Councillors submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Response to LGBCE Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire ‐ New Draft Recommendations Consultation, 17th June 2016
I am the current Cambridgeshire County Councillor for the Ely South & West Division and East Cambridgeshire District Councillor for the Downham Villages Ward and I live in Ely. I therefore have extensive knowledge of the East Cambridgeshire area and its dynamics.
I am concerned with three aspects of the LGBCE’s electoral review of Cambridgeshire:
1) I do not agree with the new draft recommendations in relation to a proposed Council size of 61, or with the proposed boundaries in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland.
I support the submission put forward by Cambridgeshire County Council for a Council size of 63 and the proposals put forward by East Cambs District Council for 9 Councillors in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland District Council for 10 Councillors in Fenland. In particular, I support the most recent response of East Cambs District Council submitted to LGBCE in June 2016.
2) I am very concerned that LGBCE has not had an open mind about Council size and other aspects of the review, as evidenced by their internal correspondence, and therefore that the process by which the review has been conducted is questionable and open to legal challenge.
3) It is clear that this latest round of consultation is in fact a new review. The review process is dictated by statute, the effect of which determines that in fact the previous review has exhausted its process and we are now into a completely new review. This concerns me, as it is clear that the LGBCE is not open to making what it describes as “fundamental alterations” because it cannot fit in another round of consultation as the timetable is dictated by the County Council elections in 2017. This means that the LGBCE is not open minded to changes to Council size and the number of Councillors in each proposed Division, even where it can be demonstrated that they better balance and meet the statutory criteria; this is evidenced by their internal correspondence. This brings into question the purpose of this latest round of consultation, (which is not helped by the conflicting messages put out by LGBCE) and raises the possibility of legal challenge ‐ what is the point of a public consultation, the results of which will not be considered or adopted even if they better meet the statutory criteria?
Draft Recommendations The dynamics of East Cambridgeshire fall into two sub‐areas. The northern part of the district is predominantly intensively farmed fenland, and contains the three market towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport. The south of the district is dominated by the horseracing industry with large areas of farmland given over to stud use.
Determining boundaries in East Cambridgeshire is a necessarily restricted process due to the external boundary in the south of the district and the anomaly of the ‘hole’ produced by the exclusion of Newmarket; this largely dictates where the boundary lines in the south of the district can be drawn.
The northern part of the district contains the market towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport. Each of the market towns has its own distinct identity and needs, demographically, geographically and culturally. It is important to understand the dynamics and different needs of the market towns and their surrounding villages and settlements in order to effectively balance the LGBCE’s statutory criteria.
Page | 1
The LGBCE’s draft recommendations seriously fail to recognise the dynamics of the market towns and their outlying villages and settlements and in so doing fail to reflect the identity, interests and needs of local communities. The starting point of the LGBCE’s proposals, which is to split up the three market town parishes, merging bits of them with each other, is fundamentally wrong and immediately produces a flawed plan.
By way of example, the proposed Littleport East and Soham North Division includes areas of all three market towns. Placing parts all three market towns into one Division fails woefully to understand the different needs of these areas, which may often be in conflict with each other. To expect one Councillor to represent the different and sometimes conflicting needs of these three areas is flawed and fails to meet two of the statutory criteria (to reflect the identity and interests of local communities and effective and convenient local government) at the expense of the third (achieving good electoral equality). The effect is an unacceptable balance and unnecessary warping of the statutory criteria. It is recognised that it is necessary to split both Ely and Soham across two Divisions, due to the numbers of electors, but it is wholly wrong and unnecessary to then pitch them against each other by lumping areas of them into Divisions together.
I do not intend to revisit all aspects of why the LGBCE’s proposals for East Cambs do not meet the statutory criteria here ‐ these are well documented in previous consultation rounds and by others in this round of consultation. I strongly urge you to consider carefully the proposal put forward by East Cambs District Council. The boundaries proposed achieve single Councillor Divisions, good electoral equality, provide for convenient and effective local government and offer the best solution, by some margin, in terms of reflecting community interests and identity; they represent an acceptable balance of the statutory criteria which is evidentially preferable to the LGBCE proposal.
