What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make regarding the number of councillors and ward What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make regarding the number of councillors and ward What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make regarding the What comments would you like to make What comments would you like to make regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward What general comments would you like to make regarding the Commission's regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward boundaries for the proposed Tain, Easter Ross regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward What comments would you like to make regarding the number of boundaries for the proposed Caol, Mallaig and regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward number of councillors and ward boundaries for the regarding the number of councillors and ward regarding the number of councillors and ward boundaries for the proposed Badenoch and boundaries for the proposed Fort William and proposals for councillor numbers and wards in Council area? - Please boundaries for the proposed ward? - boundaries for the proposed ward? - boundaries for the proposed Wick ward? - Please boundaries for the proposed Thurso ward? - boundaries for the proposed Wester Ross and boundaries for the proposed Firth and Edderton ward? - Please share your views boundaries for the proposed and boundaries for the proposed ward? - councillors and ward boundaries for the proposed Eilean a' Chèo ward? - the Small Isles ward? - Please share your views boundaries for the proposed Aird ward? - Please boundaries for the proposed North boundaries for the proposed Inverness North boundaries for the proposed proposed Inverness South East ward? - Please share boundaries for the proposed Culloden and boundaries for the proposed Nairn and Cawdor Strathspey ward? - Please share your views Ardnamurchan ward? - Please share your views type your answer in the box below Please share your views below Please share your views below share your views below Please share your views below ward? - Please share your views below ward? - Please share your views below below Seaforth ward? - Please share your views below Please share your views below Please share your views below below share your views below West ward? - Please share your views below East ward? - Please share your views below West ward? - Please share your views below your views below Ardersier ward? - Please share your views below ward? - Please share your views below below below

I appreciate that this review is solely based on population numbers per councillor but in island wards and in Ward 20 consideration has been given to distance and remoteness.

Ward 5 is currently the biggest council ward in area in the UK, and probably Europe. The proposed alteration removes Garve and but does not reduce the area much or the travel distances within Ward 5. For instance to travel from Reiff to Arnisdale is 133.5 miles and takes 3.5 hours. I think that it is right that in the proposals, island wards and ward 20 get special treatment due to poor transport links and distance. The present 4 councillors deal with the large distances by informally splitting up the ward so I think that Ward 5, Wester Ross, should retain 4 councillors for the same they can attend all 20 CC's. I think this ward, due to reasons. It is currently the biggest ward by area in the UK and probably Europe. its size, needs 4 councillors.

I think the proposal makes sense for Inverness. As it is currently divided I find it difficult to contact my local councillor as they aren't often aware of what's happening in my particular area. Perhaps a shake up will reinvigorate local councillors to take their jobs more seriously and work for all the people they represent rather than the convenient ones.

Highland desperately requires to be broken up into its 8 District Council components. An area the size of with a single council is not "local", it's "sub- national". Time for a (Royal) Commission to fully explore the needs and roles of 21st century local government. "In general", greater emphasis should be given by BC to "natural, cultural" boundaries. Secondary school catchments often work well in rural . I believe Ward 10 could function adequately with 3 Councillors. This seems appropriate for the geography & population. However, being a "remote, rural area," deprived in a number of categories (as defined by the Scottish Government), the "quality" of our representatives is all the more important if "quantity" is reduced. I have concerns about the lack of equality & diversity in those standing for election & being successful (all "middle-class" (for want of a better expression), white males. In 21 years residency, I can only remember 3 women standing for election & no-one from a "minority" group. Skye is a traditional Ward but I would welcome greater encouragement & support for new prospective candidates to put themselves forward. av,3 = 2340 pop / councillor this ward should only have Why is Inverness allocated 18 councillors - 25% of total, when its pop is only 72 councillors for 18300 pop = ~ 1 councillor per 3 councillors 22..5% of total and so should only have 16 councillors. i allocated to Inverness, 2540 pop so a pop of 11000 - this ward should so 4 INVERNESS WARDS SHOULD HAVE 5,4,4 AND 3 = therefore object to these extra councillors it would help to supply ward pops. again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop ok have only 4 councillors 16 COUNCILLORS again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop again no ward pop

Although there is a lot of detail, it still seems like 25% of Highland councillors are from Inverness and it will just reinforce the feeling that Highland Council is really Inverness Council and the rest of the Highlands are just incidental to the purpose of spending money in Inverness. Scotland continues to have much poorer representation at this level than most or Europe and the real solution is not to tinker with ward boundaries, but to split Highland council into 3 or 4 smaller councils with more councillors in total and a greater relationship with the population. I strongly object to these proposals. 3 councillors for our large geographical area is simply not adequate. I’m a member of my community council and our councillors struggle to travel to our meetings or they may clash with other community council meetings within our ward - because we have so many within our ward. We need more representation not less. This would in effect mean a reduction in local councillors and I am therefore against the proposal. I understand that the local Highland council have also taken this view recognising the importance of local responsibility We need MORE councillors for this area NOT less. We are an ever changing population with ever changing complex needs and our councillors need to know their area, good points and had points, problems and residents so that they can do what is best for the residents. This area losing a councillor so that Inverness gains one is wrong on every level. The name is to be changed to reflect the inclusion of the Small Isles. Surprised to realise, from the map in this document, that the ward also covers Spean Bridge and Roybridge. As Caol is west of Ft William, this seems just as big an anomaly, if not greater, than the previous name not mentioning the islands.... i would like to see the numbers kept that we have i feel the numbers of councillers we have in caithness are just the right balance for as it seems to be working just fine and does not i see no reason for a change from what we have at the two towns and rural areas require a change present i see no reason for change from what is at present

Highland Council covers a land mass similar to the size of Belguim, with the vast majority of it's population living in a condensed settlement area within the inner Firth. Presently more than 50% of the political representation within Highland lies within less than 10% of the landmass.

Whilst it may be a simple sum for the electoral commission to equate representation to population, then investment in the whole council area does not follow. This form of calculating political representation takes no account of the distrubution of asset and infrastructure, or pressures from tourism.

As a result, even at the 5.4% representation Skye currently has, the 4 elected members have no chance in balancing much needed spend in their area. Mass investment always magnitises to the centre of population which is Inverness. This example could be replicated across 90% of the landmass of Highland in areas such as Wester Ross, NW Sutherland, Caithness and that do not see the levels of investment, improvement and growth that the City area does.

So the proposal to reduce the political representation of rural areas may seem common sense from an office and on a spreadsheet. However all it will achieve is a greater draw of investment into the more densley populated The proposed reduction in political representation within the rural communities of areas at the heavy expense of the already deprived rural communities. Highland will only serve to increase the already high levels of investment in the Inner Moray Firth at the heavy expense of the poor investment already within So in summary I am strongly against the reduction in elected members within rural communities. Skye from 4 to 3 Disagree entirely with suggesting reducing representation. As a production of economic income per permanent resident id imagine the area punches well above its weight likely above the higher population wards. Significant issues affect this ward as evidenced by the various recent campaigns in regard to infrastructure. Losing more representation will be to the detriment of those living working and raising families here. Please stop this relentless centralisation agenda . It is not working Very sad that Skye representation is being reduced when we are already marginalised by Council HQ at Inverness. Despite creating massive revenue for , Skye is suffering from massive neglect - poor Please do not reduce representaion for Skye infrastructure, over promotion of tourism, lack of housing etc.

The is a large island with a very diverse population. I feel we need the 4 councillors to fairly represent the size of the island and population

I think that the original ward boundaries for Ward 5 should be retained and the ward would therefore retain 4 councillors. The proposed boundary no longer includes Garve, Strathconon, , Marybank and Strathpeffer which used to be in the old county of Ross-shire. I would prefer these to be left in and that would increase our number of electors sufficiently to merit 4 councillors. Even if the boundary is changed according to the proposals, although the number of electors would be smaller, the area is still very large and should need 4 councillors. Reducing the number of councillors puts smaller political parties such as the Scottish Green Party at a disadvantage.

The proposed number of councillors for the Caithness ward is 3. This is for an electorate of 8489. However, Culloden & Ardesier has 4 councillors for 8521 which is only a difference of 32 and yet has an additional councillor. Similarly for Fort William & Ardnamurchan there are 4 councillors for an electorate of 8646, a difference of only 57. The primary criterion for the review appears to be to ensure that each councillor represents as nearly as possible the same number of electors. This seems to me a very limited scope for the review. In my view another major criterion should be a consideration of the geographical area that each councillor has to cover. Taking into account the small difference in electorate numbers as outlined above and also the geographical area, I believe the Caithness ward should have 4 councillors.

As in my general comment this seems to be more factual for Ward 1 than any other within the Highland Council Area.

For too many years we have been 'misrepresented by Highland Council's Ward Councillors for my local community, with not one single Councillor, during my 14 years of living here, ever having lived closer than 40 miles from me. Their supposed representation of my local, and neighbouring communities is purely 'Politically' based and they have all followed their own 'party' lines, without any consideration of the wider community.

It time to stop the Party Political 'Misrepresentation' for local government, especially whilst Central Governments continue to drastically reduce Service Delivery. Thanks for proposing the Boundary Changes - it is long overdue for Ward 1 North/West/Central Sutherland. We need a radical change in the 'Management' System for local communities, and certainly a much For too many years we have been 'misrepresented by Highland Council's Ward more decentralised and community led structure, Councillors for my local community, with not one single Councillor, during my 14 with community representatives, and not years of living here, ever having lived closer than 40 miles from me. 'foreigners' from 40 miles away.

Given the remote and scattered geography of Eilean a Cheo which of course includes the Island of Raasay makes representation of the population extremely difficult. it can take almost two hours to drive from one end of the ward to another and in spite of modern technology, social media etc, it is still Rural areas require more representation rather than less, given the remote and very difficult to achieve the kind of representation that can be achieved in a scattered geography we require more representation in Rural Areas and less in more urban area , that will have more Councillor representation. Reducing the Urban areas. No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment Eilean a Cheo and Raasay numbers is not a good idea. Agreed No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment

When the electorate for Caithness ( 8489), which has been reduced to 3 Councillors, is compared to Fort William and Ardnamuchan, (8646) and Culloden and Ardesier, (8521) which have 4 Looking at the overall changes it seems that the areas where the geography is Councillors proposed, the difference is in fact vast and difficult to cover, the number of Councillors has been reduced. insignificant . Although the electorate may be less than other areas where there a more Therefore I feel that taking into account the travel Councillors proposed it is in some cases only a few hundred. distance and transport difficulties in the area It appears that the distance that has to be covered by the Councillors and the lack Caithness should have at least four Councillors. of public transport available has not been taken into account. Many people living in the more rural ares are older and may not drive so have to Fort William and Ardanmurchan and Culloden and rely on public transport to go and see the Councillor. Ardesier are within more urban settings so they Population should not be such a definitive method for deciding on these changes. have easier access to their Councillors. No problem with Ward boundaries but object strongly to the proposed reduction in the number of Councillors. Ardesier, smaller geographically and with a far better infrastructure, retains its four Councillors. I am not sure where the population forecast comes from but Skye, unlike most other rural See response in respect of Skye. parts of the Council's area, has a growing population. Yet again it seems to be Eilean a Cheo that is going to suffer? Why? After this very strange year, I would imagine that it is all hands to deck, and try getting back some form of normality. Not cutbacks!! Come on, please, think about it. Or is there no one with common sense left? No offence intended. Thanks. Why? Because? Only two? And? Are you really going to read this survey? Why no change here? Fine Five? Really? That is okay. We need all four Councillors, so why not leave things as they are? Thank you Only three? Why so many? But of course, it is Inverness Only four? Inverness ? Again we have four? How many were there? So why no change here? No change again, well, well !! So no change yet again, there is a surprise! Agree that the boundary should remain the same. STRONGLY object to the proposal to reduce the number of elected members - we are a large and geographically dispersed area with a huge variety of issues and challenges and so need to be well represented in Inverness and beyond. At this time, we need more local representation, not less.

Yet again, this proposal shows no understanding of the challenges faced by remote rural communities , nor a desire to help remedy these disparities The changes would move a small area of land containing about 200 people living in a rural setting into a large urban ward which already has four councillors, giving that ward five councillors. The remaining Ward 12 would lose a councillor but still have an area the size of Luxembourg, with virtually Reducing the number of Councillors in Sutherland the same number of constituents. by 33% is totally unacceptable. This is the most sparsely populated area of the country comprising widely diverse scattered communities. We have suffered from the effects of de-population for generations and reducing our political representation even further will only help accelerate than decline.

The ratio of councillors to people in Sutherland is already far less than many Island communities and the isolation felt by remote rural communities is as great if not greater than some Islands.

Reducing the number of Councillors to four in a single Ward could result in some electors being 60 miles or 2 hours drive away from their nearest representative. Would it be acceptable for a resident of Edinburgh to travel to to meet their 'local' Councillor?

The current system of 6 Councillors in two Wards allows a fair geographic spread of elected members and fairly represents the different challenges faced by the relatively dense, It is not the time to reduce the local representation of the north Highland prosperous and connected communities on the communities. Doing so will further weaken the communities in question and East Coast as comparted to the less densely effectively disenfranchise many voters unable to connect to what should be their populated, isolated communities of the north, west 'local' representative. and centre of Sutherland.

The concept of 'parity' of representation throughout the Highland Council area Finally, one of the legal duties of the elected only works if the communities are homogeneous; obviously they are not and so members is to oversee the Common Good Funds. the whole concept is flawed! In the case of Dornoch, should the boundary changes go ahead, there is a real possibility that In addition to population numbers, the boundaries should also take cognisance of the local community will have no connection to any geographic isolation, areas of deprivation, traditional county boundaries, etc.. At a of the four members left responsible for the use of time when people are struggling with the effects of Covid and reliant on local the Common Good Fund. This is totally services and representation it seems ridiculous to reduce this representation for unacceptable and may even be subject to a people in outlying and sparsely populated communities. competent legal challenge. I oppose the reduction of Councillors in Caithness. I oppose the reduction in Councillors in Caithness. I oppose the reduction in Councillors in Caithness. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. I oppose the reduction in Councillors in Skye. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment.

I trust that 3 of the councillors will be on the Eastern part of the constituency as it is huge. I am also concerned that Ward 7 will not be preferred in allocation of council spending as has the Inverness wards in the past. Ward 1 has great needs in public transport, Infrastructure and housing. The general state of the ward is atrocious with weeds and I would consider that 4 members for Sutherland is about right as a huge waste dumping and a general rundown geographical area but sparsely populated. The population needs to be expanded. appearance. Ward 1 is far to big. I appreciate it has a low population, but this is more than outweighed by its large area and diverse demographics.

It's bad enough having a single authority larger than entire countries. This situation does not work for Scotland outside the Central belt. Highland Council clearly only serves Inverness City. It is obviously when you travel around areas such as Caithness and Sutherland where it is like a completely forgotten area of Even living in Inverness, I think this is crazy, its Scotland, whether it is the terrible roads conditions, state of local parks, undemocratic. To have such a large geographical pavements leisure centres and schools. Seems to get worse the further away from area only represented by only 4 is a massive Inverness you travel. By having even more councillors for Inverness and less for backward step. If we trying to stop depopulation remote areas, the rot and decay will intensify even more. Even living in Inverness this will only help to so the opposite. Highland this is clear to see. Your proposals are undemocratic and destroying remote areas Council is far too large and only really thinks about as well as contributing to depopulation. I can only see you are completely out if Inverness city as it is. Centralisation is killing our touch with the Highlands. country outside Central belt. Give consideration to area as well as population. Eg. It would seem much easier for 4 councillors to service a small area in Inverness with a population of 10000 than for 4 councillors to serve the vast area of Sutherland with a population of 10000

It should stay exactly as it is. I’m not clear why it should be changed. There is a huge council area with a city with a dense population at its centre. This means that city representatives far outnumber rural representatives. This makes it very difficult for councillors to effect change to benefit the rural areas if it clashes with the wishes of those in the Yet again, no thought given to the needs of rural population. Playing the numbers centre. To reduce the number further will increase game again. this problem. Just because we are small in number Basically what is proposed is an increase in representation for the city area and a doesn’t mean we should have lesser decrease in representation for the more rural areas. This is going to lead to even representation. Last time I looked I paid the same more centralisation and a further decrease in population of the rural hinterland. taxes as those living in Inverness! So what happens in the next review? Further depopulation leading to less If you are looking at Boundary changes what you representation? Where does it end? should be considering is splitting the City of Why not increase the number of councillors Not sure why you think the Fort William area has I find it hard to believe that supposedly intelligent people can come up with these Inverness from the rest of the Highlands. instead of always decreasing? Crazy to include Edderton. Have you no thought more remoteness and poorer transport links than proposals. Otherwise the rural areas of the Highlands will It is hard enough for local representatives to make for tradition, local feeling etc. Again, reducing councillors in remote area gives city based councillors the And again, more city councillors. Do you seriously Caithness and Sutherland. Has anyone from this I think you will find there will be a great deal of anger throughout the Highlands, A disaster in the making. Just another excuse to continue to suffer from centralisation of resources their voices heard in Highland Council against the Again, no thought given to distance, or fair You may not recognise traditional boundaries but advantage. If the government is serious about maintaining rural population And there we have it. An increase in city councillors think this won’t have a negative effect on rural commission any experience of living in the out with the Inverness travel to work area. reduce rural representation leading to further depopulation of the Highlands. city base without making it even harder. representation for remote areas. As before As it should be the populace does. No commentary No comment then maintaining proper representation is key. No comment needed No comment so an increase in city power base. And yet another increase for the city! areas. Increasing the power base here. There’s a surprise... even more inverness councillors And even more in the Inverness area! As expected No comment hinterland of the Highlands!???

Don’t agree with proposal. Very very large area to cover and struggling just now with 4. I feel the remote areas are not properly supported by Highland Council. Needs to be recognised in a different way. Why should I pay the same council tax as someone in Inverness who has access to much much more in the way of facilities. The closer to Inverness the better it gets. Highland Too far from Inverness to even consider. Just get We’d be as well being run from holyrood if you make these changes. If you make Does the Highlands go north of Inverness?! Wow, More councillors here than the whole of counties need to just get rid of Inverness. It’s not Inverness so why not just take away all the 1 councillors for Inverness, you get the best of You’ve no idea how frustrating it is to see all power and It shouldnt be about population it should be Naien is drained by proximity to Inverness. Would rid of them all and get more councillors in these changes each area should be individual council areas. Or at least Inverness The forgotten county yet again! I do not agree with has anyone told the folks in Inverness? They don’t Sutherland!! You can tell Inverness is not bothered Inverness Council = Aberdeen City Council Highland 3 councillors for the whole of Skye?! Such poor representation, but then councillors?! If it’s beyond the Inverness border everything to the detriment of the other counties No 1 councillor for Inverness, you get everything 5?! Oh of course Inverness, silly me. Anywhere investment in Inverness. It would be better being run by representative by area. Inverness and surrounding benefit from being part of Highland council i stead Inverness. 2 councillors to every person in Council and then the rest of us. You’ve no consideration at all for rural areas! the changes. Less councillors = less representation Caithness council, get rid of Inverness Get rid of Inverness council more local the better seem to know Get rid of Inverness council Get rid of Inverness council decentralise from Inverness as much as possible. about depopulation. Council = Council again it’s not Inverness, why would Inverness council even bother Inverness council doesn’t take! This is a huge area for just 3 councillors as it is. else else and we are not represented holyrood at least they’d make a better job of it than thc. area doesnt need to have all the councillors! of Inverness council Highland council does not equal Inverness Council Inverness The population of Skye is not falling, the population of Skye is growing. Skye is grossly underrepresented at Highland Council. No money is being spent in Skye. The roads are shocking & need basic investment. All that is happening here is the increase of councillors to the Inverness area via Culloden & Ardersier. Highland Council already spend the majority of their budget around Inverness & this will just make matters worse. I do not support the reduction in councillors in the Skye Ward. The quality of the maps for ward 19 - Badenoch & Strathspey is so poor I can’t see whether my ward has changed or not. I live on Dava Moor, perceived as the edge I can’t tell whether my boundary is clear or not. of Highlands boundary but from what I can try to make out, my house has been When I zoom in, it appears that my house is not in moved into a Morayshire electoral area. Highlands and the Badenoch & Strathspey ward. If it’s unchanged, it doesn’t look like that from I need clarity on this and these maps don’t provide it. here.

The council area is far too large. It is larger than some countries in area. Living in Caithness most of the investment seem to happen in the Inverness area. Also, Just look at the huge area for 3 councillors to look For those of us living on the east coast of because of the vast area it covers the answers for say Skye are not the same as after. Population should not be the only criteria Caithness, what happens in Wick is vital to our those for Wick. We need more local control & maybe revert back to having a used to determine how many councillors or the quality of life. That is why we need a more local Caithness & Sutherland council area. size of the ward. council. We need more councillors not less. Skye is a world renowned tourist destination with massive numbers of visitors coming to the island. If you are calculating numbers of councillors by numbers of people they represent it would seem you are taking no account of the thousands of visitors that depend on the facilities and infrastructure of Skye. Although much has been done and is underway with regard to tourism, there is still much more to do. Skye's tourism brings in revenue not just to the Island but also to all the places they stop over on there way here. If we lose them so does Inverness, Glasgow, Edinburgh etc. I think the changes are okay Okay It appears to be all right Ok Okay East and west coast populations have different concerns and little commonality of outlook. Good Rerpresentation at local govt level already thinly spread.Councillors unlikely to be to retain old county boundaries which still have known to or know their electorate. relevance to local communities. Do not change. If you must mess us about, give us more councillors not fewer. Our ward councillors An awful lot of councillors for Inverness. Yet you expect the councillors for less have to cover a large area with several sizeable (by populated areas to cover vast areas. Highland standards!) towns. Badenoch & Strathspey should remain as one electoral unit. It should have been a five mMember Ward years ago having previously been the most populous Ward in Highland and currently the 2nd most How can it possibly be proposed to reduce the number of Members on Skye. populous. The overall reduction in elected Members is disgraceful. There is a huge Especially when if Skye were part of the Western Isles it would have double One tiny area currently outside the Ward boundary democratic deficit in Highland which should be redressed by increasing the the no. of Councillors. is in the National Park. This has a potential impact number of Councillors not reducing the number. DisgracefulReducing the proposal number of Councillors in Sutherland The Islands Bill is for ALL not just some islands on CNPA Board membership. by 33% is totally unacceptable. This is the most sparsely populated area of the country comprising widely diverse scattered communities. We have suffered from the effects of de-population for generations and reducing our political representation even further will only help accelerate than decline. The ratio of councillors to people in Sutherland is already far less than many Island communities and the isolation felt by remote rural communities is as great if not greater than some Islands. Reducing the number of Councillors to four in a single Ward could result in some electors being 60 miles or 2 hours drive away from their nearest representative. Would it be acceptable for a resident of Edinburgh to travel to Glasgow to meet their 'local' Councillor? The current system of 6 Councillors in two Wards The reduction in Sutherland members from 6 to 4 will create a stressed allows a fair geographic spread of elected democratic situation in which the political parties will be the only winners and members and fairly represents the different there will be no place for the independent voice. The situation could arise in which challenges faced by the relatively dense, all 4 members will be resident on the east coast and that is completely undesirable prosperous and connected communities on the in a county this size – in fact all 4 people elected could indeed be residents of only East Coast as comparted to the less densely KW9 and KW10 leaving IV25 without a voice which has local knowledge and populated, isolated communities of the north, west interaction and centre of Sutherland. It is not the time to reduce the local representation of the north Highland Finally, one of the legal duties of the elected communities. Doing so will further weaken the communities in question and members is to oversee the Common Good Funds. effectively disenfranchise many voters unable to connect to what should be their In the case of Dornoch, should the boundary 'local' representative. changes go ahead, there is a real possibility that The concept of 'parity' of representation throughout the Highland Council area the local community will have no connection to any only works if the communities are homogeneous; obviously they are not and so of the four members left responsible for the use of the whole concept is flawed! the Common Good Fund. This is totally In addition to population numbers, the boundaries should also take cognisance of unacceptable and may even be subject to a geographic isolation, areas of deprivation, traditional county boundaries, etc.. At a competent legal challenge. time when people are struggling with the effects of Covid and reliant on local I urge the Commission to re-think this proposal services and representation it seems ridiculous to reduce this representation for and in doing so acknowledge the unique challenges We oppose the reduction of Councillors in We oppose the reduction of Councillors in We oppose the reduction of Councillors in people in outlying and sparsely populated communities. faced by the residents of Sutherland are more like Caithness. Caithness. Caithness.

I understand the requirement to review boundaries and broadly understand rationale. However, I'd be interested to understand whether prediction of future population has considered impact of Covid (eg. Desire to move to less urbanised areas and the potential impact on population). I may have missed the information bit I presume population relates to those on electoral roll and does not include second homes? Finally it would be helpful to understand expectations of councillors in the wards they operate in (ie by having x number of councillors what can we expect in terms of output/impact). I do not consider the proposed changes to be a positive move. In effect, some communities would loose their identity and representation. I object strongly to the proposals and the reduction in number of councillors representing our area. I wish the existing wards and number of 6 councillors to remain, ensuring that fair representation is maintained. It seems very large, and the concerns of the people near inverness will be different to those in smaller Seems fine places.

