives every child a present before they leave. The help to run this is reliant on our local volunteers. The parish council has a Christmas float which tours the area in the weeks leading up to Christmas, it also works with the local church to ensure the tree in the churchyard has lights for the festive season. There are two Grade 1 listed buildings in the parish St Martin’s Church and Herne Windmill, the windmill is open to visitors during the summer months and it also houses the parish council office. There is an amazing sense of community and residents do really come together especially when there are issues they are unhappy about. Recently Tesco’s proposed taking over one of the village pubs for a Tesco Local store and residents, aided by the parish council, strongly opposed this and after several months were successful and the idea was dropped. Currently there has been consultation for the new Local Development Plan and residents have been very responsive in letting the parish council know, what they do not want to see happen in the parish with regard to proposed new developments. The Parish Council would not want to see the parish divided in anyway but would accept the area being made bigger if it was necessary, they appreciate that with fewer councillors it will be necessary to change the ward boundaries in some areas. The preference is certainly to leave the current parish boundary in place; it would be very disappointing if the parish was changed in any way and certainly not what the residents would want as we have such a thriving parish community. The Physical Boundary. The existing parish boundary is well defined although it does have a couple of quirky bits going towards Canterbury. Our Parish lies to the north east of the , south of the Thanet Way (A299 and A2991) and the urban area of . To the east it follows the Roman road ‘Heart in Hand’ down to ‘Cherub Cottage’ (formerly Edgehill) on the corner of Ford Road in conformity with the neighbouring Parish boundaries of and . It continues to follow the Hoath Parish boundary south-westerly to the 'The Cottage' (Hicks Forstal).

On the southern edge it follows the Parish Council boundary behind New Road Cottages, along footpath CH67. It then cuts north to form a western boundary (at footpath CH4) passing up through West Blean Woods to Bleangate. Going north the Western boundary continues along the natural boundary of Plenty Brook, crossing the Thanet Way (A299) at Bullockstone, near the site of the old ‘Tom Thumb’ bridge, before rejoining the Old Thanet Way (A2991) at Eddington.

Many thanks Monica Blyth Parish Clerk Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 09 December 2013 09:23 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Canterbury

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Nicholas Clarry Sent: 06 December 2013 17:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Canterbury

Dear Review Officer

I refer to the Canterbury Electoral Review Consultation. Parish Council considered this issue on 25th November 2013.

The decision of the Council is to support changes to ward boundaries that would link the Parish to or but not Marshside.

The Parish Council does not wish to see Ickham and Well redesignated as or linked to a City ward.

Yours faithfully

Nicholas Clarry

1 Canterbury District Electoral Review: New Warding arrangements Public Consultation Response from Littlebourne Parish Council December 2013

1) Introduction

1.1 Littlebourne Parish is rural in nature and sits in Ward, one of the eight rural Wards in the Canterbury District. It has a single Councillor representation.

1.2 There are two other Parishes in the Ward, (also serving the village of ) and Ickham (also serving the outlying areas of Well and ).

1.3 Current electorate (2012) is 2163 and, according to estimates provided by the District Council this is due to rise in 2019 to 2211.

1.4 The average electorate proposed by the Boundary Commission in 2019, which the new wards are meant to meet, will be 3167.

1.5 As it currently stands Little Stour Ward will meet only 70% of its targeted total.

1.6 The Littlebourne Parish Council discussed the Electoral Boundary Review at its meeting of November 14 2013 and the summary rejection of its objections to the proposal to reduce the number of District Councillors to 38, but decided nevertheless to submit a response to the Boundary Commission covering new Warding arrangements.

1.7 Since no member of the public can be expected to produce a complete proposal for every Ward in the Canterbury District, it follows that small groups of individuals (including Parish Councils – our own comprises eight members) are no better equipped. Larger organisations might fare better in this respect, but the Boundary Commission has specifically asked for responses from the public. The submission of Littlebourne Parish Council can only, therefore, be in respect of its own current ward of Little Stour and without consideration of the effect of any suggestions on other current wards.

2) Boundary Commission Criteria

2.1 The Local Government Boundary Commission has set in place five criteria to inform the process for making any suggested changes in Wards:

i) In drawing up new boundaries, the Commission aims to deliver electoral equality for voters in council elections so that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters.

ii) Do you share community identity and interests with another area?

iii) Are there any natural or constructed features which could be used as boundaries?

iv) In your community where do people go to access services, use local facilities or socialise?

v) Where should your new ward/division boundaries be drawn?

2.2 It should be noted that 5 current wards, all rural, have the same approximate shortfall (30%) from the first criterion concerning electoral equality, yet these comprise some 70% of the ground area of the District and cover 25 Parish Councils. District Councillors need to be present at Parish Council meetings in order to provide a democratic link with the District Council and this task will be made much harder with larger wards.

3) Rural vs Urban

3.1 Canterbury District shelters a World Heritage Site within an area famed as part of the ‘Garden of ’. Kent itself has suffered for many years from a steady encroachment of urbanisation from London that has fundamentally altered the character of the County, more especially since infrastructure has not kept up with massively increasing population shifts. Local industry has largely disappeared in favour of commuter residence, necessitating massive increases in vehicle traffic and some recent corresponding rise in rail services (and this too has generated additional road traffic flows to the High Speed link stations). Canterbury has seen more than its fair share of this expansion with corresponding decline in infrastructure provision.