Suffice to say that I support the well made arguments in the East Cambs District Council June 2016 submission in support of a Council size of 63 with 9 Councillors for East Cambridgeshire.
Retaining an Open Mind about Council Size I am concerned that the previous submissions for 9 Councillors in East Cambridgeshire and 10 Councillors in Fenland were not given due consideration and that the LGBCE has had, and continues to have, a closed mind to a Council size of 63, which is contrary to its statutory requirements and the messages it has put out about the purpose of consultation.
The LGBCE initially agreed to the County Council’s proposal for a Council size of 63 and invited proposals for Division arrangements based on a Council size of 63. However, during the development of the draft recommendations, the LGBCE “changed” the proposed Council size to 61 as it considered it would better reflect the Commission’s statutory criteria and provide a better allocation of Councillors between districts.
The LGBCE has stated that this meant that comments put forward based on a Council size of 63 “could not” be taken into account as part of the draft recommendations because they would not meet the statutory criteria under a Council size of 61; this statement is inaccurate and procedurally flawed. In information obtained from the LGBCE, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request, it is stated that:
“We launched full public consultation on division boundaries (on the basis of a council size of 63) on 28 October 2014 – 19 January 2015.
Page | 2
We then examined the submissions received and developed out draft recommendations. During this we noted that changing the council size by 2 (to 61) provided a better allocation of councillors overall and a better overall scheme. As we changed the council size, there were proposals put forward to us during the previous consultation period (based on the original council size of 63) that we could not take account of.
We therefore worked on the basis of 61 councillors and published draft recommendations on 12 May 2015. It was at this point that local people would have been aware of and been able to comment on the different council size and provide proposals based on this number. The consultation ran until 6 July 2015.”
This statement, and particularly the words “could not take account of”, appears to indicate that the LGBCE was not open minded to proposals relating to a different Council size at any stage, and did not even take the proposals into account or give them any consideration.
The words “there were proposals put forward to us during the previous consultation period (based on a council size of 63)...” are wholly misleading. The “previous” round of consultation to which the LGBCE refers is the preliminary process of consultation with the County Council on the most appropriate Council size. The “full period of public consultation on division boundaries” consultation which ran from October 2014 to January 2015 was the first opportunity that the public and organisations had to make representations about the detail of Divisions, including that of Council size and number of Councillors per district and Division. Indeed, consultees were encouraged to comment on the proposed Council size of 63. Given that the LGBCE itself has identified that during this period it changed its mind to a Council size of 61 and “could not” take account of proposals based on a Council size of 63 it is absolutely clear that the LGBCE has never considered the East Cambs and Fenland proposals based on a Council size of 63 and dismissed them from the very beginning.
Given that the LGBCE Electoral Reviews Technical Guidance 2014, allows, at paragraph 4.291 for changes to be made to Council size throughout the review process (and in the case of the Hertfordshire review, at the final decision stage, where one seat was added to Welwyn Hatfield District’s allocation without any opportunity for objection or consultation) then it follows that the LGBCE must fully consider proposals for alternative Council size at all stages of the review and must not close its mind to alternatives.
The LGBCE also acknowledges that in the case of East Cambridgeshire, the scheme put forward by East Cambs District Council at the draft recommendations consultation stage would have required substantial changes to the Commission’s proposals. In the FOI request, information from the LGBCE states that as a matter of practice, the Commission is:
“reluctant to make fundamental alterations to its draft recommendations as it would not give other interested parties the opportunity to comment on a substantive scheme”.
Therefore, it appears that the LGBCE was not prepared to change its draft recommendations, regardless of the consultation responses it received, in order to avoid further consultation.
1 Para 4.29 “Even if we are content with the rationale provided in support of a proposal for council size, we may choose, at a later stage of the review process, to consider whether it is necessary to change this number slightly in order to ensure better levels of electoral representation across the district or county. Having regard to the nature and extent of communities or to appropriate ward/division boundaries, it is often possible to improve the levels of electoral representation across an authority by making minor modifications of one or two to the council size”.
