SUBMISSION TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

FURTHER ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DISTRICT COUNCIL

DISTRICT COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Background Information

The District Council’s cross‐party Further Electoral Review (FER) Working Party met on three occasions following the publication of the Draft Recommendations on 15th October 2013 in order to prepare a draft Council response. The Working Party subsequently submitted a proposed response before the Full Council at its meeting on 17th December 2013.

At the Full Council meeting the proposed response was agreed, by 39 votes to 4 votes against, with no abstentions, as the basis for the Council’s submission in respect of the Draft Recommendations.

Electorate Projection Figures

The Council welcomes the Commission’s acceptance that the electorate forecasts for 2019 are the best available at the present time and have been used to form the basis of its Council size and warding proposals in the Draft Recommendations.

Council Size

The Council welcomes and supports the Commission’s Draft Recommendations which accept the Council’s proposal to increase the Council size from 38 to 39 Members in order to provide equality of representation to both the west and the east of the River Trent, thereby eliminating the need for wards which cross the river.

General Analysis

The Council notes the comments of the Commission on the Council’s previous submission and acknowledges that it had focussed on the identities and interests of local communities and on effective and convenient local government to a greater extent than on the provision of equality of representation. Whilst the Council believes that this was more in accordance with the wishes of its communities, it understands and accepts why the Commission felt it necessary to make a large number of proposed changes in order to improve electoral equality.

The Council supports the majority of the Commission’s proposed external ward boundaries. However, it is not able to support the large number of multi‐member/multi‐parish wards believing that these will not provide convenient local government. The Council understands that many of these will not be supported by many of the parishes concerned. Whilst the Council believes multi‐member wards can be supported in urban areas, in particular Newark and , the Council urges the Commission to propose them elsewhere only in wholly exceptional circumstances or where there is no viable alternative.

Accordingly, the Council supports the majority of the proposed external boundaries for the single and multi‐member wards. However, it does strongly recommend that the Commission’s proposals for multi‐member wards in Collingham and Southwell should be changed into single member wards. The Council is also proposing an alternative solution for the multi Member Ollerton / Rainworth North and / Rainworth South and Wards which, it believes, will find greater community support, provide an improved warding scheme and result in even better equality of representation. In addition the Council is also proposing changes to the proposed warding arrangements in Newark.

The following paragraphs set out the Council’s specific proposals in respect of the Draft Recommendations.

Newark (Beacon, Bridge, Castle and Devon)

The Draft Recommendations proposing nine Members for the whole of Newark is supported. However, the Council is concerned that the proposed mix of one, two and three Member wards does not produce ward boundaries that reflect or maintain local ties and interests. In consequence, the District Council has worked closely with Newark Town Council on a joint proposal which has been agreed by both the District Council and unanimously by the multi‐ party Town Council.

The Council proposes alternative arrangements that, whilst similar to its previous submission, accepts and builds upon the Draft Recommendations’ observations about community identity and the need for clearly identifiable boundaries. It notes the Draft Recommendations proposed co‐terminosity with the County Division boundaries in places. However, the Council notes that these are likely to change as a boundary review of the County Council has been initiated recently. Accordingly, the Council believes that community ties and shared interests should take precedence over the transient convenience of shared ward and division boundaries.

Castle Ward

The Council believes that Castle should remain a two Member ward. Rather than acting as a natural divide, as the Draft Recommendations imply, the River Devon and Devon Park actually unite Hawton Road and the roads to its west with Farndon Road and its surrounding area by providing a shared recreational and leisure facility, with allotments and the Thomas Mann sports ground and with robust footbridges over the river to provide ease of access. Both areas are also within the Christ Church primary school catchment area, unlike the Hawtonville estate to the east of Hawton Road. That part of the current Magnus ward bounded by Barnby Gate, Sherwood Avenue, Bowbridge Road, Beech Avenue, north of Devon Road and Windsor Avenue has a close and shared relationship with the town centre rather than with the Hawtonville area to the south. By retaining Hawton Road and the roads to its west and by incorporating the area set out above, this would create a two member Castle ward that would better and more properly reflect community links around shared amenities, schools and long‐standing ties.

Devon Ward

In consequence, the Council proposes that Devon should remain a two Member ward. The current western and southern boundaries would be retained but the southern boundary would be extended to the dismantled railway and run north to Bancroft Road. The boundary would then run west beyond Bancroft Road and north to the rear of Bromley Avenue then east on the back of Clumber Avenue, The Crescent and then along Beech Avenue, north of Devon road and Windsor Avenue. The Council considers that this proposal better reflects and unifies the distinctive Hawtonville community rather than extending the ward boundaries into adjoining areas with which it has no affinity or existing ties.