Rather pathetic that no account is taken for the huge geographical area where the mass of population is in the East and already has poor representation on the West Not enough councillors for such a large area - side (the town of Dingwall has better representation than the whole of the West include geographic area as well as just population of Sutherland). Cannot support any proposal that detriments representation of otherwise you have less representation for a land such a large land mass. mass that is significantly underrepresented already I believe that we would need at least one additional councillor to the proposed number of councillors to ensure fair representation for the north and west populations. The centres of population in East Sutherland would undoubtedly account for two councillors, leaving other areas under represented. I feel N& W Sutherland already struggle to have a voice heard, with an Inverness bias towards funding and decision-making , the lesser numbers of population and demographic of this population accentuate the importance rather than detract with I would like to be able to read more about the detail and decision-making regard to having councillors to speak to and to processes that led to these proposals as the summary is scant. speak for them.

As I understand it the proposal will reduce the number of councillors in Caithness which includes Wick and Thurso. Firstly, the area is ill favoured by remoteness and there is a need for adequate representation for local voices on local issues. Secondly, the culture is for cross party co operation among local councillors as a result of the struggle to have issues in our remote are heard and tackled when they are grossly outnumbered See my response to the question relating to by city based, or councillors representing less Caithness which applies equally to Wick and See my comment about Caithness which applies remote areas. Thurso equally to Thurso and Wick. Why would you need 5 councillors in any given area.... surely 3 would be more than enough!!! Councillor ward numbers were reduced at the last local election. There are now 3 As long as the population and building projects do councillors instead of 4. I don't think it should be reduced any further as there is This is a very large area and I don't know if 4 not increase further 3 councillors seem to be For the size of Skye realistically it ought to have at least 4 councillors for such Once more this is a large area and 4 councillors new housing in ward 9, the Black Isle. I can't comment. I can't comment. I cannot comment. I cannot comment. Councillors would be better. There is nothing to comment. I cannot comment as it is not my ward. I can't comment. adequate. a large area. would be more appropriate. Makes sense to create a larger area but i believe only 4 councillors are needed. Looking at the map it could be divided easily into 4. To have just 1 ward in an area the size of sutherland is unrealistic. It should not be just the population but the size of area that requires representation. No bout like local views on wind turbines this will just be pushed through the centralising government

I’m pretty sure that the population on Skye is increasing, not falling, especially since the pandemic - just look at the number of house sales this year! I think given the size of the Ward, this is a terrible idea and should be thrown out for the ridiculous I think that the number of councillors should remain the same nonsense it patently is.

Since merging with Highland council from Caithness district council the area has been deprived as the city of Inverness appears to take financial priority over other area's in Highland. This is not just my opinion but that of most people in this area. We should therefore return to those day's of a Caithness district council as it worked better previously and would again. Would also like the postal codes sorted out as my area is KW which isn't orkney but on mainland UK. Unfortunately couriers class it as a island with the opportunity to increase prices. Caithness council representing all of Caithness. I would suggest that 2 councillors would be sufficient. One of the current 3 has not been engaging with constituents for several years . It would therefore seem reasonable that as 2 active councillors have covered the area for this period then that would continue to be sufficient I am a bit concerned at the mixing of urban and rural areas to form this new ward. I can understand that this may help with optimising electoral parity but there can be no guarantee that the elected councillors will not be drawn from the 'urban' electorate and so may not have the interests of the 'rural' in focus. An advantage of the current Aird and Loch Ness ward is that the demographic and character of the areas east and west of Loch Ness are broadly similar, though the density of population is quite low. For that reason I would favour the status quo.

The ward boundary recognises the "recent" and existing Sutherland County which includes some elements of historic Ross-shire.

As stated in the General Comments, there is probably no need for six councillors in Sutherland given a strengthened Community Council network, and the existence of technology to facilitate councillor/constituent communication. It can also be argued that the existing structure is Very sensible to reduce no. of members in some wards. already not really representative of the entire Area, given that the base location of members (and In addition to any cost-savings, the need for local representation is becoming less understandable/unintentional neighbourhood as technology improves. bias) is dependent on the local election results and There is already local community representation via the Community Councils which results in geographic gaps in community (which could be enhanced) and a restructure would encourage members to take a representation. The proposed restructure should global view and represent the entire "patch" as opposed to immediate encourage less parochial representation with, neighbourhoods. hopefully, a more global pan-Sutherland outlook.

Given that Skye was the second most visited location in Scotland and is in need of substantial infrastructure investment this proposal is unacceptable . Broadly North South East and West are the discernible area’s that require representation. How would three cover 5 existing wards

I don't really see that the central and northern parts of Sutherland and the areas Seems to give a massive influence over the Seems to give a massive influence over the on the Southern coast have the same issues and demographics. I think the wards Seems to give a massive influence over the Seems to give a massive influence over the Highlands from Inverness centric representatives. Seems to give a massive influence over the Highlands Highlands from Inverness centric representatives. should stay as is. Highlands from Inverness centric representatives. Highlands from Inverness centric representatives. from Inverness centric representatives. This should be a maximum of three councillors, This should be a maximum of two councillors, I don't agree with the massive overrepresentation by the Inverness and area I don't agree with the boundaries and believe the Perhaps this should be three councillors? Perhaps this should be three councillors? surely? This should be a maximum of two councillors, surely? surely? wards in comparison to the rest of the Highlands. It disenfranchises the people existing one represent the people of the respective I think merging the two existing wards outwith those areas and isn't something I find palatable. areas better. disenfranchises the wards. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment. Makes sense, having four was overrepresentation. No comment. No comment. No comment otherwise. No comment otherwise. No comment otherwise. No comment otherwise. No comment otherwise. No comments. No comment. No comment although agree with the observation. Number of councillors should be kept to a minimum in order to save much needed money and reduce expenses especially in the current Covid-19 pandemic. No Think number of councillors could be reduced by Think four would be more than enough for this Think its right to keep the four councillors for this issues with boundary changes Think number of councillors are appropriate This number feels right This is acceptable This number is appropriate This number is acceptable one This number is appropriate Think this number could be reduced by one Think this number should be reduced to two Think reduced number is appropriate Think suggested number is appropriate Think number is too high for this ward Think four would be enough for this ward Think three would be enough for this ward ward Think three would be sufficient for this ward Four seems right for this ward Number seems appropriate for this ward Number is appropriate for this ward ward It’s not right to expect 4 councillors to cover such a large geographical area such as Sutherland, it will be detrimental to the area when we are trying hard to encourage people to stay here.

Caithness is already significantly overlooked for infrastructure investment, while money is diverted to Inverness. Reducing our visibility and representation is going to further weaken our position and contribute to the increasing poverty levels, low standards of living and difficulty accessing health and social services. Descraceful move. Equity should be first and foremost in your consideration

For the Commission to put out this consultation over the Christmas/New Year period in the middle of a pandemic is outrageously ill considered. The proposals themselves may uniquely achieve the outright condemnation of Highland Council with councillors of all parties and none united in their opposition. These proposals do not reflect the requirements of the Islands Act by leaving huge areas of the Highlands without adequate representation. This proposes a huge ward where roads are Every boundary review seems to lead to a reduction in councillors. In this case the probably amongst the worst over a wider area The eastern boundary change is logical but reductions hit the largest and most rural areas the most, particularly Wester Ross than elsewhere. Single track is more the norm and otherwise this proposal flies in the face of the and Sutherland where the proposals are completely undemocratic and east to west communications are really bad. No geographical realities. There is no case whatsoever unacceptable. Reference is made to geographical considerations in some areas account has been taken of geographical for a reduction in representation here and there is This ward really does underline the disparity The comparison with this ward and Sutherland and it is a mystery as to why they are not applied in these largest of proposed considerations and there is no justification for a strong case for another councillor. Were this caused by geography. Compare it to Wester Ross underlines the overall weakness of the overall wards where an increase in representation is warranted. There is certainly no case change other than the minor boundary alteration ward an island how many councillors would it and see the negligence through ignorance of, or No comment as insufficient knowledge of the City No comment as insufficient knowledge of the City No comment as insufficient knowledge of the City No comment as insufficient knowledge of the City proposals and the basis upon which they are for a decrease. in the SE. No comment No comment No comment have. No comment absence of geographical considerations. Boundary change is logical No comment. If treated as an island, which it is! How many councillors would it have? No comment wards wards wards wards No comment as insufficient knowledge of the City wards made. No comment No comment No comment The demographic area is very rural with the exception of the inclusion of Inverness and Ness Castle etc. The needs and expectations of these communities are very different and may be exclusionary to each other. I cannot see the benefit of combining rural and semi urban communities in one ward. The boundary does not need to go past Dores. Knockie Lodge - Dores have completely different issues and improvements needed than Dores- Inverness. I believe they should remain separate as these areas are very different.

The neighbouring Island Authorities (Shetland, Orkney and Western Isles) cover a similar land area to Sutherland, yet they are represented by 73 councillors, compared to Sutherland's current 6 and proposed 4. This seems grossly unfair even now, let alone under the proposed changes. Our current councillors are based across the county, yet still undertake a huge amount of travel to represent the dispersed communities in this large geographical area. Further reducing their number would again make this difficult current situation even harder. The folk of the Northern Highlands Sutherland's remote rural communities are already under-represented. We already feel remote and ignored by Inverness and already struggle to get our voice heard in Inverness, so to reduce the number of Edinburgh and this proposal only serves to make a councillors by one third would make this situation even worse. bad situation worse. cut the amount of councillors and make them work harder for their money..Oh but saying that we don't even get to see them in our area of the constituency..I believe on elf the councillors lives on Skye..Is that even right Inverness should have a city council and no input to other locations Smaller Highland areas should not be reduced in number as they get out voted by Inverness, if any changes have to be made reduce Inverness number and increase the other areas

It is absolutely ridiculous that 4 Councillors are seen as sufficient for this vast area. Travelling around this ward will be physically difficult due to the number of single track roads - clogged with camper vans in the summer and treacherous in winter. But it is not only the geographical difficulties that have to be considered. There is a vast difference in the needs between West and East, North and South, historically, economically and population-wise. Depopulation is a huge problem in this area and lessening the representation within the council is merely going to This is not a good idea. Highland Council is already very Inverness-centric and this exacerbate this. The Highland area is one of the will only increase with these changes. Inverness has grown so large that it should least represented areas in Europe and this become a City Council totally separate from the Highland Council. Governments - gerrymandering is merely going to make things local and Scottish - need to recognise that we need to be proactive in arresting worse. More and more will be sucked in by depopulation in rural areas in the Highlands. These proposals actually do the Inverness with the rural areas losing out time and exact opposite of this. again.

I disagree strongly with the proposed changes, particularly with the intention of reducing the number of councillors from 6 to 4. Sutherland is an extremely large area - very nearly as big as the landmass of the combined Island Authorities, which are represented by 73 councillors - and were its number of councillors determined under the terms of the Islands Act it would be entitled to 13 rather than the current 6. Our councillors are already stretched by the area they have to cover (which includes recognised areas or deprivation) and the amount of work they undertake, and to reduce their number to 4 would seriously impact on their ability to efficiently and effectively represent the people of Sutherland, who are already disadvantaged enough due to the areas remoteness, sparsely distributed population and general social and economic deprivation. The current 4 cllrs have problems keeping up with the workload - hardly fair on them or the community to reduce it by 25%. Seems the further you are from Inverness, the less you get. Skye brings the highland council big revenue yet we get nothing back. It’s appalling. I feel that the Highland Council is over represented by councilors. I also feel that I feel that we are over represented by councilors the the country is over governed from community councils all the way up to the and ward managers throughout the Highland Scottish parliament. Council. The Council area is vast, covering a third of mainland Scotland, and needs to be It doesn’t matter how many Council seats we have in Skye. The Highland broken up. The further you go from Inverness, the further you go from Council is completely ineffective in Skye. We are 130 miles from our seat of democracy. On the west coast we simply have no local government. “local” government. It can work, even with the best will in the world. Ferintosh Community Council discussed these changes with residents and agreed to the Ferintosh Community Council discussed these following comment: changes with residents and agreed to the Ferintosh Community Council discussed these changes with residents and agreed That FCC won't comment on Ward 8 changes since following comment: to the following comment: the biggest changes there affect the interests of That FCC responds to the national consultation by That the view of the wider strategic changes should be left to Highland residents outwith our area in a far greater way supporting the small increase of area to Ward 9 Councillors. No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment than those within our area. whilst keeping 3 Highland Councillors. No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment Council in Ward 1.

Kinlochbervie Community Council wishes to express our strong opposition to plans recommended by the Local Government Boundary Commission. Kinlochbervie is in Ward 1 of Highland Council – North West and Central Sutherland. We currently have 3 Councillors serving an area of 5,000 sq. mi. An adjacent ward East Sutherland and Edderton is an area of 1,500 sq. m. and also has 3 Councillors. The Boundary Commission proposal is to combine the two wards and reduce the number of Councillors from 6 to 4. Residents in our area of North West Sutherland already feel marginalised in their representation in a Council where the bulk of the decision-making power rests in the Inverness area and which is seen to disproportionately favour issues in that area. In addition, the greater voting power populous East Sutherland would more likely determine that elected Councillors would come from the east at the expense of elected representatives of the west. Issues facing the west, which are often quite different to those in the east, would be less likely to be considered or receive a sympathetic hearing. This would further reduce our ability to influence decision making. The differing concerns and issues across the county make it very difficult for Councillors to cope with competing demands now, let alone when there are fewer of them! Thus, we in west Sutherland would experience an erosion of democracy. The sheer size of the county of Sutherland, with a concentration of population along the east coast and a sparse and dispersed population in the west, means that a simple population size formula for calculating representation is inappropriate. We urge that you consider the particular circumstances we face in North West Sutherland and do not further restrict our ability to make representations to Highland Council through the Councillor system. This is particularly concerning at a time when our area is facing increasing issues stemming from unprecedented visitor numbers overwhelming our limited infrastructure. We need proper representation to deal with this. We urge the Local Boundary Commission to reconsider the changes. We make a plea that you will not erode our Appalled. Yet again the fragile remote communities are to marginalised All power goes to the larger areas and we are left with fewer voices to fall on deaf ears. North west Sutherland has excellent supportive and accessible councillors who know the area. Creich Community Council in Sutherland Ward 1 wishes to register its objection to the proposed changes within Sutherland. Reducing the number of representatives, whether or not the boundaries change, will drastically affect the effectiveness of the communication between communities and their elected councillors. This is a vast area which already faces huge challenges of depopulation and the loss of many services once taken for granted. The population is aging and effective representation to deal with the many issues is essential. As it is the distances involved for councillors to carry out their remits adequately causes many problems. Some difficultes may be relieved by the use of modern technologies but much of the workload of a councillor cannot be done that way. The proposals show a serious lack of understanding of the particular needs of the rural area and liaison with constituents, many of whom have little or no access to the technology which will no doubt be expected to fill the gap. Creich Community Council urges you to reconsider these proposals and take into proper consideration Once again, how does this compare with the vast the circustances in this and other rural areas. We This is a massive area. It cannot make sense to Seems fine, but one wonders why one of the rural areas. need more not less representation and liaison. This Please see the comments re Sutherland - Caithness reduce the number of councillors trying to cope smaller areas gets three councillors while other It is understood that decisions are based on appears to be yet another erosion of local faces very similar issues and does not need less As per previous comments regarding the rural with the demands, not least the huge amount of Sensible...assuming the communities are happy much larger ones will struggle as they face population numbers but surely the distances and Seems crazy to reduce the number of councillors. A futher attack on local Inverness wins again. Yes, large population but In most cases it appears to be a detrimental move. democracy. representation. areas which apply to the towns as well. See earlier comments. travelling required to fulfil duties. with the status quo. reductions in number. terrain must be taken into consideration? No comment. democracy. See previous response. As other comments. balance with rural areas? See earlier comment. See earlier comment. See earlier comments. See earlier comments. Lucky them, no changes! See earlier comment. Lucky them. At our Garve & District Community council meeting held on Tuesday 1 December 2020 we are all AGAINST this proposal. The area needs MORE Councilors, not fewer. A population of around 8,000 people spred over a huge area needs more representation. This is not putting the Highlands on par with Island representation.

Acharacle Community Council wishes to comment that, it is essential that remote rural communities do not lose representation. Our remote communities struggle to be heard alongside the massed voices of those representing the cities, in our case Inverness, and this will be further diminished if remote communities lose some of their current representation.

Funds, projects, jobs and other opportunities are repeatedly prioritised and Acharacle Community Council is very pleased to biased towards Inverness and its environs, and this situation will only worsen if As our neighbouring ward, Acharacle Community note that no changes to our Ward area are rural communities lose representation. Council wishes to endorse the retention of three recommended, and that four Councillors will be Councillors for this area. It is good to see that the retained. In our view it is essential that we have We would much prefer to see a reduction in Councillor numbers for city wards, in small isles will now also be acknowledged in the this minimum number of Councillors due to the order to attempt to redress the current unfair imbalance, in this respect. ward title. issues you've highlighted.

I am secretary of the Bettyhill, Strathnaver and Altnaharra Community Council, one of three such Councils in the Sutherland Parish of Farr which, though merely a fraction of the old County of Sutherland, is larger than some entire counties in the more populous areas of our country. I have spent my entire working life here Farr High School which has as its catchment area the entire parishes of Farr and Tongue - an area of 531 square miles with a population of around 1500. This is one of the emptiest areas, not just in the UK but in the entire world and there are many similar within the Highlands. The 300,000 approx population of the Highlands is already in a minute minority within Scotland and those who live on the periphery and sparsely occupy a huge hinterland are an even more minute I object in the strongest possible terms to any minority within that. As such we are already underrepresented and the latest set further diminution of political representation for of proposals re councillor numbers and ward boundaries will magnify that Sutherland which has been sidelined progressively disenfranchisement further. Scotland is a very varied place and one size just will in my 47 years here starting with Regionalisation in not server in this or in many other things. Surely we deserve a deal similar to that 1977 and the capping of sparsity allowances in being offered to the Islands as Highlanders, especially those on the very extensive determining overall budgets. Ideally representation periphery, share all of their remoteness, sparsity and distance from the seats of should be increased or, at the very least , the power in the country we share. status quo maintained.

Golspie Community Council objects in the strongest possible terms to the proposed boundary commission changes for Sutherland. The population is already greatly under-represented in sheer numerical terms on a per capita basis. The distances and geographical challenges of the constituency for our 6 local councillors make it extremely challenging for them to conduct their business. In fact the current regulations for the constitution of community councils allows for small, vulnerable communities to be allocated an additional councillor precisely because of the widespread nature of remote & rural populations. Golspie Community Council would like to see that same principle applied to the Sutherland constituency, and rather than the number of Golspie Community Council has received representations from both our local elected councillors being reduced, it should if councillors and the leader of Highland Council, and completely support all their anything be increased. We are wholly opposed to objections to the proposed revised boundary changes. the proposed revision.

The amalgamation of the current wards 1 and 4 into a single 'super' ward is entirely unjust in my view. Community councils, which were established under the Local Government (Scotland) Acts of 1973 & 1994, have a core membership of 7, with an extra member per 1,000 population up to a maximum of 13. In addition where the population density is less than the Highland average of 9.1 residents/km², that community council shall have one addition member, again up to a maximum of 13. This same principle should be applied to the boundary commission's current proposals, once the initial mathematical calculation is complete, comparing the population of Highland to the rest of Scotland, (with the exception of cities). The gross Notwithstanding the low population in the Highlands, the challenges of geography under-representation which will result from these & distance MUST be given extra weighting in any consideration of electoral changes, is tantamount to 'taxation without boundary revisions. A strictly numerical, quantitative calculation will result in the representation'; and history teaches us that such erosion of democracy, under representation of remote and rural voters, and their action can lead to civil conflict (Boston Tea Party - relegation to an electoral underclass, whose suffrage is regarded by central no taxation without representation). We ignore the government as being insignificant. lessons of our forebears at our peril. Ardgour Community Council welcome the retention of 4 councillors for our ward and the consideration given to the remoteness and poor transport links. In our opinion, it would be a great detriment to our area were there to be any reduction in councillor numbers or changes to our boundary.

I think reducing the number of councillors from 6 down to 4 will be another blow for Sutherland. It feels as if Inverness wants control over everything. By this proposed reduction of councillors any input from Sutherland will be diluted . As a resident of Sutherland for 25 years much has been promised for the area but not much has been delivered. Not so in Inverness. Money not a problem. Presumably because there are more councillors to vote Inverness matters through. The prospect of Inverness having another 2 councillors seems totally unreasonable. The geographical distances here in Sutherland just will not allow residents in the county to be able to make 1 to 1 contact with their councillors. Also all the councillors could be elected from the east of the county and have little local knowledge of the issues in the north west, leading to poor representation in certain areas.

I believe this arrangement is not suitable for the rural areas where populations are sparse, as communities tend to be smaller and further apart. It will prove impossible for elected councillors to do an efficient job of representing there constituents if they are spread too thinly over the area and unable to give sufficient time to each community within their ward. No comment other than reply to general. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. No further comment. Assynt Community Councillors understand the importance of equalising ward populations. However, it is essential that the pursuit of this objective is balanced with due consideration to the constraints of geography, in particular, distance and remoteness. Assynt currently lies within ward 1 of the Highland Council which is served by 3 Councillors. The ward is some 65 miles by 60 miles in area. The road network is limited and shows a low degree of connectivity: a good deal is single track. It is clear that Councillors find it challenging to take part in Council meetings and attend to the needs of all of their constituents. People in the northern Highlands already feel under-valued as compared with the city of Inverness and surrounding area. Added to this there are also tensions between east and west Sutherland, largely arising from a focus of resource on the east to the detriment of the west. The proposal to create one ward covering the whole of Sutherland (including the parish of Kincardine formerly in Ross-shire) is wholly unacceptable. The immensity of the task will serve to discourage competent candidates to stand for election. The proposal represents a significant threat to local democracy. We would also emphasise that it is our experience that multi-member wards do not work when they are so large. Skye & Raasay is a large geographical area for any Councillor do deal with and the idea that by reducing the number of Councillors from the present 4 to 3 is progress or efficiency is totally absurd. Currently Skye is being overlooked in many respects as are other areas within Highland Council with the focus and expenditure being centred on Inverness which is totally wrong. Why should Ward 10 Eilean a’ Cheo lose a Councillor to the benefit of Inverness who no doubt will gain from this. Totally wrong and strongly disagree with this nonsensical proposal. Boundary Commission Proposals.

The proposals adversely affect rural areas in particular, Caithness, Sutherland, Wester Ross and Eilean a' Cheò which would all see a reduction in member representation. The proposals overall in the Highlands, show a reduction from 74 to 72 members and would be in place as of the May 2022 full Council election. A reduction in councillors will have a significant detrimental impact on rural communities. Councillors will be required to cover even larger geographic areas with no reduction in the number of community councils, schools or community groups and initiatives seeking engagement with their local councillor, resulting in a democratic deficit for the communities in question. Highland Council was last reviewed in 2015 and reported in 2016 during the 5th Review of Electoral Arrangements. At that time 6 councillors were cut from Highland - 80 to 74 at present. A further review is now required under the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. This Act recognises the importance of the Scottish Islands and the opportunities and challenges they face.Only 4 councils are going through this exercise, Highland, and Bute, North Ayrshire and the Islands. The Cross Party Group on Highland council took a very strong position that the changes proposed by the Boundary Commission fail to recognise the specific Highland context, particularly in relation to parity, sparsity, rurality and deprivation and, if implemented, would result in significant democratic deficit in a way that is at odds with the purpose of the boundary review which was meant to be specifically focused on reflecting the requirements of the Islands (Scotland) Act. It is therefore recommended that the proposals should be rejected in their entirety. At a minimum, this should ensure no reduction in the total number of elected members in Highland, but still more importantly, to press for the number of members to increase where there are clearly increases in population that warrant it; where large geographic wards require additional members to ensure appropriate levels of democratic representation; and to ensure there is parity across Scotland in terms of island representation. Fundamentally, increases in one area of the Highlands should not lead to decreases in another one.

One of the aims of a review is to ensure electoral parity. This means having the same number of electors per councillor in all wards of a council area. Parity on the islands has been set at 1 councillor for every 800 electors and so these councils will get additional councillors and enhanced democratic representation. In Highland the parity level has been set at 1 to 2,800electors across the entire area, whether island, rural or urban. This will result in fewer Councillors, creating a substantial democratic deficit in Highlands. We already The proposals do not take into account the rurality have significant challenges in effectively representing constituents across the Highlands and of the area or the distance from Council HQ in these proposals from the Commission will exacerbate this problem. They are treating Highland Inverness - 100 miles. It is an erosion of wards the same as urbanised central belt council wards and are taking no account of our democracy to reduce the number of Councillors in geography and sparser population in rural areas.The intention of the Islands Act was to increase democracy for islands, large and small and yet for Highland this is having the opposite effect. Caithness considering the geographic spread of the Wick has some of the worst socio- economic This is an extraordinary outcome and demonstrates a total disregard for the spirit and purpose of area and the number of Community Councils which problems in Highland and cannot do with a the Act. There are a smaller number of sensible and logical proposals for Inverness, including each Councillor needs to liaise with. reduction in Councillor numbers

I don't consider the number of councillors adequate for such a vast area, with such poor road infrastructure. I think it will be very difficult for anyone in North and West Sutherland to get adequate representation. Our communities are struggling to remain viable, we need more help, not less. Here in West Sutherland we have no natural links with East Sutherland. The culture is different, our transport is way poorer and we fight with the East Coast to even get our voices heard. We have no need to travel that way, we have more I would like to protest vehemently against the proposals which will hugely affinity with Ullapool, where our nearest disadvantage rural areas, especially in Sutherland. Highland Council is far too supermarket is. We have more affinity and similar large, and Inverness wants are very much to the fore. Any other areas in the problems with West Ross than with East council have no chance of getting their voices heard, and will always be outvoted. Sutherland

The Strathglass Community Council has reviewed the Commission's proposals and the specific concerns identified by the Highland Council's Cross Council Working Group. We fully endorse the comments made by the Cross Council Working Group and agree that there appears to be a complete lack of understanding of the geography of the Highland Council area. In particular, we feel that the changes to the Ward 12 boundary and councillor numbers are completely inappropriate. Though the SCC boundary is not affected, we feel that the reduction in number of Ward 12 councillors is not consistent with adequate public representation. Furthermore, the transfer of south Loch Ness rural communities to the largely urban Ward 15 does not recognise the practical realities of rural public representation.