3.2 Littlebourne Parish Council feels very strongly that its rural character should be preserved and would not agree to any loss of boundary to Canterbury City. This would lead to immediate urbanisation of any area ceded to the City and potentially the loss of both amenity and revenue earning potential. Its ability to represent the wishes of local people (enshrined in law as Localism) would therefore be compromised.

3.3 Those current residents within the Parish Council’s area would lose the opportunities currently afforded to them to directly approach Parish Councillors and to attend both the Annual Parish Meeting as well as those meetings opened to residents when major issues affecting the Village are discussed. This will affect their democratic rights.

3.4 There are currently 7 wards that could be characterised as rural or largely rural and these are represented by 9 District Councillors. Five of these wards are represented by single Councillors and two by two Councillors each. Littlebourne Parish Council would initially suggest that these wards be left with current boundaries, electoral population, and representation. The remaining 29 Councillors should then be allocated across the other 17 wards.

3.5 Such a proposal does not meet the ‘equality of electorate’ criterion, but better serves the difference between rural and urban Canterbury.

4 Current Definable Boundaries

4.1 Little Stour Ward currently has very definable boundaries. 4.2 To the east, the whole boundary abuts Wingham Parish which is part of Dover District Council area.

4.3 To the north, the south bank of the River Stour provides a fixed boundary with the Marshside ward that has only in living memory been crossed by a fixed bridge at Grove. Whilst the road through Grove provides a ‘rat run’ for traffic from the A28 to A2, the character of the area outside of rush hours is distinctly rural.

4.4 To the south east the major part of the boundary with North Nailbourne ward comprises a very visible railway embankment carrying the railway from Canterbury to Dover line.

4.5 The Little Stour Ward is a unit of parishes that spread either side of the Little Stour itself.

5) Equality of Electorate

5.1 Currently Little Stour will have an electoral roll in 2019 (according to CCC) of 2211. This means that it will have 70% of its requirement of 3167 electors. There will therefore have to be more electors found from another current Ward.

5.2 Littlebourne Parish Council would suggest moving the southern boundary of the ward to the A2 to take in Bekesbourne with , although in terms of additional electors this would only give:

Little Stour 2211 Bekesbourne 644 Patrixbourne 116

Total 2971

5.3 The new Little Stour would still be 196 electors short.

5.4 A final solution might be to include (309) electors which is currently in Sturry South, but sits to the south of the Great Stour. This would then mean that the northern boundary of the ward would comprise the entire south bank of the River Stour up to the City boundary. It would also ensure that this rural enclave would be in its proper place, namely a rural ward.

5.5 The total electorate of the new ward would be 3280.

6) Community identity and Services

6.1 An extension of the current ward boundary towards the A2 and encompassing Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne would add a further stretch of the Little Stour valley into the ward.

6.2 Littlebourne currently has the community owned Four Villages Shop and this is used by many in the two Villages of Bekesbourne and Patrixbourne. Howletts Zoo, in Bekesbourne Parish is a major employer in the area and this includes Littlebourne people.

6.3 There are also old established families who have expanded into these two villages as well so that there is some community identity at grass roots level.

6.4 Fordwich, on the other hand, has few direct links with service, yet is predominantly a rural enclave within a fast urbanising area and, crucially, abuts Little Stour (indeed is surrounded by it) on its southern boundary. It fronts the only part of the south bank of the River Stour that is not in Little Stour.

7) Summary

7.1 Littlebourne Parish Council does not want to lose boundary to the City since this will inhibit its ability to serve its current and future Parishioners.

7.2 It would wish to see a warding solution based on preserving the current small number of rural wards with their current electorate levels served by the current number of Councillors. Issues of service by the Councillors of their Parish Councils as well as the large geographic areas involved mean that contact between the District Council and its Parishes will be jeopardised and future democratic and practical operation will suffer.

7.3 If the ‘equality of electorate’ criterion is fundamental to this review, Littlebourne Parish Council would recommend the retention of Little Stour Ward and that it should be extended by the addition of Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne Parish Council together with the Town Council of Fordwich.

7.4 Such a new and enlarged ward will sit within very definable boundaries and safely meet the Boundary Commission’s other criteria.

mjg/2 December 2013

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

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony O'Sullivan

E-mail:

Postcode: Wickhambreaux Parish Organisation Name: Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Little Stour ward (the parishes of Wickhambreaux with Stodmarsh, Littlebourne and Ickam) has an electorate of 2211, wh ch is significantly below the desired figure of 3127. To remedy this, we propose an amalgamation w th part of the adjoining North Nailbourne ward - specif cally with the parishes of Bekesbourne and Patrixbourne. These communities share with those of L ttle Stour the same defining characterist c - rural communities with a strong sense of ident ty and a desire to determine their own affairs. The proposed amalgamation would bring the electorate up to 2971 - within seven per cent of the desired figure. Among the shared interests of member communities of both the current and proposed wards are sport, mus c, youth and community organisat on. A strong underpinning to the community is provided by the Church - the current parishes of L ttle Stour have worked together as a single benef ce and proposed changes will bring the parishes of North Nailbourne into a common benef ce. Regarding boundaries, the current boundaries of Little Stour are, to the north and east, the Little Stour river and the Canterbury Distr ct boundary; to the North and west, the Great Stour river. The proposed new ward would have a logical geographical boundary to the south, consisting of the dual-carriageway A2 trunk road. We subm t the above proposal, feeling that it satisfies the Boundary Commission's essential criteria.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2704 06/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2704 06/12/2013