Political Groups on the Council to Make Representations Direct to the Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Wolverhampton Report to The Electoral Commission May 2003 © Crown Copyright 2003 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. Report no. 335 2 Contents Page What is The Boundary Committee For England? 5 Summary 7 1 Introduction 11 2 Current electoral arrangements 13 3 Draft recommendations 17 4 Responses to consultation 19 5 Analysis and final recommendations 21 6 What happens next? 37 Appendices A Final recommendations for Wolverhampton: Detailed mapping 39 B Guide to interpreting the first draft of the electoral change Order 41 C First draft of electoral change Order for Wolverhampton 43 3 4 What is The Boundary Committee for England? The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The functions of the Local Government Commission for England were transferred to The Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee on 1 April 2002 by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3692). The Order also transferred to The Electoral Commission the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to taking decisions on recommendations for changes to local authority electoral arrangements and implementing them. Members of the Committee are: Pamela Gordon (Chair) Professor Michael Clarke CBE Robin Gray Joan Jones CBE Ann M. Kelly Professor Colin Mellors Archie Gall (Director) We are required by law to review the electoral arrangements of every principal local authority in England. Our aim is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor in an area is as nearly as possible the same, taking into account local circumstances. We can recommend changes to ward boundaries, the number of councillors and ward names. This report sets out our final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the city of Wolverhampton. 5 6 Summary The Local Government Commission for England (LGCE) began a review of the electoral arrangements for Wolverhampton on 4 December 2001. As a consequence of the transfer of functions referred to earlier, it falls to us to complete the work of the LGCE. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements on 22 October 2002, after which we undertook an eight-week period of consultation. We now submit final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. • This report summarises the representations that we received during consultation on our draft recommendations, and contains our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. We found that the existing arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in Wolverhampton: • in five of the 20 wards the number of electors represented by each councillor varies by more than 10% from the average for the city; • by 2006 this situation is expected to worsen, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10% from the average in five wards and by more than 20% in one ward. Our main final recommendations for future electoral arrangements (see Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 107–108) are that: • Wolverhampton City Council should have 60 councillors, as at present; • there should be 20 wards, as at present; • the boundaries of 16 of the existing wards should be modified and four wards should retain their existing boundaries. The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that, in future, each city councillor represents approximately the same number of electors, bearing in mind local circumstances. • In 18 of the proposed 20 wards the number of electors per councillor would vary by no more than 10% from the city average. • This improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue, with the number of electors per councillor in all wards expected to vary by no more than 8% from the average for the city by 2006. All further correspondence on these final recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to The Electoral Commission, which will not make an Order implementing them before 24 June 2003. The information in the representations will be available for public access once the Order has been made. The Secretary The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Fax: 020 7271 0667 Email: [email protected] (This address should only be used for this purpose) 7 Table 1: Final recommendations: Summary Ward name Number of Constituent areas Large map councillors reference 1 Bilston East 3 Bilston East ward; part of Bilston North ward; part of 2 Ettingshall ward 2 Bilston North 3 Part of Bilston North ward; part of East Park ward 2 3 Blakenhall 3 Unchanged 2 4 Bushbury North 3 Part of Bushbury ward; part of Oxley ward 1 5 Bushbury South and 3 Part of Bushbury ward; part of Low Hill ward; part of 1 Low Hill St Peter’s ward 6 East Park 3 Part of Bilston North ward; part of East Park ward; 1 & 2 part of St Peter’s ward 7 Ettingshall 3 Part of Ettingshall ward; part of St Peter’s ward; part 2 of Spring Vale ward 8 Fallings Park 3 Fallings Park ward; part of Bushbury ward; part of Low 1 Hill ward 9 Graiseley 3 Unchanged 2 10 Heath Town 3 Part of Heath Town ward; part of St Peter’s ward; part 1 & 2 of Wednesfield South ward 11 Merry Hill 3 Unchanged 2 12 Oxley 3 Part of Oxley ward; part of Tettenhall Regis ward 1 13 Park 3 Part of Park ward; part of St Peter’s ward 1 & 2 14 Penn 3 Unchanged 2 15 St Peter's 3 Part of Oxley ward; part of St Peter’s ward 1 & 2 16 Spring Vale 3 Part of Ettingshall ward; part of Spring Vale ward 2 17 Tettenhall Regis 3 Part of Tettenhall Regis ward; part of Tettenhall 1 Wightwick ward 18 Tettenhall Wightwick 3 Part of Park ward; part of Tettenhall Wightwick ward 1 & 2 19 Wednesfield North 3 Wednesfield North ward; part of Wednesfield South 1 ward 20 Wednesfield South 3 Part of Heath Town ward; part of Wednesfield South 1 & 2 ward Notes: 1 The city contains no civil parishes. 2 The wards in the above table are illustrated on Map 2 and the large maps. 3 We have made a number of minor boundary amendments to ensure that existing ward boundaries adhere to ground detail. These changes do not affect any electors. 8 Table 2: Final recommendations for Wolverhampton Ward name Number Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance of (2001) electors from (2006) electors from councillors per average % per average % councillor councillor 1 Bilston East 3 9,293 3,098 1 9,518 3,173 4 2 Bilston North 3 9,388 3,129 2 9,407 3,136 3 3 Blakenhall 3 8,966 2,989 -2 8,867 2,956 -3 4 Bushbury North 3 9,310 3,103 2 9,011 3,004 -1 5 Bushbury South and 3 9,160 3,053 0 9,088 3,029 -1 Low Hill 6 East Park 3 9,125 3,042 0 9,330 3,110 2 7 Ettingshall 3 9,681 3,227 6 9,896 3,299 8 8 Fallings Park 3 9,555 3,185 4 9,301 3,100 2 9 Graiseley 3 9,134 3,045 0 9,289 3,096 2 10 Heath Town 3 7,843 2,614 -14 8,784 2,928 -4 11 Merry Hill 3 9,631 3,210 5 9,319 3,106 2 12 Oxley 3 9,378 3,126 2 9,110 3,037 0 13 Park 3 8,842 2,947 -4 8,681 2,894 -5 14 Penn 3 10,034 3,345 9 9,785 3,262 7 15 St Peter's 3 8,128 2,709 -11 8,429 2,810 -8 16 Spring Vale 3 8,923 2,974 -3 9,120 3,040 0 17 Tettenhall Regis 3 9,400 3,133 3 9,152 3,051 0 18 Tettenhall Wightwick 3 9,318 3,106 2 9,148 3,049 0 19 Wednesfield North 3 9,388 3,129 2 9,034 3,011 -1 20 Wednesfield South 3 8,809 2,936 -4 8,631 2,877 -6 Totals 60 183,306 – – 182,900 – – Averages – – 3,055 – – 3,048 – Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 9 10 1 Introduction 1 This report contains our final recommendations for the electoral arrangements for the City of Wolverhampton. We are reviewing the seven metropolitan districts in the West Midlands as part of our programme of periodic electoral reviews (PERs) of all 386 principal local authority areas in England. The programme started in 1996 and is currently expected to finish in 2004. 2 This is our first review of the electoral arrangements of Wolverhampton. Wolverhampton’s last review was carried out by the Local Government Boundary Commission, which reported to the Secretary of State in June 1979 (Report no. 340). 3 In making final recommendations to The Electoral Commission, we have had regard to: • the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by SI 2001 No.