Councillor representation should under no circumstances be redused for ward 5. population density increases dramatically over the summer months with an influx of seasonal workers and tourists , which puts increased demand on services which are the resposibility of local authorities. basic infrastructure is inadequate and reduction of Proposal is unfair, Too large an area for representation is a step backwards. large amalgamation where the poulated areas on the geographical areas are by their nature difficult to east side shall be able to secure electoral manage with many different communities and advantage over the west side and there fore having needs, Cllrs I would think, have to endure much West and central Sutherland has much more in common with Wester ross & all the representation at council level which will travelling and extended hours to make CC meeting Lochalsh, that is a possibilty for amalgamation of wards. They also share the create an imbalance of need for the west and etc. More cllrs and smaller areas are what is same problems with tourism and infrastructure. central area needed. Lochalsh has been made without malice; either that or astounding ignorance of the West Coast. The proposal takes in all the coast between Achiltibuie in the north to Arnisdale in the south, and every village along every lochside in between, a distance of 100km as the crow flies and goodness knows how far by road. Simply trying to equalise populations just doesn’t make sense in this area.

It will really be an impossible task for any councillor, no matter how energetic, to be able to give their electorate the service they expect from their councillor in the proposed ward. I have known our past councillors and know those still representing us and these people already give us stalwart service. Meetings at Council HQ in Inverness, visits to schools and businesses and there are few evenings at home for them; attending community council meetings, crofters meetings and meetings with local groups all clocking up high mileage, our councillors spend a lot of time driving.

Reducing the number of councillors and making them responsible for the many settlements along the coast takes no account of the difficulty of getting from place to place on highland roads; frequently at night and sharing the single track roads with deer. Many of these settlements have different needs and priorities, from north to south and the proposal is spreading councillors so thinly that it doesn’t allow them to easily acquaint themselves with the concerns and requirements of the electorate in parts of the ward distant from their base.

Recently, after a lot of work by the councillors in the present ward a new was formed and through the The proposed reduction of councillors by another two is an unacceptable dilution work of this committee funding was secured for the Coastal of democracy in the Highlands; particularly as just a few years ago there was a Community Fund. Without the work of this committee there reduction of six in the number of councillors representing us. It is perfectly would have been no funding. The boundary proposals would acceptable for Inverness to have an increase; commensurate with population break up the Area Committee and would disadvantage the increase, in representatives but not at the expense of the reduction in councillors area. in rural areas. In my own village in Wester Ross there has been a slow but steady I don’t see that the proposals align with the Community increase in population year on year. Every year; new houses being built, old ones Council areas. Will there be further work to bring the CC’s being renovated and made habitable and have people living in them. I suspect that into line? the next census will find an appreciable increase in population along the west coast. Rather than increasing the democratic defect for people in

The proposal is to remove the more populated areas of the ward and place with Dingwall. The reduction to 3 councillors means an enormous area to cover for these 3 and indeed if the three lived in one extremity of the ward it would make in impossible to serve the area without overnight stays. As I understand it dropping to 3 councillors means losing the local committee and hence the loss of local democracy. Surely the intention of the legislation is the very opposite of this for the islands so how can it be that it has that opposite affect here?!! This cannot happen. If the principal of the legislation is being followed even an increase to 5 councillors would still leave an area very similar to the islands under represented.

I cannot get the general comment button to work so will add it here. Presumably the intention of the original legislation was to help with representation and hence the democratic process where island communities felt that an overall centralised system was not serving them. To achieve that apparently remote areas that happen to be part of the mainland have to have to contemplate a further centralisation of powers to Inverness and 3 councillors trying to cope with the sparse population with a wide range of issues to deal with. Do not let this happen.

Alness is growing fast whilst it's rural and remote The constituency is a remote area, with poor infrastructure, isolated communities hinterland is less well served. Councillors are and at times very difficult weather conditions. Practically councillors are already needed to sustain local democracy and services in stretched beyond their own personal capacities to cover their areas. Further the remote rural area of this ward. It would make reduction in councillors will undermine local democracy. At a time where the more sense to have a ward that ran along the world is (re)discovering the importance of localism this runs counter to this and seaboard of the Firth encompassing Invergordon effectively further concentrates power in the urban area of Inverness. The and Alness and the rural area of constituency also has a very diverse economy from the industrial area around the linked with Edderton as there are direct links port of Invergordon in particular to crofting. The needs of the constituency between both via the B9176 road and again have therefore require careful balancing and local engagement. For the communities similar characteristics. Having wards with an in this area to thrive and become more sustainable the workload of the current highly urban area juxtaposed with remote rural councillors must increase. To reduce councillors will have a negative impact on communities doesn't facilitate good governance of sustainability and well-being. either types of community. Glen Urquhart Community Council strongly object to the proposed changes to Ward 12 Aird and Loch Ness. Splitting the ward as proposed will change the ward character for those no longer in Ward 12. Ward 12 is a predominantly rural ward with a number of key villages or small towns and works well as a single entity. In addition with Loch Ness being a major visitor attraction we often find ourselves working with communities around the Loch on developing strategies that help to give the area a cohesive visitor experience, having all communities within a single Ward assists that progress. he area covered by Aird & Loch Ness is large and We are concerned that the proposed reduction of Councillors in some areas fails requires 4 Councillors to provide adequate support to take account of the geographic challenges of Highland. to residents and businesses Wester Loch Ewe Community Council strongly wish to retain the status quo in Ward Five. Expecting just three Councillors to service such a large area adequately is unreasonable and impracticable.

We understand the principle of electoral parity. But there has to be some acknowledgement of geography, even in an age of e-mail and zoom. The proposal does not recognise the scale of the ward and the distance between settlements. It is crass to organise peripheral wards in the North West Highlands using the same criteria as Highland urban or Central Belt communities. There is no Highland discount in our bills or taxes, why should we accept a democratic deficit in our representation?

I have many problems with the proposed mesures.

1) It was already a mistake to reduce the number of councillors to 74. A further reduction to 72 is unnecessary. The total number of councillors should actually be increased beyond the original 80. The vast majority of people will only experience It was correct to put Strathpeffer into this ward. government through their local council and therefore need to have a truly local Strathpeffer should remain in this ward and not representative. Large wards with few councillors underminds this. put back into its old ward because it is in the Dingwall Academy catchment area and the people 2) Large wards harms local democracy. It is difficult for councillors to represent of Strathpeffer are more interested in what areas that are larger than London and have poor transportation links. The essence happens in the current Dingwall & Seaforth Ward of local government is the ability to know every local community which is than they are in the Wester Ross and Lochalsh impossible if your ward is extremely big. I interviewed a number of councillors for areas of their current ward. Due to the size and my university dissertation and for some it would take two hours to deliver 60 population of the ward, maintaining the five leaflets during an election. How can you be expected to develop a relationship councillors is sensible. with your constitutes when you have geological issues like this to face. Smaller wards would help remove this. It was sensible to remove Strathpeffer from this However, because of the vast population This should be two wards for North and South ward. This ward is still too large and it is madness concentration in the east of this ward, it is likely 3) Large wards can also suffer from a complete lack of local representation Sutherland. This is a huge ward with terrible roads. to only give it three councillors because of this. that the rural western area will lack proper local regardless of how many Councillors can be elected. It would be possible, as I think Unless you have driven up the rural roads, I don't There should be a ward focused on Ullapool and representation and will be forgotten about. I think it may be Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh, for all the councillors of a large think you can appreciate the problems your one for Kyle. This ward is simply too big for a the ward should be split with a small Dingwall ward to be located in one section of the ward and thus leaving other population proposals cause. One cannot casually travel to Councillor based in Kyle to effectively represent focused ward and another ward for the remaining centres without anyone locals representing them. The example I gave regarding Dornach, Durness, and Lochinver which means Excluding Thurso and Wick is a good idea, it means their constitutes in the northern part of the ward area. Possible a Dingwall, Marybugh and Conon Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh (if I am correct) is that no councillor is Councillors may be forced to priorities their own rural areas can be represented without distraction and vis-a-versa. This does an injustice to their Bridge Ward and then a Ward for the rest. While Skype needs more councillors and more wards. Before STV, there were five from the Strathpeffer area which leaves that community devoid of a real local area. At the very least, increase the number to five from the two towns. However, this ward should constitutes. I do not think simply increasing the the population should still be east heavy, it would councillors in the ward and now you want to cut this down to three? The representative. Smaller wards would reduce or eliminate this risk. councilors. either be split into two or given more councilors. number of constitutes would fix this. be more evenly spread across the whole ward. population has not decreased, so the number of councillors should not. Community Council will be directly affected by the proposed changes to this Ward and we wish submit following comments and observations. 1. The proposal to remove the Ward area South of Loch Ness seems to be driven solely with the intention of making the Ward boundary more readily identifiable. This appears to be a poor trade for the affected residents when you consider that they are be adjoined to a relatively densely The proposals were reviewed by Inverness West Community Council during a populated and growing urban area with which scheduled online meeting on 3/12/2020. The comments submitted in this survey they share little in common. were endorsed by all Community Councillors present at that meeting. 2. Loch Ness is surprisingly being viewed as something which separates the areas rather than a 1. Concern was expressed that there was much emphasis placed on the parity of very significant and defining common feature. representation based on population density but very little recognition seemingly 3. North and South of the Loch unsurprisingly given to the difficulties of effective communication ( and hence meaningful share similar upland geography , widespread representation) in very large and remote geographic areas. settlements and low population density and thus common issues of small schools, connectivity and 2. The meeting was left with a view that the status quo served the residents transport. . The current 4 ward councillors have a within Highland Council better than the proposed revisions. critical mass with which to better represent these outlying areas amid the inevitable City and Urban 3. There was a specific concern raised with respect to Ward 12 which will be priorities which naturally dominate the Inverness entered in the appropriate section of the survey. area debates. proposals are unacceptable. Ardgay & District Community Council consider that the current arrangements fall short of what is needed and the proposed changes will make the situation worse. To understand the issues it is important to understand the geography, the demographics and the importance of taking population density into account. North West & Central Sutherland is huge. 4,867 square kilometres. It is sparsely populated- 6,139 inhabitants (density 1.3 persons per square kilometre ). It has 20 settlement zones and 11 Community Councils scattered over a huge area served by some of the smallest roads in the Highlands. Ardgay, at the southern boundary is 80 miles from Durness at the north western end of the ward - a 1.5 – 2 hour journey by car on mostly single track roads. Currently the three North West & Central Sutherland councillors live 80, 56, and 20(?) miles from Ardgay. Members of the Ardgay & District community are unlikely to find themselves having a face to face meeting with any of the three councillors. Would it be acceptable to an elector in Edinburgh if their councillor lived in Berwick- on-Tweed or Bathgate? But currently that is the equivalent of Ardgay’s position and these Boundary Commission proposals are proposing to make this worse. Attendance of the Highland councillor designated to attend Ardgay & District Community Council meetings should be Ardgay & District Community Council is in fully in agreement with The Highland regular but is not. There may be many reasons for this but Council which in its submission detailed the shortcomings in the proposed given that each councillor currently has to service 3 or 4 Boundary Commission plans. community councils monthly or bi-monthly involving Ardgay & District Community Council has long held that the current arrangements hundreds of miles of travel, absences are understandable. If Highland councillors live so far away from our community are unsatisfactory and is appalled that rather than improve the current how can they ever understand the issues, needs and arrangements by increasing representation, the Boundary Commission is problems of our community? However, the size of the ward proposing to make the situation worse by combining North West & Central and the sparsity of population make this extremely difficult. Sutherland with East Sutherland and reducing councillor representation from 6 to In an area the size of North West & Central Sutherland it is 4. probably the case that any one of the councillors can only be I am not familiar with all the calculations used to arrive at these proposals but I do expected to know well the issues and circumstances of their know that if population density is taken into account then the proposals for local area and the inhabitants where they live. To become Sutherland are shown to be unacceptable. How can it be equitable that a ward similarly familiar with the rest of the area would be an unreasonable task demanding more time than is available to like the proposed Sutherland ward which would have a population density of 2.1 ( councillors. This puts Ardgay & District residents at a Census 2011) will have the same number of councillors as Cromarty Firth, disadvantage which will be made worse by these proposals. population density 30.2? This is unworkable and will adversely affect democratic Ardgay & District Community Council strongly oppose the representation. Boundary Commission proposals for Sutherland. The current no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make no comment to make

WE NEED MORE ACTIVE COUNCILLORS in ward 1 never mind less!! In my 30+ years of living in ward 1 I have yet to see any councillor come into the ward and hold meetings with electors to get their input on council business in the ward! Roads, Highland Council is NOT what Highland voters voted for!! It's been taken over by Housing, maintenance of footpaths etc is a supposed ''independents' who are tories by any other name! The supposed disgrace!! Where as the financial input to larger coalition running HC are a gang of opportunistic chancers who are in it for the towns and the City of Inverness has some much perks and money!! Few actually live in the boundaries of the wards they are spent or should I say, MISspent on silly projects supposed to represent! Inverness city has had millions spent on ridiculous ''art instead of doing the work required!! My house for works'' by the river and what have we seen in ward 1??? Terrible, dangerous road instance has all window seals rotten and the surfaces that have needed re-surfacing for years (20 years to my knowledge) The garden fence (which fronts onto a play park) falling efforts to better the rural areas of the ward have been none existent, lack of rural down completely rotten which makes it unsafe to housing, lack of modern infrastructure, lack of public transport, lack of input to let my dogs out in my garden. As a disabled tenant keep the highways and byeways tidy!! No wonder we have flooded roads when it is not good enough!! Give us 2 MORE councillors you see weeds, grasses and wee trees growing out of drains wherever you travel that will take an interest in the HUGE geographical in Sutherland. area ward!!

As chair of Strathpeffer Community Council, I would strongly object to this proposal. Strathpeffer does not sit well in the Dingwall and Seaforth ward. We receive a good level of service from our ward councillors under the current boundaries. Strathpeffer identifies with the communities within the current boundaries. We have a Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh committee which ensures that we receive our fair share of council funding and attention. Being swallowed up under the Dingwall an Seaforth ward The boundary commission should recognise the very different needs of the rural would lose a great deal of that recognition and communities and not simply assume that a population ratio is the way to establish representation. how many councillors should be allocated to each ward. The existing wards have established relationships and operate quite differently to the more populated The boundary commission should rethink their areas. Splitting large rural wards and shifting areas into other more populated proposals and reinforce the number of councillors wards is not the answer and does not take into account the specific needs of within the current Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and those areas. The proposals to split ward 5 are not well thought through and do Lochalsh ward boundary rather than split the ward not take into account the views and wishes of the local people of that ward. and move areas into wards that do not suit them. It is proposed that ward 5 be split with; Strathpeffer, Contin, The proposals adversely affect rural areas in particular, Caithness, Sutherland, Garve, Marybank, and Scatwell areas are to be moved into Wester Ross and Eilean a' Cheò which would all see a reduction in member Dingwall & Black Isle Ward. representation. The proposals overall in the Highlands, show a reduction from 74 Dingwall would have its councillors increased from 4 to 5. The rest of Wester Ross & Lochalsh would be the new ward to 72 members and would be in place as of the May 2022 full Council election. A with the loss of one councillor from 4 to 3. reduction in councillors will have a significant detrimental impact on rural At present ward 5 is the biggest geographical ward in the communities. Councillors will be required to cover even larger geographic areas whole of Europe, just under 5000km square. What the with no reduction in the number of community councils, schools or community boundary commission has not realised is that by cutting the groups and initiatives seeking engagement with their local councillor, resulting in a ward, travel will be long and even more arduous for the democratic deficit for the communities in question. three remaining councillors and that means communities Highland Council was last reviewed in 2015 and reported in 2016 during the 5th will be seriously disadvantaged if the councillor numbers are Review of Electoral Arrangements. At that time 6 councillors were cut from cut to three in the remaining part of Wester Ross. The four present councillors have objected to these Highland 80 to 74 at present. A further review is now required under the Islands proposals and this is summarised as follows. (Scotland) Act 2018. This Act recognises the importance of the Scottish Islands •Cuts across CC boundaries and the opportunities and challenges they face. •Puts too much pressure on 3 councillors, on the remaining Only 4 councils are going through this exercise, Highland, Argyle and Bute, North Wester Ross area. Ayrshire and the Islands. •Too much emphasis on number of people, not geography. The Cross Party Group on Highland council took a very strong position that the •No recognion of scale of area and number of selements. changes proposed by the Boundary Commission fail to recognise the specific •No understanding of diversity, identy and needs of communities. Highland context, particularly in relation to parity, sparsity, rurality and •Have only just established an Area Commiee for the deprivation and, if implemented, would result in significant democratic deficit in a current ward, where local financial decisions will be made. way that is at odds with the purpose of the boundary review which was meant to •Preferred and best opon is current boundary with 5 be specifically focused on reflecting the requirements of the Islands (Scotland) Members. Act. It is therefore recommended that the proposals should be rejected in their The community councils of Garve and Achnasheen, entirety. Strathpeffer and Contin have already objected to these At a minimum, this should ensure no reduction in the total number of elected proposals and do not want to be moved into Dingwall, as they feel they would be swallowed up by that area. They members in Highland, but still more importantly, to press for the number of also do not want to lose the newly set up area committee members to increase where there are clearly increases in population that warrant which has their issues at the forefront of that new it; where large geographic wards require additional members to ensure committee. They see that joining back in with Dingwall and appropriate levels of democratic representation; and to ensure there is parity Black Isle they would lose the influence they have at across Scotland in terms of island representation. Fundamentally, increases in one present, especially Strathpeffer which is a key community in area of Highland should not result in decreases in another. the new committee but would become a minor player if it was back in with Dingwall. One of the aims of a review is to ensure electoral parity. This means having the The same can be said for Ullapool which again is a key community, however this would be lost as it would probably same number of electors per councillor in all wards of a council area. Parity on the have to join up with Skye, and the New Wester Ross, islands has been set at 1 councillor for every 800 electors and so these councils Strathpeffer and Lochalsh committee would be disbanded. will get additional councillors and enhanced democratic representation. In Due to the new Area Committee being set up Money from Highland the parity level has been set at 1 to 2,800 electors across the entire area, the council is dis-aggraded to the area, therefore all money Please cut the number by at least 50% Cut numbers by at least 50% MADNESS. THERE IS NO LOGIC IN HAVING A CITY POPULATION INCLUED WITH A RURAL POPULATION. MAKE INVERNESS SEPARATE FROM ALL RURAL WARD. agree - needed for geography 2 is enough agree agree agree 3 is enough 2 is enough 3 is enough agree agree agree 2 is enough 5 is too many 3 is enough 3 is enough 4 is too many 4 is too many 4 is too many 4 is right 4 is right

We are rural community and what applies to other areas does not necessarily apply to Caithness. There are few enough of our councillors from this area as it is. If there are less councillors our views will not be heard, totally ignored or outvoted by those from Inverness which seems to happen now as it is. We residents of Caithness feel like the poor relations. As long as Margaret Paterson is one of our councillors I am happy as she is very good, helpful Seems ok. Don’t live there so no comment. Don’t live there so no comment. Don’t live there so no comment. Don’t live there so no comment. Don’t live there so no comment. Don’t live there so no comment. Don’t live there so no comment and does a great job. Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment Don’t live there so no comment

The Inverness situation has never made any sense, splitting the City into areas and attaching huge areas of rural community, gives a conflict of interest. Would it not make more sense to have Inverness City west of the River and Inverness City East of the river and Inverness City Rural. The City Councillors would then be concerned with city affairs and the Rural Councillors would be dealing with the very different, but common need of residents in the rural areas surrounding the City. The number of elected members is about right for the population but the drawing of the boundaries seems illogical. The existing Ness-side ward already covers a very economically diverse area within the City of Inverness. Adding an extensive rural area, albeit with an increase in elected members, reduces the cohesion of the ward scooping small villages like Dores and Foyers into the ward together with crofting communities, and substantial agricultural and shooting/ fishing estates. There will inevitably be a sense of centralisation towards Inverness (already a tension in HC politics) given the population of the ward would be heavily weighted towards Inverness. Will In making any changes population level is a poor base. Highland is mixed urban this improve engagement with local politics? Highly and very rural and effective representation has to take into account realistic ability improbable and any sense of detachment from of elected representatives to cover the ground and the diversity of issues present. local politics is to be lamented. Three seems pretty fair Surely one would be more than adequate The proposed boundary change is more appropriate the majority of the land mass in the ward. Am sure Strathpeffer will be happy! A reduction to 3 councillors is only acceptable if they are truly representative of the whole area, eg 1 each for the north east and the north west and one for south Skye. Failure to do this will potentially leave large populations unrepresented.

4 Councillors for such a large geographical area? It Ensuring each area has an adequate number of Councillors is absolutely is impossible to expect any decent service for paramount. Loading Inverness because more people live there is not going to help residents. Expecting 4 people to cover such a large rural areas. We end up with a them and us culture with rural areas losing out. geographical area is unfair and we will end up with Much of the economy that Inverness benefits comes from rural areas in one way too little time in each area for any quality work to It is ridiculous to think three people should cover or another. be carried out. area the size of this.

I am commenting on behalf of Lochbroom Community Council, after discussing it with members. Our view is that our Ward 5 which has a population density of 1.6 people per square km and is over 100 miles long, cannot be served by 3 councillors. It is as far as I know the largest local government ward in Europe. The boundary review being proposed takes out 4 settlements but does not make the area smaller in any meaningful way. Our view is that large mainland wards like this should be allowed a lower number of constituents per councillor like the 800 being allowed for islands rather than the 2800 being enforced for the mainland.

I do not agree with the reduction in councillor numbers. As it stands many decisions are made against the wishes of the local population as, with only 4 members, local councillors can never out-vote the rest of whatever committee is Already described in my response to question one. However i would like to deciding something. A good example being housing development at Auchtertyre, add that I [and many others] feel that actually splitting Highlands into two where all the local councillors voted against it, the local people voted against it, yet areas- West Highlands and east highlands - would be more representative, councillors from regions nowhere near Skye voted for it. This kind of thing makes and more democratic. However it seems that these changes are all about people feel very angry and that they are not being listened to - and that Inverness money, and so i cannot see anything being done to improve democracy and decides everything in their favour. This is not democracy. local representation. This is very little different from the existing Reducing the number of councillors is entirely appropriate given the It seems reasonable. situation. I can see no reason to object. population. Strathpeffer, Contin, Garve &Achnasheen Marybank and Scatwell areas are to be moved into Dingwall and Black Isle Ward. My view is that these areas would be subsumed into Dingwall and Black Isle and would lose not only their identity but the influence they have spent years building up. Strathpeffer, Contin, Marybank, Scatwell and Garve& Achnasheen is a far more homogeneous group and work well co-operatively at present.

The proposals are based on numbers without taking into consideration whether the population is in the urban belt or a sparsely spread rural area. In rural areas 1:2800 electors covers an extensive land mass.

Ward 5 is the biggest geographical ward in the whole of Europe at just under 5000km square. By splitting the ward as proposed, the three remaining Councillors will have extended travel to meetings and an arduous workload not to mention environmentally damaging pollutants expelled on long travel The proposal have an adverse affect on the rural areas of Caithness, Sutherland, journeys in areas where electric charging points Wester Ross and Skye ( Eilean a Cheo) . These will see a reduction in Councillors do not exist. from 2022. This will have a detrimental impact on rural communities forcing the remaining Contin Community Council has already objected to Councillors to cover larger geographic areas than at present. This will these proposals and do not want to be moved into disadvantage community councils, community groups schools and those seeking Dingwall. They do not want to lose the newly set engagement with their local Councillor. Already they are thinly spread and up area committee which has their specific issues communities of necessity have become more active in seeking to support the at the forefront of that new committee set up. needs of local people through their Councillor. The covid pandemic has They will also lose funding as money from Highland highlighted this need for action and support at local level by people who are Council is disaggregated to the area. eg as we intimate with the area. have an area committee in place Ward 5 was awarded £340,000 from the Coastal Communities Councillor numbers were cut in 2016 from 80 to 74. The proposed reduction to fund. We would not have had this funding without 72 is not acceptable. our new structure in place. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. This is a pointless exercise. Fix the roads. 1. We live on Feabuie Road. Feabuie Road is a single track dead end road. The boundary will split Feabuie Road in two. Surely this is in direct conflict with one of the main factors considered by the boundaries review in that it should take account of local ties which would be broken by the boundary position. We are aware that the boundary has been in this position for some time however additional houses have been and are being build to both sides of the boundary. 2. This brings me to my second point. Your tables show an increase in population of only 16 people in our ward. Where do these numbers come from? On Feabuie Road alone there are 5 new houses being built with planning permission for at least 3 more. That takes care of the 16! In addition there are substantial numbers being built at , the bottom of Drummosie Brae and at Viewhill, at least another 400+ residents.