Bridge

The Council proposes that a two member Bridge ward would be bounded by the bridges over both the River Trent and the East Coast Mainline and would reconnect communities around the shared amenities in the Northgate area of Newark. Its northern boundary would extend down to Trent Bridge and then eastwards via Beastmarket Hill and Kirkgate, along the north of the market square, Bridge Street, Barnby Gate, to its junction with Sherwood Avenue. It would then follow the backs of houses on Friary Road and Sleaford Road – similar to the Draft Recommendations proposal to use the backs of houses on Lime Grove as a boundary in a different context – essentially to reflect different primary school catchment areas, before rejoining the current ward boundary at the East Coast Mainline railway bridge.

Beacon

A three member Beacon ward would now have a western boundary that would extend down Lime Grove across to the Sustrans route returning northwards to London Road, before turning east along the boundary between Newark and Balderton. It would also retain the 95 electors from the Coddington West parish ward.

Maps of the proposed boundaries for these Newark Wards will be sent with this submission.

In summary these alternative proposals which are supported by the Town Council would create:‐  A 3 Member Beacon Ward with a 0% variance  A 2 Member Bridge Ward with a ‐4% variance  A 2 Member Castle Ward with a 1% variance  A 2 Member Devon Ward with a ‐7% variance

The Council’s proposal would have an impact on Newark Town Council ward boundaries which would require adjustment. In terms of the future electoral arrangements for the Town Council the Council would recommend 6 Members for Beacon, 4 for Bridge, 4 for Castle and 4 for Devon.

Balderton (Balderton North and Coddington and Balderton South)

The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of these two wards.

Collingham

The Draft Recommendations propose a 14 parish, 2 Member ward. However, the Council feels that there are no links or common identities / interests between the 10 parishes to the north of Collingham which, going north look increasingly to Tuxford and Lincoln for amenities (especially for secondary schools) and the 3 parishes to the south of Collingham, which look to Newark for amenities.

Although the current ward is also 2 Member, the proposed addition of the 3 southern parishes will increase the already evident difficulty of providing effective local government. Accordingly, the Council proposes that the ward be split into 2 single Member wards by dividing Collingham parish to form a Collingham North and Meering Ward and a Collingham South and Winthorpe Ward with the 10 parishes to the north and the 3 to the south respectively.

Historically, Collingham had two ecclesiastic parishes. Whilst it is not possible to use these former parish boundaries to achieve equality of representation, an easily identifiable boundary within Collingham could run along the middle of the High Street (North) leading into Besthorpe Road to the Parish of Besthorpe boundary.

This proposal would:‐

 Retain two councillors to share representation for Collingham (a parish that, with a 2019 projected population of 2364 – a ‐2% variance ‐ could, in other circumstances, be a single Member ward in its own right).  Have a single, identifiable and accountable councillor to represent each of the other parishes, thus providing effective local governance.  Better reflect the common identities and ties of the 10 parishes to the north and the 3 parishes to the south of Collingham.  Provide an equality of representation broadly comparable to that proposed in the Draft Recommendations. The variance figures for the proposed Collingham North and Meering Ward would be ‐8% and ‐7% for the Collingham South and Winthorpe Road which compares to the ‐7% variance proposed in the Draft Recommendations.

The Council’s proposal would have an impact on the electoral arrangements for the parish of Collingham which would need to be warded. The Council would recommend 3 Members for a Collingham North Ward and 7 Members for a Collingham South Ward.

Farndon and Fernwood

The Council recognises the wholly exceptional challenge to provide effective governance and equality of representation in this area because of the substantial level of planned growth and the continuing uncertainty over the timing of its delivery. It believes that the community identities of Farndon and Fernwood are so different that it is not ideal for them to be placed together in the proposed 3 Member ward.

The only alternative considered possible is for Farndon, East Stoke and Thorpe to be included in a single Member ward and for Fernwood and the villages to its south (together with Elston and Syerston) to become a two member Fernwood and Hawton ward. It is, though, accepted that this would have a variance outside the Commission’s guidelines by 2019, if the planned development is delivered on time.

Sutton – on – Trent

The Council supports the Draft Recommendation for the single Member Sutton – on ‐ Trent ward. The Council does note, however, that the proposed variance of 8% is the second highest of any ward in the Draft Recommendations and given the significant number and diversity of parishes within the ward this will present a significant challenge to the elected Member in terms of representation.

Muskham

The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of this ward.

Trentside

The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of this ward. However, notwithstanding a reference to ‘Trentside’ by two parish councils in their previous submissions, the Council believes that the ward name should be retained as ‘Trent’.

Southwell

The Council supports the external boundary of the Southwell ward as proposed in the Draft Recommendations. However, it does not support this being a 3 Member ward as it is considered that it could be sub‐divided into 3 single Member wards. The previous FER changed Southwell from a multi‐member to 3 single Member wards within the parish boundary. This change was widely supported and has worked well. During the previous consultation, Southwell Town Council and others supported the retention of 3 single Member wards. At the time, this view was not supported by the District Council. However, the District Council now believes that the case for 3 single Member wards has been made much stronger by the Draft Recommendations to include five neighbouring parishes in addition to Halloughton.

The Council therefore propose 3 single Member wards as follows:‐

 A Southwell South ward including Halloughton;  A Southwell West ward including Halam and Edingley; and  A Southwell North ward including Hockerton, Kirklington and Winkburn.

The boundary for Southwell West is proposed to run along the middle of Lower Kirklington Road from the easterly boundary of the Parish of Halam, along the middle of Kirklington Road, along the middle of Queen Street, along the middle of The Ropewalk, along the middle of Lower Kirklington Road (East), along the middle of Station Road and along the Southwell Trail to the current polling district boundary point to meet and run along the River Greet to the Parish of Halam boundary.

The boundary for Southwell North and Southwell South is proposed from the Ropewalk (as described above), along the middle of Queen Street (East), along the middle of the Market Place (South), along the middle of Westgate (South) and along the middle of Road to the Parish of Halloughton boundary.

The Council understands that this proposal has widespread support among most, if not all, of the neighbouring parishes including Southwell Town Council. The proposal would:‐

 Retain three Members, as presently, for Southwell to share representation for the town.  Provide clear and easily identifiable ward boundaries within Southwell itself.  Provide a single, identifiable and accountable Member to represent each of the other parishes, thus providing effective, local governance.  Better reflect and retain the identities of the individual parishes whilst recognising they have good connectivity to Southwell and its facilities.  Provide for an equality of representation which would remain within the guidelines required by the Boundary Commission. Variance figures for the proposed new wards being ‐8% for Southwell North, ‐9% for Southwell South and ‐4% for Southwell West.

The Council’s proposal would have an impact on the Southwell Town Council ward boundaries which would require adjustment. In terms of the future electoral arrangements for the Town Council the District Council would recommend 5 Members for Southwell North, 6 for Southwell South and 4 for Southwell West.

Dover Beck

The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of this ward.

Lowdham

The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of this ward.

Farnsfield

The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of this ward.

Edwinstowe and

The Council recognises the difficulty in finding a solution for this part of the district given the constraints imposed by the forecast electorate figures. However, the Council wishes to reiterate that there is little common identity between these two distinct communities and it continues to believe that the previous submission for 3 single Member wards is the only viable alternative which would be more acceptable locally.

Boughton

The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of this ward.

Ollerton, Rainworth North and Bilsthorpe, Rainworth South and Blidworth

The Council wishes to recommend changes to these three proposed wards in order to further improve electoral equality, better reflect community identity and provide better arrangements for effective and convenient local governance.

Ollerton Ward

The Council supports the proposal for the Ollerton Ward subject to the removal of Wellow parish. This is known to have support locally and would change Ollerton ward’s variance from 2% to ‐3%.

In respect of Ollerton and Boughton Town Council the Council understands that the Town Council have put forward a representation that the Town Council be warded with an indicative split being an Ollerton North Ward of 8 Members, an Ollerton South Ward of 5 Members and the 2 for the Boughton Ward as proposed. This proposal to ward the parish, as appropriate, is supported by the District Council.

Rainworth North and Bilsthorpe

Due to its distinctive community identity, the Council proposes that Bilsthorpe should become a single Member ward within its parish boundary. This is strongly supported by Bilsthorpe Parish Council and the proposed Ward would have a variance of ‐2%.

Allied to this, a single member Rainworth North and Rufford ward would be re‐created, comprising the existing Rainworth MMMM1 polling district and the parishes of Rufford, Eakring and Wellow. Again, this has support locally and, with a projected electorate in 2019 of 2,458, would only have a 2% variance.

Rainworth South and Blidworth

The Council proposes that the remainder of Rainworth and Blidworth should become a 3 Member ward by combining the existing Rainworth MMMM2 and MMMM3 polling districts with the four Blidworth LLLL1, LLLL2 ,LLLL2a and LLLL3 polling districts. With a projected electorate in 2019 of 7,208, this would have a variance of ‐1% compared to a variance of ‐7% for the 2 member Blidworth and Rainworth South ward as proposed in the Draft Recommendations.

The Council acknowledges that there are strong feelings in Blidworth that it should retain its own discrete representation and in Rainworth that the village – already split between Newark & Sherwood District Council and District Council – should not be further divided as a result of the current boundary review. However, the projected electorate figures for 2019 make it impossible to address either of these wishes without accepting significant electoral variances.

The Council understands their proposals for this area are supported by Bilsthorpe, Rufford, Eakring and Wellow Parish Councils.

The Council’s proposal would:‐  Provide Bilsthorpe with its own single, identifiable and accountable Member.  Retains the integrity of Blidworth.  Re‐establishes the former Rainworth and Rufford ward, albeit with the inclusion of Eakring and Wellow to achieve electoral equality.

Conclusion

The District Council welcomes the Draft Recommendations. However it believes that the refinements being proposed in this document build upon the Draft Recommendations in ways that have wide support, reflect the identities and interests of local communities wherever possible and provide for effective and convenient local government. The refinements also benefit from providing good equality of representation.

The District Council hopes that the Commission will give careful consideration to the proposals and recognises that there may be a case for limited further consultation, as has happened in other reviews, before formulation of the Final Recommendations.