Re-evaluation of the boundaries and looking at making sure there is equality between number of councillors representing us and population makes sense, and on first look I support it as a proposal. With such a large area, depending on where Once thing that jumped out at me is the suggestion that ward 20 retains 4 councillors reside I can see large sections of their councillors, with fewer residents because of it's poor transport links. If poor apparent electorate being visited rarely. How is transport links are relevant then I feel that my area Ward 1 should be entitled to the scenario prevented where all councillors reside additional representation. Without private transport movement around/into the in the more populated villages/towns on East proposed extremely large area is very challenging. Coast? One less councillor, you cannot be serious when will you understand the graphical areas and the needs of the Highlands, out side Inverness!

You will not get more with less people!

If you want to reduce costs, stop spending money on some of the silly projects in Inverness and invest in the areas that are bring in tourism to Scotland, maintain our roads as you are budgeted for.

Be better if our ward was an interconnected area, where people might meet and discuss needs. Western Ross and Lochalsh looks neat on map but Better if wards reflected communities that might join for politic discussion and is not. Few interconnections. No direct public proposals: bottom up policy making; not just allocating right number HR transport links. Distances huge. councillors. Residents hopefully have councillor, known to them that can Lochalsh tends to share services with Skye, not approach with individual concerns or to lobby for a service. Very important but Wester Ross: hospital, refuse collection, shopping, should not be whole picture. buses. Only 1 mile walk over bridge. Many people Need more participative government. cross bridge both ways for work. The boundary at the south of the ward splits a The boundary at the south of the ward splits a small minority of the residents of Fort Augustus. small minority of the residents of Fort Augustus. We will have the situation where people living We will have the situation where people living within the village, even in the next street will be within the village, even in the next street will be represented by a different councillor and in such a represented by a different councillor and in such a small community I find this very bizarre. small community I find this very bizarre. In my opinion the boundary should be along Glen In my opinion the boundary should be along Glen Tarff to the reservoir then across Glendoe estate to Tarff to the reservoir then across Glendoe estate to Loch Tarff and join up with the centre of Loch Ness. Loch Tarff and join up with the centre of Loch Ness. This proposal wouldn’t change the number of This proposal wouldn’t change the number of people all that much therefore the proposed people all that much therefore the proposed number of seats would remain the same but would number of seats would remain the same but would keep our community together, which I feel is very keep our community together, which I feel is very important, especially at the moment. important, especially at the moment.

Please do not cut off the South side of Loch Ness from this ward as it was originally. The community Stratherrick & Foyers has always had a great of Stratherrick & Foyers has a hugely positive relationship with the other community councils relationship with the communities that lie along the which are part of Ward 12 Aird and Loch Ness. To lochside. It will mean that these communities will split up these communities who have worked so no longer have the same Ward councillors who are ahrd to create a tourist destination and be part of able to represent the voice of all of these rural Loch Ness 360 is nothing short of disastrous. Rural communities. Including Stratherrick & Foyers as communities have very different priorities to urban well as Strathnairn with an urban area will mean ones and I feel our area would have less of a voice the loss of the rural voice and what our priorities as the urban population would outweigh the are as the urban population will be larger. Please smaller rural communities. Please reconsider your N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A reconsider your decision. N/A N/A change of plan for the new Ward 12 and Ward 15. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Why are the Highlands and Islands at risk of losing 2 councillors? That is an outrageous proposition in such a vast area. The area could do with more representation not less and I suspect you’ll find many residents against this reduction. I feel strongly this needs rethinking and that under absolutely no circumstances should you be reducing numbers of councillors in this vast region. I am very surprised that a reduction in population is forecast here, since there has been a steady increase in population in Skye over the last two decades or so. Can this forecast be believed? It seems very convenient when there is a A reduction in the number of rural councillors in what is possibly the largest-by- proposal (for what purpose?) to reduce number of councillors overall. It is area 'local' authority in Europe seems like a big mistake, given the widespread already a widespread perception that Skye gets a poor deal from Highland feeling that it is a total misnomer to call Highland Council a 'local council'. A local council - so the proposal to reduce representation will no doubt go down like authority which lacks both the local and the authority. a lead balloon. We need Local Authority reorganisation and the setting up of a West Highland and Island authority Split the authority and ensure West Highland has more localised authority and to remove the centralisation of everything to representation Inverness

Insulting number of cancellors for area in question. Cant see any advantages to this There are multiple large housing projects on the Black Isle that along with house prices suggest that the population of the Black Isle is likely to increase, This area of Inverness is set to increase in not decrease as forecast. Given that other wards population with large housing projects underway. with a similar population size (Culloden and It makes more sense to me to have the area of Ardersier, and Fort William and Ardnamurchan) Inverness as it's own ward and have the area It is very large in area, but given the low and widely have 4 councillors it surely makes sense for the It seems strange to have Beauly and Fort Augustus I'm not sure why this area of Inverness is forecast South of Loch Ness in a ward with Fort Augustus distributed population it is a very difficult ward to Black Isle to also have 4, rather than the Three councillors for this ward seems low given the similar population sizes in in the same ward as they are quite different and This ward brings together more similar to have a population decline as Inverness is a (and have Fort Augustus in a different ward to draw. recommended 3. other wards with 3 councillors. distinct communities. communities than the previous ward boundaries. popular place to live. Beauly).

Whilst I fully support and welcome local democracy, my opinion is that whilst local councillors are systematically stripped of any meaningful power or resources with which to do anything locally, it appears to me they are just put in the position of being people who central organisations consult but then ignore when the answer they come back doesn`t fit the over arching agenda from central govt. Social Housing is just one example local councillors have been highlighting this problem for decades and the problem still exists ergo they are not listened to or allowed to solve the problem locally. So effectively the entire question is relatively meaningless. In my 20 year observation of how local councillors are treated and decisions affecting communities are centralised in Edinburgh or Inverness the entire question is actually a spurious one, changing boundaries or numbers of councillors mean nothing when they can`t do anything anyway without permission from further away boundaries don`t bring power back, just seeks to do more with less people .

Adding areas which are rural on to predominantly urban areas is very misguided as the needs of the different communities require different solutions. I can see that when budgets are allocated they will be aimed at benefiting the areas of higher population density and the more rural areas will see less benefit. I am a member of the Strathpeffer Community council and having read the Strathpeffer is currently a key community in the Strathpeffer is currently a key community in the Boundary Commission Proposals I am very much against the proposed changes. new Area Committee which has the current areas new Area Committee which has the current areas I believe the proposed changes would have a significant detrimental impact on issues at the forefront and this would be lost issues at the forefront and this would be lost local democracy in our rural areas due to the reduced number of councillors within the new proposal. within the new proposal. serving these large geographical areas it would be increasingly difficult for the My preferred position is that the area remains as My preferred position is that the area remains as remaining councillors to maintain close relations with communities and good Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh and one Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh and one understanding of their needs. more councillor is allocated to the area. more councillor is allocated to the area. I do not agree with your proposals for Caithness, currently wards 2&3. The Caithness community is very much one community. To separate the towns from the rural hinterland goes against the feeling the community have for their homeland. Caithness is very much a place apart, separated from the rest of highland by landscape, culture and tradition. It is an isolated area, connected to the rest of Highland by only two roads, both of which pass through isolating terrain. People in Caithness, whether from town or country feel themselves to be one entity. The rural people have a need for and interest in the towns for many aspects of life. So to separate them is a very backward step. Because of the county's isolation and distance from Inverness, the governing centre, it needs strong representation. Its needs little affect the rest of Highland. For folk nearer Inverness it is seen as distant and for some "off the map". For these reasons alone it needs strong representation. This reduction from 8 to 7 is a very backward step. This is a community with formidable problems in terms of As already stated in my general comment, this is a isolation and the threat to its major employment sources. For this reason also, it very backward step in reducing representation of a needs strong (if necessary, weighted) representation. Inverness and its marginalised and remote community. immediate hinterland is a success story, a prosperous area with rising population. It also mistakenly assumes a divide between the The resultant weighting of representation will diminish further any influence needs and priorities of the people in the town and Caithness can have on Highland policy. It is understandable that wards to the in the rural hinterland. The towns, Wick or Thurso south will have limited interest in what happens up north at the end of the road. are small, and closely linked to the surrounding Many will if they have visited at all will have been there rarely. It is a journey after area. Many people travel to work in the towns and all of more than 100 miles. many people in the towns have connections with For the above reasons I urge you to reconsider your recommendations which will life, work or family or leisure, inthe surrounding negatively affect outlying areas such as this. Caithness needs its representation area. Any division therefore is completely false. It maintained at it's current level. It also needs to maintain its town/ rural creates the risk of producing councillors who will This is a very false division of a centre of local This is a very false division of a centre of local connection. The current two wards of 4 may not be perfect but it does maintain be less capable of judging the needs of the population from its hinterland. See comments on population from its hinterland. See comments on this link. community as a whole. general and proposed Rural Caithness ward. general and proposed Rural Caithness ward. What a waste of time and money. Money would be better used to fix the roads . maintain public toilet. what difference is this going to make to most people in the What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average What difference will this make to the average highalns? person . None person . None person . None person . None person . None person . None person . None person . None person . None What difference will this make to the average person . None person . None person . None person . None no comment as not altered No Comment as not altered and History. I am 76 and have lived in a fair number of locations where I have been able to use this training to observe the application and results of planning, zoning and political decisions. I have perused the proposal for redistricting the Highland Council area and first off I wish to commend those responsible for tremendous effort to adjudicate that which is in reality impossible. The constraints alone render this a herculean task. My comments are meant to redirect these efforts to the effect of the allocation on the disparate communities involved. The basic rural-urban divide is at the heart of every problem encountered. We all know that in the long run urban desires will predominate. But in the Highlands the most rural counties of Scotland are a resource of unparalleled beauty that is being undermined by the direction of the redistricting and other policies that retard population support on the rural coastline, let alone the interior which is largely barren. The benchmarks of 1:800, 1:2800 and 1:3000 do allow for a more fair equalization that could take into account the paramount need to let rural areas control their own destiny. Unfortunately, the 1:800 ratio is restricted to islands only. This may be in spite of #18 of the Islands Bill that states the use on one member wards on the mainland offers greater flexibility. A look at the distribution of Councillors shows that in the 6 predominately rural there are only 20 slots allocated out of 72. For the conurbation of Inverness there are 8 districts for 33 Councillors. I would also emphasize that 6 of these districts have a long rural tail to an urban/suburban nexus skewed into one corner that is on the edge of the Inverness node. These are essentially gerrymandered and thereby dilute the (small) rural vote in favor of the urban behemoth. The remaining 6 districts present 19 Councillors of urban centers within the rural districts. Please note that these 6 districts are centered around the town (a node) with only a small buffer zone (a network) bordering the urban area, unlike the suburbs of Inverness. In summary, at best the rural areas command 39 votes to the 33 of the greater Inverness area. Sufficient attention is not given to identifying and centralizing the node with in its hinterland and the separation of nodes with their own network lattice. One person, one vote is being served, but in the future this will not benefit rural projects

There is far too much bias towards Inverness. Everything is Inverness, Inverness. We have to bow to all their decisions and this will make it even more Inverness centred. We need more councillors in the rest of the very, very large region not less. The money gets distributed with very heavy emphasis on Inverness needs be it for roads, schools, police, fire , recycling, the list is endless. There is a huge amount of land outside of Inverness that needs much more representation. Currently in the North we are being taken over by windfarms because Inverness Thurso needs to get more representation in has no interest in anything past Dingwall and our councillors are out voted by Again this is a well populated area but has little Highland Council not less. We need to be able to Inverness centred councillors. clout in Inverness. We want more representation make more of our own decisions

Bring back District Councils as Fort William never gets its fare share. The Outdoor Capital has had enough with Car parking charges when others didn’t have to pay, Local communities having to fund their Xmas lights before other areas, No fire work displays due to the red tape HC put in place. I could go on and on I never shop in Inverness as you have held us back for years knowing if we get some stores it would effect the economy of Inverness City!!!! I shop local to support local business but HC rates for business in our wee town are disgustingly high along with rents and this needs addressed. Along with lack of decent priced public transport and Don’t forget the Mainland postal charges Highland and Islands we pay more or some companies won’t deliver here. Nice to see in the Level 4 Corona Restrictions all of Scotland apart from the Islands is classed as Mainland Scotland!!! Bring Back Lochaber District Council

Delighted that you have reverted to Black Isle Ward proper. Before, we were part of Dingwall ward, which is 15 miles from my house. We did not A lot better than the previous fiasco. vote as we had no interest in Dingwall politics.

I think it is wrong to decrease the number of It seems obvious that the people who are making these proposals have never councillors that represent this HUGE geographical been to the areas that they are making decisions about. Anyone who has traveled area! In fact, if anything, we should be increasing from Thurso to Durness and Lochinver, could not propose that the Black Isle the number of councillors due to the unique needs 3 councillors, whilst Sutherland needs 4. It is a ludicrous proposal. Apart demands of the area. The settlements in the area from the fact that the Black Isle is closer to the densely populated and well are few, and far between with very few services or serviced area of Inverness, and therefore fundamentally less isolated, the infrastructure. The roads are very exposed and Sutherland area is geographically more spread, with poorer infrastructure, more travel between areas is lengthy and often challenging terrain, longer stretches of road with no mobile phone coverage and problematic, meaning that local people are often mostly single track roads. Added to this is the additional traffic created by the isolated, particularly in bad weather. If the thriving NC500 route with little or no additional service stations, road damage, representation is further reduced, councillors will increased journey times, and only one hospital, which has limited capacity, and it be stretched to provide a decent service. People becomes increasingly apparent that the area needs MORE councillors to provide who live in a rural location need, and deserve the adequate support to the local people, not less! It is a disgusting situation where same level of representation as their urban decisions are allowed to be made by people with no insight into the challenges of counterparts. If people are to be encouraged to the area, but seems par for the course, as this area has already had cuts move outside of the already densely populated previously. No wonder our young people are moving away in their droves when cities of Scotland, then services and support needs they can only see further declines in their futures.Disgraceful! to be in place to make this a viable option. Skye needs to either maintain 4 councillors or indeed gain a 5th. Skye is the second most visited place during a normal year, after Edinburgh, yet it is like a forgotten place. It is appallingly serviced by the Inverness-centric Highland Council and desperately needs councillors to fight our corner, or indeed move Areas outwith Inverness need more representation, not less. Inverness us out of Highland Council area as other islands have been able to do across continually takes the lions share of funding building a beautiful modern city whilst Scotland. outlying areas are starting to look like third world countries due to lack of maintenance and investment. We need to maintain or increase representation in I would suggest reducing the number of councillors in Inverness wards where outlying areas and reduce it in Inverness city areas, which nearly always get what they don't have to beg, steal of borrow for every penny and increase the they want. numbers in places like Skye.

I know it is done on a population representation but it seems really unfair that the tiny area of Inverness gets to dominate the whole Highland Council Area just by virtue of it being most populated. I would like to see less councillors and in particular far less for Inverness so they aren't holding the power balance.

It’s sad that the largest area but you are reducing the number of candidates to cover it and increasing the area they have to cover. We should keep our areas of east and west. Also think 4 is not enough. The area is too large to be covered as I can only imagine the travel expenses this will then involve. Also logistically getting from west to east in the winter to address issues is going to be problematic. The area is overlooked most of the time as it is a reduction of representation will not help. My name is and I am the Secretary of the Sleat Community Council of which there are currently six members representing almost 900 residents in the Sleat peninsula. The Community Council has extensively read all the relevant documentation on the proposed changes to the electoral representation and shared this with our community. For the purpose of this record,we will solely concern ourselves with WARD 10, Skye and Raasay.

As has been publicly recorded by officials of Highland Council and local Elected Members this Council wholly rejects without reservation the proposal to reduce the number of Elected Members from 4 to 3. This whole exercise coming at a time of a pandemic and considerable involvement in local democracy is simply outrageous and in our view cannot be justified. If the Commission were to be seeking SIGNIFICANT cost savings by these proposals then perhaps it could be understood but to undertake this change and to end up with the same number of Members is futile. There has never been a greater time where local Elected Members are contributing to their communities particularly since March 2020 and therefore your mis-guided and ill-informed plans for Skye and Raasay stand no weight whatsoever. Elected Members in Skye have all been the key focal points with their Ward Manager throughout the pandemic but at the same have carried out their established roles both as Committee Chairs and members of Committees. We cannot see any justification for reducing the numbers in Skye and Raasay when there will be population growth resulting in a desire to move to 'somewhere safe' which brings investment and creates jobs. The Commission should be reminded that in 2019 tourism in Skye contributed more than £211m to the economy with a total GVA of more than £260m, four times higher than Arran. (Moffat Centre report for SkyeConnect 2020 the Economic Impact of Tourism in Skye. Given that Skye is the second most popular tourism area in Scotland after Edinburgh these proposals are not only an attack on local democracy but is an indication of how out of touch the Commission is with local populations. The Commission did itself no favours with Highland Council, when in your Chair's Press Release that HC had failed to respond after 11 weeks of consultation. Your organisation badly mishandled that. We trust that the correspondence you have received from Skye will prove your proposals have no foundation and we urge you to withdraw these proposals unreservedly and unconditionally. Ward 1 is far too large for 4 councillors. This will result in underrepresentation of people in the north and west. I believe that there should be only ONE councilor per ward area. All meetings should be held remotely. Expenses should be reduced drastically. All decisions taken should be made public and any major non essential expenditure agreed should be open to public scrutiny.

"Art" projects should be shelved until finances completly recover. Do not cut further councillors from Caithness. Our voice is not heard Inverness has too much influence in the highland council. Not everyone Stop wasting time with this leave as is and actually Stop wasting your time with this and do your English is first language of this country can’t even say this place - English Increase councillors in rural highlands not Stop cutting Caithness councillors numbers Stop increasing Inverness councillors numbers lives in Inverness Stop cutting Caithness councillors Stop cutting Caithness councillors Stop cutting councillors in rural areas Stop cutting councillors in rural areas do the job we pay you to do Stop cutting councillors in rural highland current job name please I do no speak Gaelic so need English name please Inverness Get better street lights in this area Get a new bridge at train track Stop giving all money to Inverness area Fix the rhs of a9 going south Fix this road get overtaking areas Get a ring road around Nairn Stop cutting councillor numbers in rural areas Stop cutting councillors numbers in rural areas Clearer distinction within the ward on who represents which part. e.g. I often 2 will be fine. Crazy amount for this place split it into north skye and raasay write to all 4 on an issue in Eilean a cho and get only a reply from one. Clearly and south skye. I often write to all 4 at the moment and only get a reply from define if the ward is split up further into other areas to save time. 1!!

Reduction of the number of councillors in a greatly increased area in Sutherland willmean less representation of the inhabitants of the area. It will be physically Absolutely disgraceful. impossible for the councillors to cover this area in anything more than a I represent Tongue Community Council and we, superficial visit and also maintaing physical contact with Inverness for meetings unanimously, oppose the proposals. Councillor etc. Hugh Morrison attends our monthly meetings and has been enormously helpful in taking our Increase in the number of representatives in Inverness will mean even more concerns to higher authority. If his area is resources going to urban areas with representatives in the rural ares being easily increased he will no longer have the time, the A small area gets 5 councillors, a huge area gets 4. outvoted. This will lead to yet more unequal sharing of services (one only has to energy or the ability to be representing an It is just as easy to represent 10 people as 100 in compare the road improvements, grass verge maintenance, health provisions etc increased number of residents over a greater area. the same geographical area, but much more already apparent between Inverness and the east coast versus the north and west Only 4 Councillors for the whole of Sutherland and difficult if those 100 are spread across hundreds of coastal areas). 18 for Inverness makes a mockery of democracy. No comment Sensible Sensible No comment No comment No comment miles as is the case in Sutherland. No comment No comment No comment No comment Too many Too many No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment Do not change the boundaries That’s not enough councillors compared to Inverness. Nairn is the poor relations and gets Reduce the age of council members by making retirement at 65 compulsory. ignored. Agree with removing strathpeffer from this ward. As I live in this ward, and the proposed increase in ward area combined with a 33% reduction in elected member representation is clearly a retrograde step. Therefore, I must register my strongest opposition to the proposal.

The proposal may fit with a "more easily identifiable ward boundary" and have tidier electoral parity, but it takes no cognisance of the geography nor the widespread nature of the population in the proposed ward.

I understand the proposed ward will have an area I will comment more specifically later re. the Sutherland proposals. of 5250 square km, the largest geographical area in Europe. A large percentage of the road network in At this juncture, I find your 'Summary of our Proposals' to be biased towards the proposed ward is single track, i.e. there is one allowing these changes to go through without full understanding by the lane only with vehicles travelling in opposite electorate. directions having to use designated passing places to pass each other. You are at great pains to say what the number of proposed elected members will be in this summary, but you do not state what the current number is in the vast As such journey times are greatly increased. I majority of wards. sincerely hope you will therefore appreciate the extra demands this places on councillors and the You do however include the following comment concerning wards 6, 11, 18, 19 increased risk to their health, safety and wellbeing. and 20. " Ward 'X' is unchanged and retains the existing number of councillors and the same ward boundary" The electoral parity figures take no account of these further increased burdens which will be More inconsistency is presented in your comments for Ward 10 where you faced by a reduced number of councillors who will actually specify the reduction in councillors from "3 councillors, one fewer than at be representing an increased electorate over a present" and then proceed to justify your position. significantly enlarged geographical area in your proposed Ward 1. We are therefore left with no indication in your summary as to the movement in the number of councillors for 14 of the Highland Council area wards. I suggest therefore that your proposal regarding Ward 1 be scrapped and that you should instead I suggest that this is a serious omission that requires to be addressed without be considering an increase in the number of delay in order to ensure full and unbiased information is provided. councillors for the existing wards 1 and 4. Background. It is proposed that ward 5 be split with; The proposals adversely affect rural areas in particular, Caithness, Sutherland, Strathpeffer, Contin, Garve, Marybank, and Wester Ross and Eilean a' Cheò which would all see a reduction in member Scatwell areas are to be moved into Dingwall & representation. The proposals overall in the Highlands, show a reduction from 74 Black Isle Ward. to 72 members and would be in place as of the May 2022 full Council election. A Dingwall would have its councillors increased from reduction in councillors will have a significant detrimental impact on rural 4 to 5. communities. Councillors will be required to cover even larger geographic areas The rest of Wester Ross & Lochalsh would be the with no reduction in the number of community councils, schools or community new ward with the loss of one councillor from 4 to groups and initiatives seeking engagement with their local councillor, resulting in a 3. democratic deficit for the communities in question. At present ward 5 is the biggest geographical ward Highland Council was last reviewed in 2015 and reported in 2016 during the 5th in the whole of Europe, just under 5000km square. Review of Electoral Arrangements. At that time 6 councillors were cut from What the boundary commission has not realised is Highland 80 to 74 at present. A further review is now required under the Islands that by cutting the ward, travel will be long and (Scotland) Act 2018. This Act recognises the importance of the Scottish Islands even more arduous for the three remaining and the opportunities and challenges they face. councillors and that means communities will be Only 4 councils are going through this exercise, Highland, Argyle and Bute, North seriously disadvantaged if the councillor numbers Ayrshire and the Islands. are cut to three in the remaining part of Wester The Cross Party Group on Highland council took a very strong position that the Ross. changes proposed by the Boundary Commission fail to recognise the specific The four present councillors have objected to these Highland context, particularly in relation to parity, sparsity, rurality and proposals and this is summarised as follows. Implications deprivation and, if implemented, would result in significant democratic deficit in a •Cuts across CC boundaries Eilean a' Cheò way that is at odds with the purpose of the boundary review which was meant to •Puts too much pressure on 3 councillors, on the The Island status of both Skye and Raasay is not reflected in the review and it be specifically focused on reflecting the requirements of the Islands (Scotland) remaining Wester Ross area. is requested that both Islands be considered in line with the same criteria Act. It is therefore recommended that the proposals should be rejected in their •Too much emphasis on number of people, not afforded to other Islands through the Islands Bill. The proposed decrease in entirety. geography. the number of Elected Members further erodes the democratic participation At a minimum, this should ensure no reduction in the total number of elected •No recognion of scale of area and number of of the Ward. With the ongoing threat to the Gaelic Language - and Skye and members in Highland, but still more importantly, to press for the number of settlements. Raasay home to two of the Gaelic language strongholds in Highland - the members to increase where there are clearly increases in population that warrant •No understanding of diversity, identy and needs current proposal poses a further risk to Gaelic language development by it; where large geographic wards require additional members to ensure of communities. weakening the democratic voice of all our Gaelic communities. appropriate levels of democratic representation; and to ensure there is parity •Have only just established an Area Commiee for across Scotland in terms of island representation. Fundamentally, increases in one the current ward, where local financial decisions Skye and Raasay are also the second busiest tourist destinations in Scotland area of Highland should not result in decreases in another. will be made. and clearly this creates many additional challenges that require member and •Preferred and best opon is current boundary authority intervention and support and account needs taken of the huge One of the aims of a review is to ensure electoral parity. This means having the with 5 Members. number of visitors who visit Skye and Raasay for most of the year. same number of electors per councillor in all wards of a council area. Parity on the islands has been set at 1 councillor for every 800 electors and so these councils Recent press reports have outlined the fact that the population of Skye and will get additional councillors and enhanced democratic representation. In The community councils of Garve and Achnasheen, Raasay is due to rise in future years but yet the Boundary Commission Highland the parity level has been set at 1 to 2,800 electors across the entire area, Strathpeffer and Contin have already objected to consultation document says the opposite which is of great concern.

Cuts across CC boundaries Puts too much pressure on 3 councillors, on the remaining Wester Ross area. Too much emphasis on number of people, not geography. No recognition of scale of area and number of settlements. No understanding of diversity, identity and needs of communities. Have only just established an Area Committee for the current ward, where local financial decisions will be made. Preferred and best option is current boundary with 5 Members.

An utter disgrace that you are proposing to reduce the number of councilors from 6 to 4. Sutherland is a massive area which needs the 6 councillors in order for the area to be covered equally. In these uncertain times with covid, having less councillors would mean more travelling which would actually cost more. The last surgery I saw advertised was for 30 mins in a few villages, how many folk technically could a councillor see in the said time. Not alot in my view, and that is with our current 6 councillors, so reducing it to 4 would reduce this time even more.

Dear Sirs 2019 Review of Electoral Arrangements Highland Council Area Proposals – Public Consultation 4th November 2020 to 26th January 2021. I write to you as Secretary to Beauly Community Council. We have discussed this matter in detail particularly as far as your proposals will affect Ward 12 Aird. Firstly, we do understand the main basis of your review; to ensure electoral parity i.e. having the same number of electors per Councillor in all wards Dear Sirs of a council areas. In Highland the parity level has 2019 Review of Electoral Arrangements Highland Council Area been set at 1 to 2,800 electors across the entire Proposals – Public Consultation 4th November 2020 to 26th January 2021. area, whether island, rural or urban, in our view I write to you as Secretary to Beauly Community Council. We have discussed this this strategy is flawed by treating Highland wards matter in detail particularly as far as your proposals will affect Ward 12 Aird. the same as urbanised Central Belt wards and not Firstly, we do understand the main basis of your review; to ensure electoral parity taking account of our geography and sparser i.e. having the same number of electors per councillor in all wards of a council population. areas. In Highland the parity level has been set at 1 to 2,800 electors across the In general, this will result in fewer Councillors, entire area, whether island, rural or urban, in our view this strategy is flawed by creating a substantial democratic deficit in the treating Highland wards the same as urbanised Central Belt wards and not taking Highland area. account of our geography and sparser population. In particular and with regard to Ward 12 Aird the In general, this will result in fewer Councillors, creating a substantial democratic proposal is to reduce the number of Councillors deficit in the Highland area. from 4 to 3. We already have significant challenges In particular and with regard to Ward 12 Aird the proposal is to reduce the in our ward being effectively represented due to number of Councillors from 4 to 3. We already have significant challenges in our the part semi urban/rural geography. ward being effectively represented due to the part semi urban/rural geography. We do however recognize a small number of We do however recognize a small number of sensible and logical proposals in the sensible and logical proposals in the wider local wider local area. area. To close, in our view the proposals show a lack of regard or an understanding of To close, in our view the proposals show a lack of the real and significant challenges of providing effective political representation regard or an understanding of the real and for the people of the Highlands. significant challenges of providing effective political representation for the people of the Highlands. Secretary. Secretary. Beauly Community Council. no comment no comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment Beauly Community Council. No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment

I do not accept an electoral arrangement as a sound basis for your proposal and therefore oppose it. Once again it shows a reduction in rural councillors at a time when at least status quo is required to stop your constant reviews under different guises for centralisation to Inverness. In fact I question why there is another review following recent reductions . In particular the reduction of a further 1 councillor across the Caithness wards is unacceptable. The input into the council area over decades of the nuclear industry of professional engineers through DSRL and Rolls-Royce and countless support staff provides and will continue to provide high quality employment opportunities for the Caithness. Elsewhere across the Highlands including Inverness there is a reliance on tertiary and service related employment. Caithness if anything requires more councillors to maintain and support this key industry and its successors and losing yet another to support Inverness on the basis of an electoral arrangement is not acceptable to me. Skeabost and Distrct Community Council cannot understand the proposed reduction in the number of councillors from 4 to 3 erodes the democratic participation of the Ward. In accordance with the act if we were part of the Western Isles for example Skye and Raasay would have 10/12 Councillors under the Island bill. We were of the understanding that the intention of the Islands Act was to increase democratic status of all the islands and to recognise the unique features of island life by ensuring that legislation did not adversely affect them. The end result for Skye is exactly the opposite of the purpose of the Act? Rather than strengthening our position , the proposed reduction will be detrimental to our islands. Why has it been considered appropriate to show a total disregard for the spirit and purpose of the Act in relation to Skye and Raasay? This planned reduction will place unnecessary additional burdens on the remaining three. These members already have the significant additional burden of having to travel extensively throughtout their area and also to and from Inverness for all meetings. This is not something that their collegues in Inverness have to do. Skye is not an area of great wealth and it's location has lead to a very acute shortage of affordable housing due in a large part to the low paid seasonal employment that most have in the tourist Industry. There are many, many associated difficulties currently arising from the influx of an almost unmanagable amount of people, a situation that is far from being resolved and is going to require an ongoing considerable amount of work to begin to resolve. We have a steady loss of young people from the island leaving it with an elderly population which brings it's own problems as well. In addition we suffer from delapitated school buildings, a road infrastructure in the villages that is in a deplorable state of repair. Areas are without access to public transport and the broadband and mobile coverage can only be described as poor in many areas.

Strong representation is required at local Government level to ensure that these service deficits are addressed and the needs of the area in terms of investment in services are adequately made.

We would therefore request that both Islands be considered in line with the same criteria afforded to other Islands through the Islands Bill which is currently not the case. The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has put forward proposals for councillor numbers and ward boundaries in the Highland Council area. The boundaries were last revised for the 2017 council elections, and these new proposals are due to the Islands Act. For the first time, wards can have 2, 3 4 or even 5 councillors.

In the local area, the major change is that the existing Inverness West ward be combined with the part of which lies west of the River Ness, giving 14,000 voters served by 5 councillors in one large ward (“Inverness North West”).

This would be the largest ward electorate in Highland and is more akin to the ward sizes used in the big cities.

Although having the largest electorate this ward would still be 9.5% over “parity”.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

I wish to put forward an alternative proposal based on creating 2 wards,

•one with 2 councillors enrely west of the Canal covering and , and •one with 3 councillors between the River Ness and the Canal covering , and

These wards would be very closely identified with disnct communies.

The canal is a boundary for all school catchment areas.

The proposal undermines democracy in an area that is roughly the same size as Belgium; depriving rural communities their right to a fair and functioning democracy. I understand cuts need to be made but how is it just that these cuts are being made to the very communities that are already among the worst represented in the western world.

Orkney has a population smaller than the county of Caithness yet it has its own local authority, its own health board and fundamentally it would have more than double the amount of councillors (Caithness would have 7 it would have 18).

We've had centralisation create a precedent whereby communities across the Highlands aren't listened to, please do not let this further exacerbate this. There are so few councillors representing Skye and Rassay compared to other island communities and it's disgusting that you are looking to cut that even more. Fair representation hasn't been achieved at all and yet you want to cut at that even more. Leave Skye alone!! There are too few councillors for Eilean a' Cheò. Other islands are far better represented. Skye and Rassay should be it's own council area these islands have unique issues that would be better served by a local council.

It would appear that not much thought has been given to the geographical remoteness of many parts of Highland. The Highland Council area covers an area of 25,657 square kilometres (9,906 sq mi) – which is 11.4% of the land area of Great Britain, 32.9% of the land area of Scotland and an area 20% larger than Wales. Given this fact it is totally unacceptable to reduce the numbers of councillors. The Highlands are a unique area and its residents face unique problems in everyday life because of its rurality and access to local democracy has to be supported and encouraged and not restricted by taking away councillors or splitting established communities. In particular cutting Skye from a four member ward to a three member ward in our mind is totally unacceptable, no cognisance seems to have been given for rurality including its remoteness and poor transport links. Indeed there is a strong argument for many wards in the Highland Council area to be given the same parity as island communities with 1:800 as opposed to the 1:2800 as applied to mainland communities. This would therefore require more councillors as opposed to less. I do not agree with your projection that the population of the Eilean a' Cheò ward is likely to fall markedly over the next five years and as a resident here see no evidence for that assumption. In fact, quite the reverse is likely by means of immigration from other parts of the UK and I hear of no great plans to demolish residential property which you cite as another excuse for gerrymandering wards and their quota of elected representatives. I would like to point out in addition, as with the Small Isles prior to this review, there is no mention made of the Isle of Raasay in the Eilean a' Cheò ward, something which you could easily remedy to no great disadvantage. In conclusion, I see no justification in your submission to reduce the number of councillors representing Eilean a' Cheò as you propose. Compared with other wards we are already under represented by the number of councillors to the area they have to cover. Why would the forecast in number of electorate be a fall in numbers? We feel grossly under represented already.

Your entire proposal for reducing the number of councillors on Eilean a Cheo There is no evidence that I am aware of that the electorate of Eilean a Cheo seemed to be based on the idea/forecast that the current electorate of 8579 is will reduce between now and 2024. In reality, with a steady increase in the going to have reduced by 2024. Given that the resident population of Skye is number of permanent residents over the past few years, and another big steadily increasing, and is expected to continue to do so, it seems utterly crazy to influx happening now (post Covid) it is far more likely to increase rather than believe the electorate is going to decrease! On what do you base this forecast? If decrease. You should therefore be reviewing the data on what you are basing anything, you should be considerng an increase in the number of councillors, your decision making and reviewing it in the light of what is actually certainly not a reduction. happening.

I travel around Sutherland extensively for my job and live here also. I am very concerned that lowering the number of councillors will reduce the understanding of the challenges of living here. Councillors need to live locally to understand the variation of living on a remote mountain top, cut off from everywhere else during bad weather periods, to living in a remote small village, with little employment, little to offer or excite their young people into learning towards a career goal, unable to attract in quality teachers or afford to sustain them. These are very different to life in the larger villages on the east coast, which have shops, social activities and some public transport. Our councillors have been good at attending public meetings all over the county. I know this will move to a digital presence but some meeting necessitate a human attendance to achieve more in delicate negotiations. Skye area is huge and 3 councillors would find it difficult to serve the people well enough. We used to have our own District Council where decisions were more relevant to our specific circumstances and are not presentlywell served having 4 councillors at present. Our representatives numbers as an island do not compare well with Orkney, Shetland and The Western Isles and we are being short changed already.

We suffer from being administered from Inverness and generally being counted as part of Highland Council instead of an island like other islands. We also suffer extra delivery charges as we are an island so have the worst of all arrangements. This needs looking at and taking into consideration. Feel that once again Caithness is being sold short when it comes to having representation. Large area We need to retain the number of councillors we Caithness being hard done by with Inverness getting everything as usual for councillors to cover have The ward combines a huge swathe of urban The ward carries forward the quirk of the existing Inverness with 25 to 30 miles of rural Ness-side. Inverness South ward of snaking into Strathdearn. Inverness South West and Inverness South East Inverness South West and Inverness South East Strongly supportive. But could realign boundary Strongly supportive. But could realign boundary together are entitled to 9 councillors. It might be together are entitled to 9 councillors. It might be worth with Caithness to old County/District border where with Sutherland to old County/District border Supportive. Could align boundary in west with old worth investigating if two wards of 3 councillors investigating if two wards of 3 councillors are focused it seems it would involve the transfer of few if any where it seems it would involve the transfer of few Inverness District boundary which would involve are focused on Inverness with another ward of 3 on Inverness with another ward of 3 councillors more electors. if any electors. Support the transfer of few, if any electors. councillors more rural. rural. I live on Skye, and we actually need more Councillors, not less. Being the 2nd most popular destination for tourists in Scotland, which has increased so much the island has been at breaking point for some time, we need Councillors to stand up for our needs. We already get neglected by Highland Council due to their inverness centric attitudes. Skye gets forgotten, and less Councillors will only make that worse. Whilst we understand the principle of electoral parity. This should be For Ardross Community Council this is our Ward. compensated for in the extremely geographically large Wards which means that We are happy that the status quo of 4 Councillors fewer Councillors will mean effectively no representation for some of those in the is proposed to be maintained, and would not like to vast disparate wards. see any changes.

We need more not less. Have you any idea of the distances between our small communities in Central,, North and North west Sutherland ? Absolutely ridiculous! We are already disadvantaged by huge distances between Travelling distances are huge. Most of a communities in Sutherland, making it at present almost impossible for any councillor’s time us spent on the road. Impossible Councillor to truly represent constituents. for him or her to attend all the Community Council ( The website is very difficult to navigate and only people willing to persevere meetings and meetings in Inverness and would be able to a) find what they are looking for and b) understand what you are elsewhere. When considering the islands talking about. Could it not be put in simpler language for ordinary people to Sutherland should have had the same understand.? consideration ,

I think we would be much more poorly represented if we were merged into one Sutherland wide ward. Already we feel we have a very small voice here on the West coast and merging us will make it so very much smaller. It dies not improve our representation in any way in See my answer with regard to west and central Sutherland fact makes it worse, please don’t do it, If anything, we need to have more representation, not less. We're so rural and remote and overlooked as it is and to take away councillors is a terrible idea.

For true,democratic representation and accountability we must have more,not fewer, councillors.Using population numbers as a basis for council representation in an area such as the Highlands is too simplistic by far and will lead to a council dominated by,and operating primarily in the interests of, the Inner Moray Firth area. Some 15 or so years ago I heard a Public Health academic comment that a citizen of Inverness got a return for their Council Tax pound roughly 14 times that of a citizen of the outlying-or in Inverness management-speak, "remote and rural"-regions. I would suspect that this disparity has, if anything, increased in the intervening years.

Why would you even consider reducing the number of councillors for an area the size of what's being proposed?? Just because the area is sparsely populated, it does not mean there are fewer issues to be dealt with!

We are under represented as it is. Keep the boundaries as they are. Highland council’s decisions are already favoured towards Inverness. We need representation and this will isolate us What really is there to gain from this and how much money is this costing??? even more.

I have lived in Assynt for 37 years and virtually for all of that time I have attended Community Council meetings and been aware of the necessity of good highland Council representation. To suggest that Sutherland should be reduced from 6 to 4 councilors is ridiculous. The reform I would like to see is to go back to wards a third of the size at present and just the one councilor rather than three. i hope the reform is stopped in its tracks at least for Sutherland.

The new Boundary Commission Proposals for Sutherland and Caithness will reduce the number of Sutherland councilors by 2 and Caithness by one. The Commission uses a simple calculation of Electors per Councilor and although the Commission ‘may part from strict application of electoral parity to reflect special geographical considerations’ it appears that in the case of the far north wards consideration has not been given to geography, remoteness, poor road infrastructure, inadequate public transport ( a councilor could not Ward 1 will be the largest and least democratically represented area in Europe serve his electorate without the use of a car) with with appalling road infrastructure, little or no public transport, difficult winter increased Community Councils to support and weather travel increased danger to traveling councilors. vastly increased mileages the quality of democracy Councilors are expected to accept a larger area and greater population to would fall while further reductions of up to 8 are represent. this will damage democratic representation and lead to voter apathy. suggested for the future. Far too many councillors. Yes a large area but under populated so large areas can easily be covered. In a country facing real financial hardship it is a waste of government money.

Sutherland is 1/8 of Scotland. A former county in its own right. It may have a small population but it The Commissions proposals are disastrous for the rural highlands. This is an is roughly half that of Orkney. The low population utter disgrace. The rural areas desperately need better democratic density and poor communications in difficult representation, not less, and devolved budgets spent locally, not centralised in terrain mean that fpur councillors is completely Inverness. Fragile rural areas need to have a similar ratio of councillors to inadequate to speak up for such a big area with so Three councillors is not enough for this vast area. population as do the islands. The Higland Council operates like a city council for many problems. Already Inverness is outvoting We need at least five. There is already too much Inverness and deprives rural areas of much needed investment. People in the the rural highlands leaving Sutherland, Wester power held by Inverness. Our councillors get rural areas pay Council Taxes too - and have to cope with poor roads and services, Ross, Caithness with a democratic deficit. Rural outvoted every time and our public services are high charges, long distances and endless council cuts. They are not 'wild land, but council Tax disappears to be spent in Inverness. cut. This is a fragile community that needs living communities that need support, not effectively Clearances. Cancel this This is an outrageous proposal which will devastate supporting not further undermining. Rural areas disgraceful proposal. Break up the Highland Council - it is utterly ridiculous to the county and centralise yet more resources and 3 Councillors for almost the whole of Caithness? need to have a much higher ratio of Councillors to have a third of Scotland, an area the size of Wales, Belgium or Virginia in one services in Inverness. We should be dloing the You must be joking. Give Caithness its own population than urban areas to reflect the greater 'local' authority. Let's have a better deal for rural communities with smaller, more opposite. Take Sutherland out of the authoritrian, Council, and see it grow. This will simply drain So two councillors for Thurso, but only three for challenges. Also, this ward is far too big. The multi focussed local authorities. I am shocked that the Scottish government would undemocratic Highland Council and give it back its more of the population away to Inverness - but the whole of Wester Ross? This isn't democracy, it member wards have been a disaster. Abolish them The ward is too big. We need more, smaller, single even consider this. own council. perhaps that is really the agenda? is ridiculous and bring back smaller, single member wards member wards. Creating a larger area creates less contact, less Creating a larger area creates less contact, less Creating a larger area creates less contact, less Creating a larger area creates less contact, less Creating a larger area creates less contact, less relationship and less knowledge of the wards relationship and less knowledge of the wards relationship and less knowledge of the wards relationship and less knowledge of the wards relationship and less knowledge of the wards needs and areas concern. needs and areas concern. needs and areas concern. needs and areas concern. needs and areas concern. How will this sustain or even develop the How will this sustain or even develop the How will this sustain or even develop the How will this sustain or even develop the How will this sustain or even develop the councilors and council service and responsibility? councilors and council service and responsibility? councilors and council service and responsibility? councilors and council service and responsibility? councilors and council service and responsibility?

I wish to object to the proposal to reduce the number of councillors for Skye from 4 down to 3. The proposal is based on a table of figures that assumes that the population of Skye is falling but this is not correct. According to the NHS Highland Public Health Directorate Health Intelligence Team April 2019 Population and Demography assessment, the population of Skye is rising and is forecast to continue rising over the next 20 years. If the NHS is planning for rising population in Skye (based on an expert resource of demographic and population health evidence), then Highland Council should likewise be taking the rising population of Skye into account. Skye is experiencing a boom in housebuilding and continuing in-migration - as a result the population is increasing and the number of councillors representing this increasing population should not be reduced. My recommendation is that the number of councillors for Skye is maintained at 4. The proposed division of the ward and the removal of the reference to Loch Ness in the description of the ward is devastating for the community's identity. I live on one side of Loch Ness but have much affinity with the people on the other side. We share schools, shops, businesses, facilities and poor public transport. The 4 current councillors know the area and the people very well and we feel like a cohesive community. We share the same strengths, issues and challenges. Tourism links have been strengthened by the Loch Ness 360 route as one example of joint working around the Loch. We have been affected by the planning and other issues relating to the growth of renewable energy in the area and community companies have been The case for proposing these changes is not made out and does not take account set up to manage the community benefits in as fair of the strengths of the communities that exist in the Highland region and the way a way as possible using existing boundaries. How links and bonds have evolved. could the considerable benefits be shared fairly Expecting councillors to have work load based on numbers of population in such a when parts of the community within the geographically challenging area seems ill thought out. The population of the city community company boundaries are shifted and towns have very different needs and issues than the rural and dispersed outwith the current CC areas? The people of populations. Inverness that are proposed to join the eastern Some communities have worked hard to build up community groups, community part of this area have very different issues and companies and other links - none of which seem to be represented in this interests than the people in the very rural area on calculation of boundary changes. Some community companies have ongoing the east of Loch Ness. It would be a travesty to wealth from community benefit from renewable energy projects. These have delete the words "Loch Ness" from the description taken a great deal of time and effort to negotiate and build up. Boundaries and of the wards. It is world famous and means more links between community companies have been calculated and income to the community and others than "Aird" or apportioned between them. This work will be ridden over rough shod by some at "Inverness South West". Aird and Loch Ness ward least of the proposed boundary changes. Think again! What are you trying to should remain with its current boundaries for achieve and what would be the outcome on the communities if these changes historical, community, financial and practical were put into effect? reasons.

Combining these two wards will create a huge geographical area to be covered by just 4 councillors. It is a challenge enough with the current situation of two wards with three councillors each. We have been fortunate in the current Ward 1 with the three main communities of Dornoch, Golspie and Brora each having a councillor based in the local community. It is entirely possible that with only 4 councillors covering this vast area that they would all be based on the more populated east coast leaving the middle & west of the county without someone who has local knowledge of the needs of the sparsely populated and scattered communities (or vice versa). In this regard Sutherland is far closer to the Islands than the rest of Scotland and should be treated accordingly. For example the journey time from Melvich to Lochinver is 2 hours and 49 minutes (103 miles). Now is not the time to reduce the local representation of the north Highland communities. Highlanders already feel removed from government decision making, with its tendency to centralise be it in Edinburgh or Inverness. We should be encouraging more localism with decisions being taken by people based in the local community who understand local needs. The current proposal will further weaken the communities in question and effectively disenfranchise many voters unable to connect to what should be their 'local' representative. Another concern is the Dornoch Common Good Fund, overseen by the local councillors. If the four elected members proposed are not based near Dornoch how can they possibly reflect local views in administering this fund. This is totally unacceptable and may even be subject to a competent legal challenge. I disagree with these proposals which particularly disenfranchise the sparsely I urge the Commission to re-think this proposal and in doing populated and geographically spread communities in Sutherland, which should be so acknowledge the unique challenges faced by the treated like the island communities with which they have far more in common residents of Sutherland are more like those of the Island than mainland Scotland. communities as opposed to urban areas such as Inverness.

I am commenting on behalf of Ballifeary Community Council, of which I am chair. Our area covers part of the area currently in Ward 13, Inverness West, and we discussed the proposals at our meeting on 30th November 2020.

The view at the meeting was that we saw nothing beneficial in the proposed new arrangements and, indeed, were concerned that our area (Ballifeary) may well suffer under the proposed changes. This is because we are currently part of a ward with three councillors - a number which makes it possible to build up a good working relationship in terms of addressing local issues. In addition, the size of the ward currently is such that councillors are able to have a good understanding of their area and local issues, albeit that, even in the current set- up, Ballifeary can be seen sometimes as suffering from being "tagged on" to the much larger part of the ward on the other side of the canal.

Our concern is that having to deal with a larger number of councillors will reduce our ability to work effectively with them as well as meaning that our area's needs will be lost, or at least be less of a priority within a much bigger ward. We are concerned therefore that this proposal therefore risks making local government less local, less representative and less responsive to the people living in our area.

I think cutting the number of Councillors in a ward this size is ridiculous and unfair upon the remaining councillors and people they represent. With respect, I don't think the Boundary Commission understand the geography and are only thinking of population size. The travel distances and times are HUGE. There are no motorways or dual carriageways. The roads are long and arduous. This would result in less representation for the people of this ward, a democratic deficit. The basis of the parity calculations seem incorrect for this ward.

I think Strathpeffer, Contin, Garve etc should remain in this ward with the number of Councillors at 4. Even for 4 Councillors, it means a lot of travel time to attend meetings. I think that Strathpeffer, Contin, Garve and Strathpeffer, Contin, Garve and Achnasheen would Achnasheen community councils do not wish to be be subsumed in Dingwall and lose the strong voice subsumed in Dingwall and Seaforth and lose their they have built up for their differing needs. We Area Committee and strong voice for their local don't want to lose our new Area Committee. population.

I write on behalf of the Constituency Labour Party for Caithness Sutherland and Ross. The proposals for Caithness are to replace the current two wards of four councillors with 3 wards: Thurso, with 2 councillors, Wick 2 cllrs and ‘Caithness’ with 3. The proposals for Sutherland replace the current two wards of 3 cllrs down to a single ward of 4. So an area of 48,000 voters currently served by 14 cllrs will be reduced to 11. Overall, the Highland electorate is only changing by 1% so the overall number of councillors is likely to remain the same at 74. The proposed changes will further stretch the democratic deficit between the vast landmass of Highland and the inner Moray Firth, making it more ‘Inverness centric’ than ever. If anything, the remote and rural areas should have greater representation to counteract centralisation. The commission is tasked to do reviews every 8-12 years, but our boundaries were changed last in 2017! This proposal takes Caithness back to the town/ county divide we had from 2007 – 2012, a further confusion for electors. Also, we are due a census in 2021. It would make more sense to wait for the result of this before making any changes to representation. Prior to the 2011 census figures, mid-year estimates predicted that the population for Caithness and Sutherland would had fallen by 0.9% over the period 2001-2011, however, the 2011 census figures showed that the area's population actually rose by 3.3%. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) will tell you that elections with fewer than four members per ward does not really represent voters’ wishes proportionately (ie with political balance). In the new Thurso or Wick wards, with only 2 to be selected, cllrs will get elected on 600 or fewer votes, about 1000 for the new 3-member Caithness ward. Taken with the unregistered and the average council turnout of 40%, our representatives are elected by a small fraction of the electorate, so its doubly important that proportionality is respected. The commissioner’s remit is simply to use a one size fits all template, X voters equals y councillors. This blind use of an algorithm means they have no real interest in local democracy, proportional representation or common sense. We note that island councils have greater flexibility in the rules due to their remoteness from main centres of population! The irony of this will not be lost in northwest Sutherland. It might be argued that what works well for Glasgow or Edinburgh might not apply in areas with smaller populations, where small changes in absolute numbers can have a massive effect. The statistical methods of predicting population changes become increasingly less accurate the further they are from a census. The next council elections are due in 2022, but our representation will be based on estimates with a 2011 baseline.

As a former Highland Councillor for the Lanward Ward 2007-2017 I wholeheartedly welcome the proposals to bring back this Ward to Caithness. ( Caithness Ward ) Three representatives are adequate and meets the recomended 2,800 constituents per Councillor in this vast Rural area Rural Caithness has a lot to offer in business enterprises, large essential renewable energy Windfarms and thriving communities with ten active voluntary Community Councils who quite rightly deserve their own identity with the Landward Ward being reinstated . I sincerely hope you will continue with this fantastic recomendation to bring back the formerly Landward Ward to Caithness for the May 2022 I agree with the recommended 2,800 constituents per Coulcillor local Authority elections. I am somewhat concerned at the proposed further reduction in councillors for Highland from 74 to 72, especially considering the Council already experienced a decrease from 80 to 74 ahead of the 2017 elections. Although I recognise that the Commission has a carefully defined and chosen methodology, I would consider that further reductions are likely to have a serious impact on locality of representation. It also doesn't seem to be justified given the projected slight increase in the total electorate.

Although very clearly not the fault of the Commission, Highland Council is the most extreme example of Scotland's astonishingly outsized local government geography. That Inverness, Fort William, , Ullapool and Thurso are all part of the same as the most local level of genuine governance is frankly absurd, and entirely out of kilter with the European (and likely global) norm.

Obviously, the Commission cannot embark upon a wholesale reform of local authority areas. Having a single ward covering the entire county of However, it should be possible to adopt a more flexible approach which makes some attempt to Sutherland may almost give almost perfect parity, ameliorate the impact of the flaws in Scotland's local government structures. At the very least retaining the current number of councillors, if not moving back towards the 80 councillors elected but it's a truly massive geographic area to In general terms, I do have some concerns about in 2007 and 2012, and redrawing ward boundaries to accommodate would go some way to represent as just a single ward of four councillors. the effective separation of landward Caithness allaying concerns that local representation is being undermined. Whilst my personal preference is generally for from the urban centres in the area. On the one wards electing the greatest number of councillors, hand, it is certainly true that communities in more In doing so it may be necessary (as has occasionally been the case in these proposals) to accept in the interests of proportionality and diversity of rural parts of the county will have distinct needs a degree of deviation from parity for rural wards that gives them slightly more in the way of representation, Sutherland does seem an area from those in the towns. But those towns are representation relative to their population than in Inverness. This should be seen as a way of where under current local government principles clearly the economic centres of the areas taking locality of representation and rural needs seriously, rather than an indication that Inverness' needs aren't as important. an exception may be justified. surrounding them and thus also have a certain level of shared interest. As per comments on the Caithness ward, I am As per comments on the Caithness ward, I am Additionally, a slightly increased number of councillors is also likely to increase the number of 4 Particularly if increasing the number of councillors concerned that a 2-member ward for Wick may concerned that a 2-member ward for Thurso may and 5-member wards, which would have a positive impact on proportionality and on diversity of such that it could be split into one 2-member and When also considering that the two town wards prove to have too negative an impact on the prove to have too negative an impact on the representation. The option to do so has been taken for all of the wards covering Inverness and one 3-member ward, that may prove the better are proposed as 2-member wards, with resulting proportionality and diversity of representation, proportionality and diversity of representation, Nairn, which I welcome, as this will improve proportionality and diversity of representation option in terms of ensuring locality of impact on proportionality and diversity of without necessarily giving enough of an without necessarily giving enough of an across the wards in the area relative to the current division of the city into four 3-member wards. representation. Assuming the distribution of voters representation, I feel it may in this case be better improvement to locality to compensate for it. I improvement to locality to compensate for it. I allows, it would seem sensible for the 3-member to retain something akin to the current division into would therefore support something closer to would therefore support something closer to I recognise that making such a suggestion without providing alternatives in most cases puts rather a lot of expectation on the Commission. As an interested nerd rather than expert in this, ward to cover the more populated east coast of the two wards, one centred on each of Thurso and current arrangements where Wick acts as the current arrangements where Thurso acts as the I've limited my specific comments to the Caithness and Sutherland areas, given their neat county, whilst the 2-member would cover the Wick and incorporating the rural hinterland of each centre for a larger ward covering the south of centre for a larger ward covering the north of correspondence with historic counties. more sparsely populated north and west coasts. as appropriate. Caithness. Caithness. As the ward reduction is in Sutherland where I live I object to that in general! Area to big geographically and there are 2 distinct Sutherland is distinctly different in East Sutherland to the mid, north and west! indices. Living in Dornoch I object to this very Both economically and in almost all other indices. Bundling them together makes strongly. If I lived in the other current ward I no sense! And the geography is too large to cover as one Ward! would be equally objecting!

1) Highland Council is a vast area, with very different and dispersed communities and needs, from the very remote to the very centralised urban. It already has one of the lowest levels of elected representation anywhere in Europe, meaning that individuals and communities are already very distant from the bodies that make decisions about them. So, to reduce the democratic deficit, we need MORE councillors in all communities, not fewer. 2) In some situations, eg where Councillors have an interest or have expressed an opinion, they are unable to take part in considerations of planning or other decisions. This means even fewer councillors can take part in decisions. This is not democratic. 3) The fewer the councillors per Ward, the more concentrated is the politics. In the old days of 'independent' councillors, it could be argued that you were electing the person not the Party. This is no longer the case (if it ever was in reality) and it is only by having more councillors per Ward that a proper reflection of the wide political views of the electorate can be achieved. Fewer councillors per Ward is un- democratic. 4) By increasing the numbers of councillors in Inverness Wards while at the same time, reducing the number of Rural councillors strengthens the already-strong centralisation around the interests of Inverness that Highland Council has been increasingly showing in recent years. This again is un-democratic. 5) There needs to be a more equitable balance between Urban and Rural communities. There needs to be MUCH more devolution of decision-making to local communities, either by having more Highland Councillors and/or by strengthening the powers and resources of Community Councils. Without these moves, Highland Council will become Inverness Council in all but name.

Simply put, there will be insufficient Councillors to cover the enormous area proposed. The remoteness and distances involved will cut access to local Councillors both by residents and Community Councils alike. It will lead to a diminution of basic democratic rights of citizens.

Councillors are already unable to protect the interests of this vast area due to the demographics of the current boundaries.

An urban Councillor from the populated East will have no experience, knowledge or understanding of the issues facing remote communities that are so isolated the SMID score is a meagre 1 on the Govt.'s SIMD deprivation scale

The proposal will compound the current inequalities even further.

Waste of time and money. I can think of many better things to spend money on, child poverty, homes for homeless, more homes for rent. More cash for the NHS and more training places for nurses and doctors. Higher wages for NHS workers and that includes cleaners, porters, admin staff as well as clinical staff. Improved school buildings, more teachers and training places for teachers. Higher wages for all public sector workers. Review of all managerial positions in the Councils, their salaries and expenses. Councillors don't respond to questions at the moment so I would question their accountability. I could on but we need a complete review of the electoral system and an enquiry into MP's costs and expenses and the overall cost of Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. Parity between this (MPs and MSPs) should be the rule. Of course you won't take any notice of this so I don't know why I am wasting my time. It should stay as it is ,we need more councillors not Leave thing the way they are ,we need more representation not less less

The idea of reducing the number of councillors in the area concerned from 6 (2x3) to 4 is utterly contrary to any notions of enhancing democratic repressentation. The outlying 'peripheral' edges of this area already struggle to have a meanful dialogue at Highland Council level and the 33% proposed reduction in representation will do nothing to ameliorate this. In fact it will very clearly make it worse. I have lived and worked in North Sutherland for 11 years and have at various North West Sutherland is very different from some times been regular attendee to Community Council Meetings in Durness, Tongue, of the Eastern districts proposed to be included in Bettyhill and occasionally in Strathy and Melvich. the same ward. It is very difficult to envisage a My general comments is that there is a severe democratic deficit in these areas, way these changes will improve an already dismal with Ward Councillors expected to travel huge distances to attend meetings and situation. events etc. There is also a very real sense that interests in NW Sutherland are I mean, just look at the map! This proposal under-represented in the more urban-focussed Highland Council Region. beggars belief, it is utterly unfair and unworkable These proposals would exascerbate this situation and seem to be totally contrary for constituents, their representatives or their to the spirit of the legislation which has lead to these proposals. supporting officers.

The proposals of the Boundary Commission Review present a reduction in representation for Sutherland, from 6 councillors to 4, while increasing the area they cover by 100%. They fail The proposals of the Boundary Commission Review present a reduction in to use their own criteria of “geographical challenge representation for Sutherland, from 6 councillors to 4, while increasing the area to and the logistical ability” of councillors to serve be covered by 100% They fail to use their own criteria of “geographical challenge their constituency. We reject the proposed and the logistical ability” of councillors to serve their constituency. reduction. I support the name change to include mention of the small Isles but would like to point out that the I am concerned that the Commission's proposals worsen the (already existent) ward name has no particular reference to much of democratic deficit for rural areas. the rest of the area. (e.g. Invergarry where I live) Absolutely disgusting that your trying to reduce numbers!!

The current proposal in the Boundaries Commission Review represents a reduction in democratic representation for the rural areas of Highland, particularly for Sutherland, Caithness and Wester Ross.

The vast geographic area and dispersed population of Sutherland make it difficult for the existing 6 councillors to serve, without any further reduction. Sutherland suffered reduction in councillor representation as a result of previous boundary reviews and it is both unfair and unwise to reduce our representation any further.

Despite the beautiful scenery and other environmental advantages we enjoy, much of Sutherland suffers from limited or seasonal employment, distance from health and social services, poor transport infrastructure (particularly roads), sporadic public transport and limited housing choice. All these issues place an additional burden on the community. The Boundaries Commission has not taken into account that the difficulty in accessing services in a very rural area is far greater than it is for a more populous community, and is on a par with some island communities.

Our residents require as much representation as the rest of Highland; potentially more. The current proposal erodes the democracy of the people of Sutherland and if implemented would Again - The proposal for change in Sutherland is completely further disadvantage the future of this community. at odds with the Boundary Commission’s view that “among the factors we recognise as contributing to the effective and General comments: convenient local government are …the ability of individual Any review by the Boundaries Commission should aim to improve democracy, rather than councillors to carry out their functions including degrade it and constituents should hope for an improvement, or at least the status quo. representation of the residents in their area and the ability of local residents access services and to participate in local The proposal for a reduction in representation for the most rural areas is completely at odds with democracy effectively and conveniently.” the Boundary Commission’s view that; “among the factors we recognise as contributing to the The proposal that Sutherland be reduced from two wards to effective and convenient local government are …the ability of individual councillors to carry out a single large ward, and reduce representation from six their functions including representation of the residents in their area and the ability of local councillors to four is entirely flawed. Sutherland, because of residents access services and to participate in local democracy effectively and conveniently.” its geographic expanse, social and economic fragility and factors which lead to deprivation such as limited access to In the case of Sutherland and other rural constituencies within Highland, the current proposal services, employment and housing, mean is a particularly offers a clear degradation of democracy for voters, with a substantial reduction in their difficult area for councillors to serve. Reducing the representation within the local authority. The review is based simply on electoral numbers, representation or number of councillors by one third and taking no account of geographic difficulties such as a scattered population, difficult road network increasing the area to be covered by 100% means that the and terrain that make it difficult for councillors to serve their constituency. For geographically people of Sutherland will be even further disadvantaged. challenging regions like Sutherland, already experiencing social and economic fragility, any loss Sutherland is approximately 5200kmsquare in area, and to of democratic representation is a further degradation of our community. demonstrate the difficulty in serving this area the following distances and travel times should be considered: Despite the fact that Highland represents one of the largest rural areas in Scotland (according to Dornoch to Durness 77 miles, 2 hours drive* Scottish Government figures only 8% of the people of Scotland live in cities) the current proposal Lochinver to Helmsdale 80 miles, 2 hours drive* unfairly favours the populous regions of Highland and would make Highland Council more and Lairg to Melvich 58 miles, 1 hour 40 minutes drive* more Inverness-centric. (* shortest distances taken from RAC Routeplanner)

This is graphically a huge area. It’s simply not practical to reduce councillor numbers. Think of all the problems there has been with If anything, Sutherland councillors should be increased in number, not reduced! unopened toilets, litter and dirty camping last year!

As a resident in Ward 1, I am concerned about the proposed reduction in democratic representation in this ward. I do not believe sufficient regard has been given to the shear size of the ward, which seems belittled by the scale on the map. The reality is that councillors who may be on the east of the ward have to travel for 2 hours or more to get to the west, so, say, attendance at a community council meeting requires four hours of travel. In addition, there is the continuing issue of a greater eastwards weighting of representation. While yes, that is where the majority of people live, applying the same simplistic electorate-per-councillor logic as is in use in the city of Inverness to sparsely populated rural areas risks a severe democratic imbalance. It could further be argued that the current issues facing the more rural and sparsely populated parts of the Highland area require additional democratic representation, not less, which will surely hasten rural decline. Worse, the converse effect, of more attention paid to the populous centres risks side- lining the less populuos periphery when simplistic metrics to determine democratic representation are used. While it is possible that the real problem is the size and imbalance of the Highland Council area, this review should not exacerbate those issues, which these proposals will surely do.

The basic premise and its consequent remit is flawed. To try to equalise numbers of voters in a given ward appears prima facie to be fair and democratic - it is not. Such a system makes no allowance for geographic factors, creating wards of such enlarged areas that voters may be unable, because of distance or topography, to meet their representatives face to face or to attend public meetings such as hustings; in these aspects it is patently unfair and undemocratic. Whilst an equality of voter numbers is desirable, weighting must be given to geographic differencves in order to to provide fair and just representation of the people. I am concerned that the current proposal further disadvantages the very rural As a resident of north Sutherland I am acutely constituents by reducing representation for these areas. The very rural areas, aware of the difficulties councillors have in those often furthest from Inverness, are suffering from different issues and attempting to represent a dispersed community. problems that are not fully comprehended by people who do not live with them The travelling times between communities in the on a daily basis. To reduce representation for these areas at council will north and west, and the condition of the roads, are exacerbate the issues, and compromise further access to services, and ability for a huge additional burden on councillors and assure the residents' voice and viewpoint to be represented at council. that we are not represented as well as other areas. The Highland Council is already Inverness-centric ( a good example of that being Councillors of course may do their level best, but the management of the Regional City Deal, where the "regional" part of the deal the additional workload ensures that their time is was translated by Council as "Inverness" and the lions share of the cash spent in spread more thinly than it might be in a more and around Inverness. densely populated and compact ward. To consider Simply carving resources and representation up per head of population is increasing the size of the Sutherland ward by 100% simplistic and does not best serve the residents of the Highlands. and to reduce the number of councillors by a third The very rural regions of Highland (Sutherland, Caithness and Wester Ross) are is totally at odds with the aim of improving the already disadvantaged and communities are fragile. The Boundaries Commission democratic experience of the Sutherland voters, should consider the most rural wards as they do the island communities, as they and if implemented will have a devastating effect are more akin socially and economically to the islands than they are to the centres on our communities representation in Highland of population such as the Eastern Seaboard of Ross, Cromarty, Dingwall and Council chambers and inevitably therefore, our Inverness. ability to access services.

Reducing councillors to 4 instead of the 6 we already have, is quite ridiculous for the size of our county. Whilst the East coast has the A9 and therefore connected by roads and some rail, this holds the largest population and with lack of transport ie Bus not easy to connect never mind the rugged west coast which is quite vast. Then you move inland to Bonar/Lairg and here lies more populated area but very very spread out. So, when those, I can only imagine who have never lived in Sutherland, would try and reduce councillors seem like a good idea then I would say think again. Sutherland west to east coasts are extremely different terrains it’s like been in different parts of Sutherland doesn’t require less but more! Scotland than a county!

The sheer size of this area as well as its widespread This proposal to reduce the number of councillors in Sutherland is in fact a numerous small communities means that there are reduction of access to democracy. This is the largest county in Scotland with some so many diverse local issues that 4 representatives of the worst roads and long distances to gain access to political representatives. cannot possibly get there head round these many Furthermore access via the internet is very poor. My area alongside many others rural issues. It could be argued that this area is so has no mobile signal whatsoever, a broadband speed of less than half a meg. and isolated it encounters many of the problems even messaging services are out of range. normally associated with island communities.

I don't agree with the proposals - due to the challenges presented by the remoteness, lack of services and lack of public transport. It is wrong of the Boundaries Commission to suggest to reduce I disagree completely with the suggestions made for Sutherland. our representation and, therefor, our democracy. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a represents a reduction in democratic representation for the rural areas of Highland, particularly for Sutherland, Caithness and Wester Ross.

This is a vast geographic area with a dispersed population. The geography of Sutherland makes the existing representation of the population by 6 councillors very challenging without any further reduction. Sutherland suffered reduction in councillor representation as a result of previous boundary reviews and further reductions will compound the existing difficulties in ensuring meaningful democratic representation. Despite the tourist fanfares Sutherland suffers from many deprivations and constrictions. Employment opportunities, distance from health and social services, poor or non existent public transport generate massive limitations for travel whether it be to a hospital appointment or visit a local elected representative. Poor quality roads and challenging weather compound and limited housing choice all restrict mobility and access. There remains restricted mobile phone access and broadband sufficient to facilitate communication via the internet. The physical realities of four elected representatives being able to commute these areas sufficiently to ensure representation and support for the electorate is unrealistic. The Boundaries Commission has not taken into account that the difficulty in accessing services in a very rural area is far greater than these proposals acknowledge. This proposal for change in Sutherland is completely at odds with the Boundary Commission’s view that “among the factors we recognise as contributing to the effective and convenient local government are …the ability of individual councillors to carry out their functions including representation of the residents in their area and the ability of local residents access services and to participate in local democracy effectively and conveniently.” Sutherland residents require as much representation as the rest of Highland; probably more given the dirth of services and impossibility of accessing those areas where these are available within any reasonable timescale and cost. If we cannot get from the Lochinver area to a Hospital appointment in Inverness by public transport returning home in the same day how on earth can we then be expected to The data on electoral parity completely ignores the The present number of councillors already stretches the workload across the particular demands on councillors in Sutherland. massive distances compared to almost any other part of the UK. This is a matter of The electorate live in villages, the data does not representation and can’t just be looked at in terms of population. Sutherland is take deprivation into account, nor the massive unique and has unique issues. I can’t imagine any resident of the county who distances. This is a blunt instrument, not a useful would prefer a reduced representation. tool. The County is far to vast for any reduction No reduction increase if possible But does any one care enough to read this? Passable Fine Fine Not good enough Fine Fine

Due to the geographical spread of population I believe any reduction in councillor numbers or any other representative number is not sensible. It is irresponsible to propose this and I think it would be damaging for the Sutherland population to have less representatives. It also reduces our democracy and voice in local and central government. I totally oppose the change.

The proposed area is too big for any true democratic representation to take place. Although the area may be considered to be sparsely populated there are considerable differences in each of the areas which demand a localised approach and lobbying to meet the needs of the population. In fact there could well be a need to consider increasing the political support in this area by an increased number of elected councillors and most definitely not by a decrease. I do think that the Highlands has been poorly served by past boundary changes, which has diminished the Proposal will result in a loss of local input into our supposed democracy representation to all elected agencies, Any reduction of councillors in the Highland council area will be detrimental to the fair representation of the people who live within this vast area, Caithness and Sutherland in particular . How on earth do you expect that less representation will benefit the people and the economic development of such an important part of the Highlands. This is just another excuse to cut costs and dumb down the needs of the people in remote and rural areas It is not feasible for Councillors in Rural Areas to I do not agree with the proposal to alter the existing boundaries in Caithness and represent similar numbers of constituents as Sutherland. Councillors in more Urban areas. No further comment No further comment No further comment No further comment

"Ward 1 merges the existing North, West and Central Sutherland ward with the East Sutherland and Edderton ward"

We need the representation we have now, not cutting the numbers back. These areas are huge and covering them takes a great deal of effort from the representatives we have. Making the area even bigger is a nonsense. "The ward retains the historical Caithness- Sutherland county boundary" "The is used to create a more easily identifiable ward boundary" And? Are you looking to convince folk these changes will have no impact and so not trouble More easily identifiable? Why not just put a sign themselves about them? In doing this reduce the up or fly flags on the borders of the wards? Being representation without those living in these areas serious what's issue with folk being able to identify noticing till they find themselves struggling to find a ward borders? When it comes to folk at elections representative to deal or help with their issue they vote in their voting station as described in any because the elected representatives have such an correspondence to do with the election being run, increased area to cover they have to reduce the Scrap these changes, the areas involved need more representation rather than they do not pour over maps to check if their voting time they can give in the numerous areas they have less. station is not within their ward's border. to cover.

The current proposal in the Boundaries Commission Review represents a reduction in democratic representation for the rural areas of Highland, particularly for Sutherland, Caithness and Wester Ross. The vast geographic area and dispersed population of Sutherland make it difficult for the existing 6 councillors to serve, without any further reduction. Sutherland suffered reduction in councillor representation as a result of previous boundary reviews and it is both unfair and unwise to reduce The current proposal in the Boundaries Commission Review represents a our representation any further. reduction in democratic representation for the rural areas of Highland, Additionally, there are many proposals in place, particularly for Sutherland, Caithness and Wester Ross. and much effort being put in, to increase the The vast geographic area and dispersed population of Sutherland make it difficult population and workforce in Sutherland at this for the existing 6 councillors to serve, without any further reduction. Sutherland time. It seems unwise to reduce representation suffered reduction in councillor representation as a result of previous boundary before the results of these efforts have time to be reviews and it is both unfair and unwise to reduce our representation any further. judged. We risk losing representation, due to low Additionally, there are many proposals in place, and much effort being put in, to population now, only to be further increase the population and workforce in Sutherland at this time. It seems unwise underrepresented, should these efforts prove to reduce representation before the results of these efforts have time to be successful. judged. We risk losing representation, due to low population now, only to be Our residents require as much representation as further underrepresented, should these efforts prove successful. the rest of Highland; potentially more. The current Our residents require as much representation as the rest of Highland; potentially proposal erodes the democracy of the people of more. The current proposal erodes the democracy of the people of Sutherland Sutherland and if implemented would further and if implemented would further disadvantage the future of this community. disadvantage the future of this community. These proposals represent a significantly reduced representation in rural areas, creating a democratic deficit in these rural areas of Sutherland, Caithness and Ross-shire. The proposed changes fail to acknowledge Highland context and should be rejected.

Due to re-organisation starting in 1970’s, the size of council areas changed. Highland Council is too big, and local representation has been lost.

Look to Northern Europe for examples of local democratic representation.

Highland Council has lost touch with local people, and people think local authority is not listening and does not represent them.

Anything that takes power away from rural communities is the wrong way to go and we should reject the proposals.

The rural areas under review are socially and economically disadvantaged and are fragile. These proposed changes to our local democratic representation will further deepen the rural / urban divide, resulting in more people being forced out of rural areas. 55% of areas in the highlands are losing population; we need to be re-populating areas by enabling new housing, jobs etc. Areas are losing people because they cannot live here.

Councillors workload is already excessive and if they have even more to do, we risk losing good Councillors. They are expected to be available 24/7; and some have other jobs. Councillor workload is related to people / population in the ward, not who is on the voter register. Economic hit of COVID not seen yet and the social, welfare and health demands will be worse for Councillors in the future. Councillors should be paid more, and staff employed to assist.

We all have a responsibility to encourage and enable local democracy, and these proposals should to be challenged and ultimately rejected.In the case of Sutherland and other rural constituencies within Highland, the current proposal offers a clear degradation of democracy for voters, with a substantial reduction in their representation within the local authority. The review is based simply on electoral numbers, taking no account of geographic difficulties such as a scattered population, difficult road network and terrain that make it difficult for councillors to serve their constituency. For geographically challenging regions like Sutherland, already experiencing social and economic fragility, any loss of democratic representation is a further degradation of our community. Despite the fact that Highland represents one of the largest rural areas in Scotland the current proposal unfairly favours the populous regions of Highland and would make Highland Council more and more Inverness-centric. Many of the problems that exist in the very rural areas do not seem to be acknowledged by the Any review by the Boundaries Commission should aim to improve democracy, centralised powers, seeing only the wonderful rather than degrade it and constituents should hope for an improvement, or at scenery and environment, without understanding least the status quo. the issues that lie within, such as lack of or poor public transport, limited or distant health services, The proposal for a reduction in representation for the most rural areas is reliance on seasonal work, shortage of available completely at odds with the Boundary Commission’s view that; “among the housing, reliance on public sector jobs and factors we recognise as contributing to the effective and convenient local shortage of employment opportunities – all of government are …the ability of individual councillors to carry out their functions which lead inevitably to greater deprivation and a including representation of the residents in their area and the ability of local requirement for better representation, NOT a residents access services and to participate in local democracy effectively and reduction. conveniently.” On this basis the proposals should be rejected. The proposal that Sutherland be reduced from two wards to a single large ward, and reduce In the case of rural constituencies within Highland, the current proposal offers a representation from six councillors to four is clear degradation of democracy for voters, with a substantial reduction in their entirely flawed. Sutherland, because of its representation within the local authority. The review is based simply on electoral geographic expanse, social and economic fragility numbers, taking no account of geographic difficulties such as a scattered and factors which lead to deprivation such as population, difficult road network and terrain that make it difficult for councillors limited access to services, employment and to serve their constituency. housing, mean is a particularly difficult area for

Sutherland is a vast geographic area with a very dispersed population The road network is mostly single track and weather conditions can make navigating the roads in winter extremely difficult. The more populated areas on the East Coast are lucky to have the A9. In good conditions, a road trip from Golspie to Kinlochbervie (approx 74 miles) and back, takes 3 hours. If Tongue included, not that far away, then the trip is a 5hour one. 4 councillors having to cover such a vast area with so many disparate communities is asking for the impossible. Sutherland consists mostly of an aging community, as youth move away for eductional and work related purposes. The younger workforce is mostly limited to seasonal employment, and some apprenticeships in trades. There are great commuting distances to access health and social services, poor transport infrastructure (particularly roads), sporadic public transport (making a car the only feasible option for travel) and limited housing choice. All these issues place an additional burden on the community. The Boundaries Commission has not taken into account that the difficulty in accessing services in a very rural area is far greater than it is for a more populous community in smaller land areas, such as in Caithness (inclusive of Wick and Thurso) Our residents require as much representation as the rest of Highland; potentially more. The current proposal erodes the democracy of the people of Sutherland and if implemented would further disadvantage the future of this community. 4 councillors are not enough people to cover what is a vast sparsely populated area, I would not like to see the boundaries changed at all, we already miss out on so much by way of employment opportunities for our young people and other matters, I am totally against any change whatsoever, to the boundaries as they stand. I would therefore, request the Highland Council looks at these proposed changes again and on the basis of that it would leave many in our area at a democraticly disadvantage.

I am strongly opposed to reducing the number of councillors in Sutherland. The reality is that we need MORE representation for the people of this large and diverse area. An area which is on edge of Europe and has been hit by the the brexit fiasco,which as you will see the EU funded projects when you travel e.g. roads, bridges. All this support lost, yet, this proposal seeks to take us back in time, to when the people of this area, had no voice, therefore support to try and make a I strongly reject reducing the number of councillors. A backward step in better life. Shocking and shameful. Certainly not democracy where the voice of locals will be lost. democratic. N/a N/a N/A N/a

from durness cc the reduction from 6 to 4 in this ward 1 will leave us with no representation for our area of north west sutherland ,a letter has being sent to you by email giving our reasons . We propose the number stays at 6 chair durness cc Proposals for Alteration of Wards One and Five; Sutherland, and East Sutherland. Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland Main proposals: merge Ward 1 and Ward 5, Remove Proposals for Alteration of Wards One and Five; Sutherland, and East Sutherland. Edderton area, Reduce Councillor complement from 6 to 4. Main proposals: merge Ward 1 and Ward 5, Remove Edderton area, Reduce Councillor complement from 6 to 4. The first observation is that historically various incarnations of The Highland Council consisted of one-member wards. The first observation is that historically various incarnations of The Highland Council consisted of Ardgay often elected its own councillor / member who was one-member wards. Ardgay often elected its own councillor / member who was often a local often a local resident. Experience showed that access to this resident. Experience showed that access to this member to ask questions or to suggest actions member to ask questions or to suggest actions was frequent was frequent and cheap in terms of time, travel, and unnecessary pre-explanation of issues. and cheap in terms of time, travel, and unnecessary pre- There was definitely a ‘kent his faither’ element to personal discussions. Even amidst some explanation of issues. There was definitely a ‘kent his disagreement there was trust in both directions as residents were partially known to councillors faither’ element to personal discussions. Even amidst some and councillors knew residents would know how to quickly re-contact their councillor. disagreement there was trust in both directions as residents It could be said the councillors were ‘local-councillors’ as the name suggests. were partially known to councillors and councillors knew This does not mean there was total agreement nor satisfaction. What was evident was local residents would know how to quickly re-contact their representation. councillor. The import of the LGBC-Scotland proposals, for Sutherland at least, is the loss of the local It could be said the councillors were ‘local-councillors’ as element and therefore I suggest the loss of representation. the name suggests. What seems to be measured here is cost instead of benefit. Representation as a valuable entity This does not mean there was total agreement nor or service appears not to have any value in this exercise other than how cheaply local satisfaction. What was evident was local representation. government can be run. Benefits which flow from successful collaboration between residents, The import of the LGBC-Scotland proposals, for Sutherland at councillors and local authority seem measured only in the potential for lowering costs. In fact least, is the loss of the local element and therefore I suggest several instances of such beneficial collaboration several decades ago still offer residents, the loss of representation. visitors, mobile staffs, our local authority and others lasting value. What seems to be measured here is cost instead of benefit. The numbers of councillors per ward or councillors per some population unit posited in the Representation as a valuable entity or service appears not to proposed schema break with an intention to keep ‘representation’ uniform across disparate have any value in this exercise other than how cheaply local areas. Obviously the Island representative ratio attempts to bring more representation and government can be run. Benefits which flow from successful participation to island residents and that seems like a good thing. There is a single unit of collaboration between residents, councillors and local representation suggested for land based distribution of councillors. There may be merit in some authority seem measured only in the potential for lowering areas for these numbers, but the adherence to a very small number of representation ratios is a costs. In fact several instances of such beneficial flawed paradigm. The universal attempt to keep to one representative ratio has been broken with collaboration several decades ago still offer residents, The Island’s Act. There is no longer utility to think no more levels of representation can ever be visitors, mobile staffs, our local authority and others lasting contemplated. value. But, look. Sutherland and Glasgow have vastly different population densities and share the The numbers of councillors per ward or councillors per some representation ratio – or call that Inverness and Sutherland who share a local authority and a population unit posited in the proposed schema break with target representation ratio which now has absolutely no fair meaning at all. an intention to keep ‘representation’ uniform across The most important outcome of this contemplation of changes to local government disparate areas. Obviously the Island representative ratio representation would be to return wards to single member. Re-create the actual partnership of attempts to bring more representation and participation to local authority with a local councillor and their local electors. island residents and that seems like a good thing. There is a single unit of representation suggested for land based Thank you. distribution of councillors. There may be merit in some areas

I live in Thurso and it is a disgrace to even contemplate receiving the number of councillors in the north. If anything we need more not less. Our voice is not heard as more and mire is centralised in Inverness and the central belt. We few like the forgotten ones . Councillors are a vital role in representing our area and numbers should not be decreased here but increased in Inverness.

Sutherland should be a special case, like the islands. The proposal to merge two currently huge wards into one vast ward is unacceptable. I live in one half of this proposed vast area - Ward 1 NW & Central Sutherland - geography ( area 4867Km2 )- population ( 6139) a sparsely populated area (1.3 persons per Km2 ). It is obvious that the proposal to service it with only 4 councillors is absurd. Currently I have access to three councillors. These three councillors live 80, 56 and 20 miles from my village. How available can they be? Would it be acceptable for someone living in Glasgow City to have their councillors living in Dumfries or Whitburn? These proposals using a formula that may fit urban areas will only make the Sutherland situation worse. When Sutherland was last a whole county, how many single member wards did it have? That is the last time I remember having meaningful, accessible This should have been an opportunity to improve representation which in representation. Highland, particularly in Sutherland, has been ‘disconnected’ since Regionalisation The current arrangements are broken. Bring but the proposals will do the opposite. These proposals will result in the forward proposals which will improve degrading of the already poor representation for Sutherland residents. representation not further reduce it. Think again. And an alternative proposal to redress the democratic And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the democratic imbalance in Highland And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the democratic And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the And an alternative proposal to redress the imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region. democratic imbalance in Highland region.

The concept of how much democracy an individual is The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual is entitled to is very The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual is The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual The concept of how much democracy an individual entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that everyone is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that difficult. What is for sure is that everyone should have the same access to is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that is entitled to is very difficult. What is for sure is that should have the same access to representation and opportunity to engage. If one person cannot engage then the everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to representation and opportunity to engage. If one person cannot engage then everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to representation everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to everyone should have the same access to system is not democratic. representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one the system is not democratic. representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one and opportunity to engage. If one person cannot engage representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one representation and opportunity to engage. If one person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not then the system is not democratic. person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not person cannot engage then the system is not The system we have provides equality of representation by democratic. democratic. The system we have provides equality of representation by providing a given democratic. democratic. democratic. democratic. democratic. democratic. democratic. democratic. democratic. providing a given number of representatives (in this case number of representatives (in this case councillors) for a given population. The system we have provides equality of representation councillors) for a given population. This would work well for The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of This would work well for an even distribution of population. More than The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of by providing a given number of representatives (in this The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of The system we have provides equality of an even distribution of population. More than anywhere else representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of anywhere else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest variation in representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of case councillors) for a given population. This would work representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of representation by providing a given number of in the UK the Highland region has the greatest variation in representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given population density. representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given well for an even distribution of population. More than representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given representatives (in this case councillors) for a given population density. population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even anywhere else in the UK the Highland region has the population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even population. This would work well for an even This variation in population density causes a democratic distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere This variation in population density causes a democratic deficit for those living distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere greatest variation in population density. distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere distribution of population. More than anywhere deficit for those living in remote rural areas. If your else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest in remote rural areas. If your representative has to drive two hours to visit else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest else in the UK the Highland region has the greatest representative has to drive two hours to visit you, compared variation in population density. variation in population density. you, compared to a ten minute walk in urban areas, you will not get the same variation in population density. variation in population density. variation in population density. variation in population density. variation in population density. This variation in population density causes a democratic variation in population density. variation in population density. variation in population density. variation in population density. to a ten minute walk in urban areas, you will not get the representation, despite the representatives best efforts. The size of and deficit for those living in remote rural areas. If your same representation, despite the representatives best This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a nature of Sutherland means that anyone who wishes to stand for the This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a representative has to drive two hours to visit you, This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a This variation in population density causes a efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means that democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural Highland Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Even today the democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural compared to a ten minute walk in urban areas, you will democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural democratic deficit for those living in remote rural anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Even today the ability areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two ability to drive should not be a bar to democratic office. With the size of areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two not get the same representation, despite the areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two areas. If your representative has to drive two to drive should not be a bar to democratic office. With the hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk Sutherland and the lack of provision of public transport there is no other hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk representatives best efforts. The size of and nature of hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk hours to visit you, compared to a ten minute walk size of Sutherland and the lack of provision of public in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same option. This is not a requirement for those in urban areas. in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same Sutherland means that anyone who wishes to stand for in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same in urban areas, you will not get the same transport there is no other option. This is not a requirement representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best the Highland Council for Sutherland needs to be able to representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best representation, despite the representatives best for those in urban areas. efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means There is provision for the Boundary Commission to take this democratic efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means drive. Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means efforts. The size of and nature of Sutherland means that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland deficit into account, so the balance could be redressed. The residents of that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland and the that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland that anyone who wishes to stand for the Highland There is provision for the Boundary Commission to take this Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this regard by the Boundary Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. lack of provision of public transport there is no other Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. Council for Sutherland needs to be able to drive. democratic deficit into account, so the balance could be redressed. The residents of Sutherland feel that they have Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Commission not taking the nature of Sutherland into account. Not only do we Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar option. This is not a requirement for those in urban Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar Even today the ability to drive should not be a bar been let down in this regard by the Boundary Commission to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland wish for the Commission’s recommendations to be rejected but feel that to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland areas. to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland to democratic office. With the size of Sutherland not taking the nature of Sutherland into account. Not only do and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there more, not fewer, councillors would be a more appropriate recommendation. and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there and the lack of provision of public transport there we wish for the Commission’s recommendations to be is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for Redressing the existing democratic imbalance between urban and remote is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for There is provision for the Boundary Commission to take is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for is no other option. This is not a requirement for rejected but feel that more, not fewer, councillors would be those in urban areas. those in urban areas. rural populations. those in urban areas. those in urban areas. those in urban areas. those in urban areas. those in urban areas. this democratic deficit into account, so the balance could those in urban areas. those in urban areas. those in urban areas. those in urban areas. a more appropriate recommendation. Redressing the be redressed. The residents of Sutherland feel that they existing democratic imbalance between urban and remote There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There exists an opportunity to do much more to redress the unequal yoking There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to have been let down in this regard by the Boundary There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to There is provision for the Boundary Commission to rural populations. take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the of accessible rural, remote rural and urban areas. Within Highland Council take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the Commission not taking the nature of Sutherland into take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the take this democratic deficit into account, so the There exists an opportunity to do much more to redress the balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of there exists a chasm so wide between the needs of remote rural and urban balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of account. Not only do we wish for the Commission’s balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of balance could be redressed. The residents of unequal yoking of accessible rural, remote rural and urban Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this needs that cannot be bridged by merely tweaking the number of councillors. Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this recommendations to be rejected but feel that more, not Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Sutherland feel that they have been let down in this Scrap Highland council altogether areas. Within Highland Council there exists a chasm so wide None None None None None None regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the Our objections to the Commissions proposal is that it widens that chasm. The regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the fewer, councillors would be a more appropriate regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the regard by the Boundary Commission not taking the Isle of Raasay Community Council We find the proposed change for the Eilean a’ Cheo ward, which will reduce the number of councillors from 4 to 3, to be utterly bizarre and intolerable. Legislation designed to help islands is being actively used to make things more difficult for people who live on islands. By it’s very name, it is obvious that this is an island ward. It also includes the Island of Raasay. Island communities should, we understand, be expected to have one councillor for 800 residents. You propose that one councillor should serve more than 2,800 residents – on an island. This shows a striking lack of concern for our island communities as well as a total lack of understanding of island life. It would appear that someone sitting with a calculator in an urban setting has assumed that all of the Highland Council area is pretty much the same. The Government has recognised that the geography of scattered island communities makes it much more difficult for a councillor to adequately represent all their constituents than for those with mainland wards. This has not been taken into consideration when our island community of about 170 people is treated as if it is the same as Inverness. Inverness does not have to deal with Calmac deciding that they’ll stop bring goods to the island. Inverness has not seen its roads reduced to dirt tracks in the last 10 years. Not only have you failed to recognize that this is an island ward, but you have also failed to appreciate that most of Skye is 100 miles or more from Inverness and its remoteness, in addition to its island status, adds another layer of complexity to everything. The logistics of travel, of getting goods and materials, of healthcare are all much more precarious than on the East Coast, which are close to centres of population. There should be no reduction in the number of councillors in the Eilean a’ Cheo ward. The geography they have to deal with, along with the complexities faced by the residents together with The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 should make that abundantly clear. Chair, Raasay Community Council Unjust reduction. Proposal is not enough for geographical area. 2 additional positions required to meet basic needs

I agree the county of Sutherland should retain its I register an interest as a former Highland Councillor from 2007 - 2017. I ancients borders. Most of the population resides represented Ward 1. I retired at 68 because of driving fatigue, covering more than on the coasts, north, east and west - the only 30,000 miles per year. It could be proved that your proposals continue to be proposed ward outside the islands with such a illegal, unequal and unjust. marine responsibility. 4 councillors to represent Councillors representing smaller-sized by hectarage wards are treated the same 2000 sq. miles, twice the size of Luxembourg, an as those representing larger-sized wards by hectarage. Some remote and rural EU nation, is unjustifiable. Highland Council covers wards contain around twenty community councils: it is not possible therefore to one-third Scotland mainland, plus the marine area. visit each of those each month in order to represent them at higher levels. Urban Also inequitable. wards can contain one. No wonder some community councils fail to form, and If Orkney and Shetland can have separate councils many others never have an election. just managing a bare quorum. Driving 80 then so might Highland: remote and rural, and City miles plus late at night on single track roads in all weathers means on 0.7 FTE, I of Inverness plus Moray Firth. The ethos of the would only have 8 hours non driving time. Island Act should guide the number of councillors The proposals mention the Islands Act but they do not even remotely consider for Sutherland as the county will be outside the remote issues. The proposals will therefore encourage further centralisation in Inverness Hinterland, but I suspect 8 would be and around City of Inverness area to the detriment of people in the Highlands. effective and efficient. Issues are just as Nor have lessons from the pandemic been learnt. If there's to be new ways of multifarious as urban Highland, regardless of working, I suggest the committee leads. The proposals have shown how remote electorates. Turnouts are usually higher in rural is our governance. Please start again. areas. The Broadford and Strath Community Council (BSCC) discussed the public consultation document related to the Boundary Commissions review of the number of councillors, wards and ward boundaries and their names in Highland council area. BSCC members are at a loss to understand the rationale behind the reasons and the proposal to reduce the number of councillors, representing the Eilean a' Cheò (Skye and Raasay) Ward, from four to three. A reduction in councillors will have a significant detrimental impact on rural communities such as we have here in Skye. Councillors will be required to cover even larger geographic areas with no reduction in the number of community councils, schools or community groups and initiatives seeking engagement with their local councillor, resulting in a democratic deficit for the communities in question. We note that review is being undertaken because the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 requires a review of any council area that has occupied Islands as part of its area. The Islands Bill is intended to reflect the importance of the Scottish Islands and the challenges they face. Members of this Community Council took part in the Islands Bill consultation process, with a full and genuine hope that eventually the Act would empower and strengthen the way our islands are represented at all levels and that it would benefit and enhance the way of life including the infrastructure of our island. We also note the Commission’s proposal to take account of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and their statement that they retain Eilean a' Cheò as an island ward. We would therefore expect councillor representation, for the Eilean a' Cheò ward, to be on an equal basis with the councillor to electorate representation in the wards on all other Scottish island communities, who enjoy the same status under the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. What we see in the proposal, is a massive discrepancy in the number of councillors proposed for Eilean a' Cheò and those agreed with our closest Given the size and difficult geographical area the Highland council covers, any island neighbours, with the Western Isles electorate being allocated one reduction in councillor representation, in the Islands and rural areas, will have a councillor to 774 electors, Orkney one to 811 and Shetland one to 770. damaging impact and weaken the strength of fair and equitable representation at Given that the Commission have agreed in their proposals, to retain Eilean a' the seat of power in Inverness. The Broadford and Strath Community Council Cheò as an island ward, the proposal is to reduce representation from four to have focused our main comments on our own Island ward - Eilean a' Cheò – and three councillors, leaving the isle of Skye and Raasay with the electorate being these comments have been posted under the section for Ward 10. allocated one councillor to 2860 electors, is difficult to comprehend. There appears to be little or no electoral parity in that conclusion and could be Chairman considered as being a discriminatory proposal in terms of the Islands Act. Broadford and Strath Community Council. The Eilean a' Cheò ward, with at least four other inhabited offshore islands, is Dores and Essich Community does not support the proposed division of the current Aird and Loch Ness ward along a seemingly arbitrary line on the centre of Loch Ness. There is currently synergy of demographics, issues and interests on each side of the Loch and (other than balancing out the electoral numbers) there appears to be no logic to splitting the ward in this way. The proposal to include the current Ness-side ward with our area to form the proposed new Ward 15 is a matter for concern, in that the interests of urban Inverness and our rural/ semi rural area are unlikely to be aligned and the ‘pull’ of population numbers on councillors’ time is likely to work to our The concept of regulating electoral parity is acknowledged but regard needs to be disadvantage. Our Community Council area already given to the the nature of the area being served: Councillors in rural areas will includes part of the Ness-side ward and, in our have to deal with different logistical issues (remoteness, distance, weather experience, attendance at our Community Council influence) to those in urban/ semi-urban areas. Mixing urban and rural areas may meetings and involvement in its business by assist with optimising electoral parity from a statistical perspective but, in elected representatives for the Ness-side ward has practice, may result in rural areas being under-represented compared to the been minimal. In summary, we would prefer the current position. The proposal to make an Inverness North West status quo to prevail. Ward incorporating the Current Inverness West Ward plus part of Inverness Central (Merkinch, Dalneigh) would see an increased collective electoral population of 14,000 and a reduction in Councillors of -1.

This we feel would both dilute the effectiveness of Councillors serving the areas and not enable a true representation of the electorate in Inverness West Area, which is largely residential and combining part of Inverness Central which has an entirely different demographic of electors & social issues would negatively impact both areas.

We would propose that the Canal be used as the Inverness Ward Boundary rather than the River Ness - using the canal is an obvious & natural boundary and would largely keep the current boundary intact along with the Community Councils serving residents all within one boundary,.

Using the Canal as a natural boundary would give Inverness West an electorate of a little over 6000 over several communities, served by 2 Cllrs & 2 Community Councils (covering Scorguie, , Kinmylies, , Highfield, & Westercraigs)

Dalneigh, Merkinch to remain in Central Ward or a new ward incorporating Merkinch, Dalneigh Ward along with Ballifeary. This would see an electorate of around 8,000 and served by 3 Cllrs .

Ballifeary is currently incorporated into Inverness West, however there are no residential properties within Ballifeary, which are sited within the current IInverness am disappointed West Boundary at the reduction - and so init wouldcouncillors be for my area initially. However the restructuring of the Boundary proposed realigns the current Inverness West Ward with part of Central Ward and i do not feel this is a good decision for the communities involved.

Using the river as a boundary will make an electoral of 14000 - when with Highland Council - Inverness Urban neighbourhoods varying enormously. The proposal would mean that due to including Merkinch, & Dalneigh into an Inverness West , which are areas with higher numbers of electorate depravation - together with a reduction in councillor numbers , will almost certainly mean there will naturally be a higher focus on these area, which will negatively detract from the current Inverness West 13 Area.

Having consulted with my own neighbourhood (Muirtown) and consulted with our Community Council (Muirtown CC) It is very clear there is a high level of concern and feel that keeping Inverness West to West of the Canal would be a more sensible option. and a more workable solution.

This would keep the current Inverness West Ward 13 intact, removing only the part of Ballifeary (which has no actual residential properties in the part contained within current Inverness West Ward 13) Restructuring the boundary to West of the Caledonian Canal results in a population, of around 6000, an area of extremely low crime rates and similarly low levels of economic & social depravation.

We already have an excellent relationship with our elected Highland Councillors and have done for The current proposal in the Boundaries Commission Review represents a reduction in democratic representation for the rural areas of Highland, particularly for Sutherland, Caithness and Wester Ross. The current proposal in the Boundaries Commission Review represents a The vast geographic area and dispersed population of reduction in Sutherland makes it difficult for the democratic representation for the rural areas of Highland, particularly for existing 6 councillors to serve, without any further reduction. Sutherland has suffered Sutherland, reduction in councillor representation as a result of previous Caithness and Wester Ross. boundary reviews and it is both The vast geographic area and dispersed population of Sutherland makes it difficult unfair and unwise to reduce our representation even further. for the existing 6 councillors to serve, without any further reduction. Sutherland Despite the beautiful scenery and other environmental has suffered reduction in councillor representation as a result of previous advantages we enjoy, much of boundary reviews and it is both unfair and unwise to reduce our representation Sutherland suffers from limited or seasonal employment, even further. distance from health and social services, poor transport infrastructure (particularly roads), Despite the beautiful scenery and other environmental advantages we enjoy, sporadic public transport andlimited housing choice. All much of these issues bring an additional burden on the community. Sutherland suffers from limited or seasonal employment, distance from health The and social services, poor transport infrastructure (particularly roads), sporadic Boundaries Commission has not taken into account that the public transport and limited housing choice. All these issues bring an additional difficulty in accessing services burden on the community. The Boundaries Commission has not taken into in a very rural area is far greater than those for a more account that the difficulty in accessing services in a very rural area is far greater populous community, and is on a par than those for a more populous community, and is on a par with some island with some island communities. We require as much representation as the rest of Highland, communities. potentially more. The current We require as much representation as the rest of Highland, potentially more. The proposal erodes the democracy of the people of Sutherland current proposal erodes the democracy of the people of Sutherland and would and would further disadvantage further disadvantage the future of our community. the future of our community. ********* *../... ?? create wards in the Highlands that better reflect communities whilst maintaining those wards that are satisfactory. Particularly emphasis is given to the ability to improve the wards in Ross & Cromarty and Inverness.

This consultation includes a number of alternative proposals which are listed under the ward that best covers the relevant communities. In summary, these are the proposals (in the order of their recommended ward number):

1) Thurso and North-West Caithness (4 members) 2) Wick and East Caithness (4 members) Whilst it is acknowledged that this ward is basically 3) Sutherland (5 members) identical to the existing Inverness South ward, this 4) Tain, Edderton, and the Seaboard Villages (3 members) This proposal is opposed. The expansion of an proposal is opposed. This ward is a Frankenstein's 5) Cromarty Firth (4 members) urban ward to include a giant rural area destroys monster of an electoral division which reflects the 6) Black Isle (3 members) the coherence of interest that exists within each of constraints placed on the creation of wards by the 7) Dingwall and Seaforth (5 members) 8) Wester Ross and Lochalsh (3 members) the previous wards that covered these areas whilst original provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) 9) Eilean a' Cheò (3 members) the boundary within Inverness continues an Act 2004. This review presents an opportunity to create 10) Caol, Mallaig, and the Small Isles (3 members) This proposal is opposed. The clumsy and illogical irrational and unnecessary division of the Hilton a ward that better reflects communities as they exist on 11) Fort William and Ardnamurchan (4 members) division of the community of Hilton is perpetuated community. the ground. 12) (4 members) when this review presents an opportunity to It is acknowledged that this proposal is an 13) Nairnshire (4 members) rectify that anomaly. Compass point names for city It is proposed that this ward be replaced with a 5- It is proposed that this ward be replaced by a 4-member improvement of the existing Culloden & Ardersier 14) South Loch Ness and Ardersier (3 members) wards are also strongly opposed as being member ward named 'Inverness Ness-side' that ward named 'Inverness Culloden' that consists of the ward. However, to provide a coherent set of 15) Aird and North Loch Ness (3 members) 16) Inverness Canal (5 members) unhelpful and unnecessary. consists of the area covered by the community city east of the A9. This would be coterminous with the proposals for Inverness, it is proposed that this 17) Inverness Ness-side (5 members) The boundary and representation of this ward are councils of Lochardil, Holm, Slackbuie, and Hilton, & Westhill, Smithton, Culloden, and Balloch ward be replaced with a 3-member ward named 18) Inverness Millburn (5 members) The boundary and name of this ward is supported. supported. The western boundary of the existing It is instead proposed that this ward be replaced Milton & Castle Heather. This ward would cover community council areas and would include all of the 'Ardersier & South Loch Ness' that has the 19) Inverness Culloden (4 members) Consisting entirely and only of the county of Inverness West ward and the River Ness mark with a 5-member ward called 'Inverness Millburn' that part of the city within the catchment area of catchment of Culloden Academy that lies within the city. boundary of the entirety of the former Inverness Sutherland and using that name produces a ward familiar boundaries for a city ward and this ward which consists of the area covered by the Inverness Royal Academy. District that is outwith the City of Inverness and is It is acknowledged that these proposals would retain a 74-member council. However, it is which is recognisable and easily identifiable. would contain the entire catchment area of community councils of Crown & City Centre, This proposed ward would have electorates of 10,324 to the east of Loch Ness. contended this would enable better representations in Caithness and Sutherland. It is Inverness High School and the city catchment of (except that part east of the A9), The landward communities are included within the (2018) and 11,887 (2024) which would be 1.2% (2018) commented that the proposed alternative wards in the Inverness area do not change the number of councillors allocated by the Commission to that area and so the Inverness counter-proposals It is proposed that the representation of the ward Charleston Academy within a single ward. This is & , and & Milton of Leys. proposed 'Ardersier and South Loch Ness' ward over and 15% (2024) over parity. It is recognised that This proposed ward would have an electorate of could be considered separately to debates about any other area of the Highlands. by increased by 1 so that the ward elects 5 This proposal is opposed. It is proposed that the This proposal is opposed. There is no good reason This proposal is opposed. As mentioned in the the most sensible way to represent these This creates a ward almost entirely matches the mentioned under the section for Culloden and the projected electorate would be significant beyond the 5,530 (2018) and 7,770 (2014) which would be councillors rather than the proposed 4. It is current Caithness wards be retained for the for the radical redrawing of the Caithness wards response to the Wick ward, there is no good The boundary and representation of this ward is communities using the current legislation and catchment area of Millburn Academy that lies Ardersier. guidance. However, it is contended that this deviation is 27.7% under and then on parity. It is contended The Commission is also urged to use a more helpful sequence of numbering of wards when acknowledged that doing so will result in a ward reasons given in the Thurso and Wick sections of and the resultant decrease in representation this reason for the upheaval proposed to local supported. Edderton belongs in an Easter Ross The boundary and representation of this proposal guidance. within the city whilst keeping identifiable little different from that in the Commission's proposals that the giant increase in electorate expected as formulating its proposal. The Highland Council uses area committees as a key part of its decision- that will be 5.4% under (2018) and 9.2% (2024) this consultation. would produce. representation in Caithness. ward instead of being attached clumsily to This proposal is supported. The inclusion of the is supported. It is however proposed that the neighbourhoods intact. This proposed ward would have electorates of for Culloden and Ardersier (which covers much of this part of the Tornagrain development justifies the This boundary and representation of this ward are making and the current haphazard numbering makes ward numbers clumsy for defining areas. under parity. However, it is contended that this Sutherland. However, it is suggested that the entire Black Isle within a single ward produces a name be changed to 'Aird and North Loch Ness' to However, the use of compass point names for 11,804 (2018) and then 12,386 (2024) which area) and the Black Isle (which deviates even further). It original significant deviation from parity and the supported. However, it is proposed that the name Wards should be grouped by area committee (i.e. Caithness> Sutherland> Easter Ross> Mid would justifiable given the special geographical Should the Commission decide to establish this It is instead proposed that the existing 4-member It is instead proposed that the existing 4-member inclusion of 'Easter Ross' within the name of this much better unit of representation than an artificial acknowledge the existence of those communities wards in Inverness is strongly opposed. Such This proposed ward would have an electorate of would be 7.4% under and 4.1% under parity. This is suggested that, should the electorate increase by the representation of this ward by 3 members rather be change to 'Nairnshire' to acknowledge the fact Ross> Wester Ross and Lochalsh> Skye> Lochaber> Badenoch & Strathspey> Nairnshire> circumstances produced by the sparsity of ward, it should be named 'Landward Caithness' as Wick and East Caithness ward be retained. It is Thurso and North-West Caithness ward be This proposal is supported. This ward better ward creates confusion as that name usually refers This proposal is supported. The expansion of the division of the peninsula that would be necessary that were not part of the historic Aird area. 'North' generic suffixes make it unnecessarily difficult to 12,154 (2018) and then 12,092 (2024). These creates an electoral division which consists of the degree predicted, then an interim review to increase this than 2. This alternative proposal maintains the this ward has the same boundary of the county of Landward Inverness> City of Inverness). population across the ward and would still be the previous ward on these boundaries was and to noted that this ward would be 1.1% under (2018) retained. The existing ward is 1.6% over (2018) represents the communities of common interest in to the area covered by this ward and the Cromarty existing ward to include those settlements that to better achieve parity of electorate. The This proposal is not opposed. It seems strange that a review undertaken is chosen to mirror the recognised area of South identify the communities represented by the ward. electorates would be 4.7% under and then 6.4% entirety of identifiable neighbourhoods and does ward to elect 5 members (and therefore to reduce it to coherence of the rural hinterland of Inverness that that name. The 'Nairn & Cawdor' name reflects the The Commission is advised that the electorates mentioned in each alternative proposal are within the ±10% tolerance accepted by the recognise the fact that both Thurso and Wick are in and 6.6% under (2024) parity and that this would and 5.1% under (2024) parity and this is clearly Wester Ross and enables a more sensible Dingwall This proposal is supported. The status quo is a Firth ward. The alternative name of 'Tain, look towards Dingwall, but were previously Commission is congratulated in exercising its following the Islands Act sees a group of includes have its representation This proposal is supported in its entirety, including Loch Ness included in the name of the counter- The name 'Inverness Canal' for this ward is under quota. These deviations from parity are not confuse the distinct interests of urban and 8% under parity) would be the best solution to any shares communities of issue and interest whilst change to the ward at the last boundary review Given the special geographic circumstances based on postcode data supplied, but it is recognised that minor errors will have been made due guidance. Caithness, but outwith this ward. be within guidance. within guidance. and Seaforth ward. sensible ward which meets all the relevant criteria. Edderton, and the Seaboard Villages' is proposed. excluded is welcomed. flexibility in this proposal. reduced; however, the rationale given is understandable. the change of name. proposal covering the corresponding area. Invernessproposed. West Community Council does not comfortably within those within guidance. rural residents. problem of underrepresentation. maintaining recognisable boundaries. and should be changed. This proposal is supported in its entirety. present, this proposal is supported. believe that the commission proposal for 5 Councillors to represent this significantly enlarged Ward 13 will provide effective representation for the residents of this ward ( and particularly those in the Inverness West Community) . Further, we strongly support the counter proposal made by Highland Councillor Alex Graham which is to split the proposed mega ward 13 with the North West segment having 2 Councillors and the area East of the Canal 3 Councillors.

The Community Councillors came to this decision for the following reasons :

* Residents must be able to identify clearly with the Councillors who represent them and to be able to hold them to account for their decisions. With 5 Councillors being elected for one mega area, there is a real risk that residents will have an impression that they are being represented by a "quango" rather than individually elected officials with whom they can establish a personal relationship.

* The interests and needs of the two areas This proposal was re-visited by Inverness West Community Council at a scheduled identified by Councillor Graham are distinctive and online meeting on 21/01/21. The Chair has previously submitted comments on will consequently come with different priorities behalf of the Community Council on 15/15/20 and all comments made at that time which may require different solutions and levels of remain valid and fully supported by the Community Council. attention. However , a counter proposal has been received from Highland Councillor Alex Graham to the proposed commission boundary changes affecting Ward 13 which * The Highland region has a long and successful is in part served by Inverness West Community Council. tradition of electing truly independent Councillors It was therefore appropriate for the Community Council to consider this counter to manage local affairs with local solutions without proposal and assess its merits. Following debate, there was unanimous view reference or obligation to national party politics. from those present at the meeting that the proposal from Councillor Graham had Establishing mega wards, makes it much more significant advantages for the community compared to the new Commission convenient for political parties of all persuasions to Proposals. target their superior resources and hoover up A specific comment has therefore been lodged for Ward 13. Dear Sir/Madam, votes on a buy one get one free basis. This maybe Upon hearing of the boundaries commission's proposal to reduce The Highland Council's councillors from 74 to 72, I'm saddened to hear that Eilean a' Cheo/Skye & Raasay has been proposed to lose one of our four councillors. While this would reduce the ratio of councillors per capita for the Highland council from 1:3183 to 1:3271, Skye would go from approx 1:2502 to 1:3336, leaving Skye significantly less represented than the Highland Council area as a whole. By comparison, 3 of the other 4 council areas with significant island communities in the North of Scotland (Not including North Ayrshire or ) have much better representation per capita than Skye & Raasay does: Orkney: Approx 1:1050 Shetland: Approx 1:1040 Na h-Eileanan Siar: Approx 1:865 These numbers show our other island communities have far better representation than Skye & Raasay. Na h-Eileanan Siar with the best representation of all, currently have approx 3 times the councillor per capita than Skye & Raasay. Losing a councillor is Skye & Raasay would bring that number very close to 4 times the representation. While Na h-Eileanan Siar have very low population density (23 sq mile), as opposed to Orkney (52 sq mile) and Shetland (41 sq mile), I understand that the Highland council area has very similarly low population density (24 sq mile). The Isle of Skye & Raasay however has even lower population density of 15 persons per square mile. This makes things significantly more challenging, especially when considering Skye & Raasay's unique geography. This means ratio of councillor per square mile in the aforementioned island communities are as follows: Orkney: Approx 1:18 sq miles Shetland: Approx 1:25 sq miles Na h-Eileanan Siar: Approx 1:38 sq miles While the Highland Council area as a whole has representation of approx 1:124 sq miles, Skye & Raasay currently only has 1:160 sq miles. This is higher land mass to cover per councillor than the Highland council as a whole and significantly higher than the other island communities. The idea of reduction from 4 councillors to 3 would leave Skye & Raasay at 1 councillor per 213 square miles, approximately 12 times the land per councillor than in Orkney by comparison. While many of the population numbers above aren't live data, they may be

The proposed reduction in the number of councillors for the Eilean a' Chèo is something I find quite difficult to understand and I cannot see that your reasoning makes any sense. The projected population increase for between 2016 and 2041 is +11.8%, with Portree itself having seen a 4% increase already between 2011 and 2016. A reduction in the number of councillors will only have a detrimental impact on local democracy as there will be the same number of community councils, schools, community groups and local initiatives for them to deal with. Add in the geographic issues (it takes at least an hour to drive from one end of the ward to the other and there is also the fact that to reach the island of Raasay requires a 25-minute ferry journey), the perilous state of the roads and little public transport, it is impossible to see how this proposed decrease would improve local democracy and representation on Highland Council, placing the rural communities within this ward at an higher democratic disadvantage than already exists. If we look at the issue of parity, while this should be one in 800 for island wards, in the Highland Council area this is ignored and parity is one in 2,800 residents across the whole council area. Even taking this into account, the number of councillors for this ward should still equate to over four (on island parity it would be approx 12!), based on a population of approx 13,000. This does not even take into account the huge population increase this ward experiences every year from the influx of tourists. Skye is the second busiest tourist destination in Scotland and this causes challenges with an increased requirement for support from our elected representatives. Increasing the number of councillors representing the population dense area of Inverness and its surroundings should not be at the expense of the rural parts of this huge council area (an area bigger than many countries!). The perception that Highland Council is already biased in favour of Inverness will only be exacerbated. I urge you to reject this proposed reduction, not just for this ward but for all the rural wards in Highland Council. Isle of Raasay resident

Dear Sirs, Reverting to the landward Caithness Ward would Reverting to a town ward would be welcome IF Reverting to a town ward would be welcome IF Please find the following link to the Change.org petition on the Boundary be welcome IF the number of Councillors were the number of Councillors were maintained. The the number of Councillors were maintained. The Commission for Scotland's proposals for the Highland Region. maintained. ward changing to a two Member ward will have ward changing to a two Member ward will have the unfortunate consequences of creating a deeply the unfortunate consequences of creating a deeply This petition rejects the Commission's proposals, in their entirety, on the grounds Caithness Councillors are already stretched with divided ward that will be most likely fought on divided ward that will be most likely fought on of; reduced democratic representation, the unworkable nature of the new local their casework, attendance at statutory board / national issues and not local ones. national issues and not local ones. authority wards and the increased pressure on elected representatives to attend stakeholder groups. The further reduction of non-Council related duties including but not limited to statutory bodies and local Councillors, which has already had a detrimental Caithness Councillors are already stretched with Caithness Councillors are already stretched with Skye Councillors are already stretched with their casework, attendance at groups. impact on the region in 2017 will further their casework, attendance at statutory board / their casework, attendance at statutory board / statutory board / stakeholder groups. The further reduction of Councillors, exacerbate this issue. stakeholder groups. The further reduction of stakeholder groups. The further reduction of which has already had a detrimental impact on the region in 2017 will further https://www.change.org/p/local-government-boundary-comission-for-scotland- Councillors, which has already had a detrimental Councillors, which has already had a detrimental exacerbate this issue. reject-the-boundary-commissions-proposals-for-rural-highland?redirect=false This ward is unworkable for both constituents and This ward is unworkable for both constituents and impact on the region in 2017 will further impact on the region in 2017 will further elected Members. elected Members. exacerbate this issue. exacerbate this issue. The Islands Bill, which promised greater protections for remote and rural The above has been signed by excess of 1,075 individuals, the vast majority of communities is creating the completely opposite effect. which live, reside and work in the areas affected by these proposals. Removing two well-functioning (and already It is again a negative consequence of this review It is again a negative consequence of this review It is again a negative consequence of this review stretched) Council wards and a reduction in which has been enacted by the Islands Bill, which which has been enacted by the Islands Bill, which which has been enacted by the Islands Bill, which The reduction in Councillors, despite being an islands in every respect is not Kindest regards, Councillors is not in keeping with merits of the promised greater protections for remote and rural promised greater protections for remote and rural promised greater protections for remote and rural acceptable to the local community and further deepens the divide between Struan Mackie Islands Bill, which promised greater protections for communities but is being instead would have the communities but is being instead would have the communities but is being instead would have the the City of Inverness and their commuting belt which now holds the Member of the Highland Council for Thurso and Northwest Caithness remote and rural communities. completely opposite effect. completely opposite effect. completely opposite effect. No comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. supermajority of Councillors within the Council. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment. No Comment.

Again, you do not clearly show how many Why have you not stated clearly that this new councillors will be lost from Caithness. The The review is discriminating against rural Highland region in favour of urban ward will result in a decrease of 2 councillors? reinstatement of landward makes a mockery of the Highland Region. It has not taken into consideration the geographical or With 4 councillors representing an entire ward this decision to axe it in the first place. Since 2017, the community differences within the region and is based purely on population size, people will be left without representation as county will have lost 3 councillors; you are numbers. The entire review should be halted. There should be no increase in the distances are too vast or the councillors will proposing to return it to a 3 ward area but with a representation of councillors within Inverness as not only do they have less unofficially divide the ward to its current third less representation than it previously had. geographical area to cover and less diversification in community issues, Inverness geographical representation but with fewer people Although the loss of one councillor does not seem is already over prominent within Highland region and an increase in counillors will to do the job; the workload or distance is not going too bad on the surface, this is removal of 3 by only exacerbate the situation. to reduce because there are less councillors. stealth. Wick should return to 3 councillors. Thurso should return to 3 councillors.

Brora Community Council Sutherland

Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland Thistle House 91 Haymarket Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5HD 3rd December 2020 [email protected]

Re: 2019 Review of Electoral Arrangements in Highland / Consultation Response. Ward 1 - Sutherland

Dear Sirs,

Following study of your recently published proposals for changes to the boundary and the number of councillors in Sutherland including discussion at our recent council meeting, please find below our community council’s response.

We have noted that your review recommends two changes in our area namely that Sutherland should return to its historical county boundary and that Edderton will now be included in the Tain Ward, and secondly; that the North West and Central Sutherland Ward is to be abolished and Sutherland will become one very large ward represented by 4 councillors rather than the current 6 members.

Regarding the boundary change, we have no objection to this as there has never been much logic in having the Edderton area within the East Sutherland ward, especially as it is on the other side of the Dornoch Firth, part of Ross-shire, more proximate to Tain, and has much more commonality with that community.

The proposal to turn Sutherland into one large ward and to reduce its representatives is, however, quite another matter. This part of the proposal is ill-conceived, ill-informed and, in our view, anti-democratic:

• Sutherland is a very large geographic area covering 5,250 square kilometres with coastal margins to east, west and north west. It has vast tracts of unpopulated remoteness and a road network which is often fragile, not well maintained and liable to closure in severe winter weather. It takes approximately 2 hours to drive from one coast to another. There are considerable cultural and life-style differences across the county and this is particularly so when it comes to the disparities between the Sutherland populations on the two coasts, west and east.

1 There are only a few Scottish counties which are larger than Sutherland and there is no suggestion that they should have such all-embracing and restricted representation. It should be noted also that the combined Island Authorities (Shetland, Orkney and Western Isles) have a land mass which is almost equivalent to that of Sutherland. These islands are represented by 73 Councillors, and Sutherland by 6 which you propose to reduce to 4.

• When it comes to electing the 4 representatives you propose for this vast ward we envisage considerable problems. Owing to the imbalance in population between the east and west/north-west areas of the county, it is more than likely that residents in the west would be represented by Councillors from the east coast settlements. The population of east coast settlements is over twice that of the smaller settlements on the west/north-west, and the eastern population is growing whereas the western populations are shrinking. There is very little which could be done to avoid this outcome or to skew the election process in favour of more local representation in the ward you seek to abolish. Even to us, your proposals are not thought through and clearly appear to democratically discriminate against a remote and isolated population.

There is some irony in the fact that this review primarily took place to take account of The Island (Scotland) Act 2018 which seeks to make provision for the electoral representation of island communities. As far as we are aware Sutherland has no permanently settled islands, however, ‘islands’ of population can just as easily exist by virtue of their remoteness, isolation, poor infrastructure and facilities. The changes you propose for Sutherland do not appear to have adhered to your own Guidance Notes (30) ‘Special geographical considerations’ yet ‘special geographic circumstances’ have been applied to Ward 20 (Fort William & Ardnamurchan) on the grounds of remoteness and poor transport links to retain their existing 4 councillors on a much lower population.

• Our final point is one of practicality. Councillors need to have an in-depth understanding of their ward and the communities they represent. This is certainly still the case in Sutherland. It is most unlikely that a representative from the east coast will have the practical or in-depth knowledge of the concerns of west and northwest coast communities. While some might claim such knowledge can be acquired, trust and respect may not be so easily attained. Councillors take on a wide range of duties but regardless of the wealth of communication technology at our disposal, they need to be accessible to their constituents and to take a part in the communities they represent. Attending community councils, local events, board, hall or sub-committee meetings or simply meeting constituents on the west and north west involves long and expensive travel from the east coast which during the winter months will not always be possible. Lack of local knowledge and expensive travel will always be a major burden for east based councillors and it is most unlikely under your proposed scheme that the west/north west part of the ward would receive the proper local representation it deserves.

We have noted that a notional parity level of electors per representative has been used to inform your proposals for Sutherland. We strongly question whether this is right

2 approach in view of the obvious special geographic circumstances. Although such a ‘one size fits all’ approach may be appropriate in more urban and populated areas, Scotland contains some very diverse rural areas, particularly in Highland, where representation is already compromised by distance and disparate communities. A reduced number of councillors representing such a large geographic area will inevitably only further reduce our voice within such a large local authority.

Your proposed changes do not appear to have considered or indeed understood the special geographic circumstances of this area nor the likely democratic consequences of the imbalance of population between the eastern and western communities. We hope that you will take full account of our views and perhaps with more local information and understanding, will reconsider your proposals.

Yours faithfully

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Brora Community Council - Secretary

3

Boundary Commission Review – Highland Council Public Consultation 4/11/20 – 26/1/21

In your Guidance Booklet you say : 8. Among the factors we recognise as contributing to effective and convenient local government are: • the ability of councils to manage and deliver all of the services they are responsible for in an efficient manner; • the ability of individual councillors to carry out their functions including representing the residents in their area; and • the ability of residents to access services and participate in local democracy effectively and conveniently. 21. In designing wards, we consider special geographical circumstances that may apply and may consider moving away from strict electoral parity in those cases especially in remote areas and islands. 30. We can move away from strict adherence to electoral parity for a ward where there are special geographical considerations that make it desirable to do so. Such considerations include areas where transport and communication links are slow, infrequent or subject to interference by the weather and seasons. Examples include distinct island communities, sparsely populated areas and remote areas.

Can I respectfully suggest that in your review your proposal for a new Ward No.1 to cover the geographical area of the old Sutherland County Council By merging existing wards 1 and 4 you have ignored the three points made in para 8 of your guidance booklet by expecting four councillors to do the work of the current 6. You have not provided the area (sq km) for each of the new wards but I feel I can assume Sutherland County’s area of 6376 sq km will give a reasonable figure to work with. This gives a population density of 1.69 electors / sq.km n 2018 and a projected 1.64 in 2024. Again by working with the numbers of the electorate rather than the numbers of the adult population it is difficult to make comparisons with population densities at other times. However back in 2008 Sutherland’s population was 13524 giving a density of 2.1 persons /sq.km. All the available information including that you used shows an onward decline in population.

Page 1 of 3

Boundary Commission Review – Highland Council Public Consultation 4/11/20 – 26/1/21

This means by using the methodology you describe under ‘Determining councillor numbers’ with a ratio of councillors to electors of 1: 2800 means that Sutherland will forever disadvantage both its councillors and its electors as the population decreases. Although area must be the largest factor in creating disadvantage, disadvantage is compounded by the road network and the availability of services. Other factors which seem to have been ignored is that as the population is declining the numbers of elderly are increasing giving a top heavy age distribution which will require more from the council to access services and transport.

With respect, I would ask you to think again about the position of Sutherland. If the current wards 1 and 4 are merged as suggested they would have 1799 electors / councillor at 2018 figures provided they maintain their 6 councillors as at present. By 2024 this figure would decline to 1739. Sutherland’s current position did not come about naturally. It is still the victim of the infamous clearances of the 1800s when the population was driven from the glens and straths to make way for sheep farms managed by people from outwith the area. It is no accident that its villages lie around the coastline with an almost empty interior. This creates an incredible burden on anyone wishing to serve their community if they are expected to drive on inferior roads for many hours to reach e.g. a community council meeting on the other side of the county. But it is the electors who are worst served as they daily struggle with a lack of transport, difficulties reaching health services, let alone hardly knowing what a supermarket is.

Can I suggest as an initial solution to the perceived need to reduce the number of councillors, that you relook at two of the 5 member wards proposed viz: Dingwall and Seaforth and Inverness SW with 2018 electorates of 12178 and 11250? These would seem to match your para 19 parity requirements of 11200 for a 4 councillor ward rather than the 14000 for a 5 councillor ward. With Sutherland left with 6 councillors due to its extreme disadvantages of area, this would allow the total number of councillors to be reduced to 72.

Page 2 of 3

Boundary Commission Review – Highland Council Public Consultation 4/11/20 – 26/1/21

However, this review highlights the need for a fundamental look at local government democracy and examine ways in which local people can be better served by smaller council units where they can relate to their local councillor and their ‘local’ councillor understands their area.

Catriona Grigg

Page 3 of 3