Page | 3
This raises further concerns regarding the purpose of this new round of consultation and the confusing messages given out by LGBCE regarding its remit and scope. The letter received by the ECDC Chief Executive from the LGBCE dated 24th March 2016 states that:
“The Commission has an open mind about potential changes to its recommendations as a result of the consultation and will welcome views in support of the proposals and suggestions for alternative boundaries that meet the criteria set out in law. Once the consultation has closed, the Commission will carefully examine all the evidence presented and publish final recommendations in September 2016.”
Yet the consultation documents relating to the new consultation specify that the LGBCE is:
“seeking submissions for alternative patterns of eight single‐member divisions for East Cambridgeshire.”
This appears to indicate that the LGBCE is, yet again, not open minded to proposals relating to a different Council size (or any other proposals that LGBCE considers constitute “fundamental alterations”) and that these will not be given due consideration, as the same situation is likely to arise if the LGBCE reverts back to a council size of 63. Interested parties will not have the opportunity to comment on this change if published as the final recommendations because it will still not allow for two full rounds of consultation. It appears likely that the LGBCE will again avoid making fundamental alterations to its draft recommendations (even where they better meet the statutory criteria) because other interested parties will not have the opportunity to comment on a substantively altered scheme.
I note from the FOI response that the LGBCE received legal advice that:
“...the publication of the final recommendations is the end of the review and so the further draft recommendations should be a new review which follows the statutory procedure under s58 of the 2009 Act. In terms of framing this, the Commission will have to consider how to do this, but it would seem that the further draft recommendations have to acknowledge the final recommendations already published and explain what is being dealt with in the further draft and why, and you may also wish to make clear that other issues in the final recommendations are not being re‐opened.”
Section 58, para 1, part b of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 requires that the review procedure includes taking steps to ensure that consultees are informed of “any particular matters to which the review is to relate.” It would appear that the LGBCE has decided to ignore the legal advice to make clear that other issues in the final recommendations are not being re‐opened; this is evident from its statement relating to this period of consultation, which effectively states that all aspects are open for consideration ‐ the LGBCE “has an open mind about potential changes to its recommendations as a result of the consultation and will welcome views in support of the proposals and suggestions for alternative boundaries that meet the criteria set out in law”.
Section 58, para 2, part c of the Act requires that the review procedure takes “into consideration any representations made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England within that period.” The LGBCE is therefore required, by statute, to consider changes to Council size during this latest round of consultation, which, given its reluctance to make “fundamental alterations” and the
Page | 4 impossibility of running further rounds of consultation due to the timing issues, seems highly unlikely if not impossible.
It would seem to me that the LGBCE has failed procedurally with this review and leaves itself open to challenge in a number of ways.
Anna Bailey Cambridgeshire County Councillor ‐ Ely South & West Division East Cambridgeshire District Councillor ‐ Downham Villages
Page | 5
Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) &E r ! % ) ( U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )7qh puhtrQrr svryqXh q
From: Ann Sinnott Sent: 07 June 2016 10:18 To: reviews
I wish to reiterate my objection to the proposed boundary change to Petersfield Ward, a change that wasn't consulted upon.
The Boundary Commission's proposed change would split the St Matthew's area, a settled community with a church (the eponymous St Matthews) and a community centre (Cherry Trees), both of which would, under the proposed change, be in Abbey Ward. St Matthew's is a distinctive area with a resident's association (Petersfield Area Community Trust) and is the locus of annual community events. The proposed boundary change would destructively fragment this community cohesion.
As one of Petersfield Ward's Councillors, I have received representations from many residents vociferously objecting to the proposed change on the above iterated grounds.
Moreover, I currently live in the Ward that I represent but under the proposed change I would reside in Abbey Ward, a ward with which I have little connection.
Ann Sinnott Cambridge City Councillor for Petersfield Ward
1
! " #$%!&$' ()$ ' $!& * +$,- ! $- . /!
From: Ann Sinnott Sent: 19 June 2016 08:32 To: reviews
Subject: Boundary change ‐ Cambridge
As a Petersfield resident, and as a Petersfield Councillor acting on behalf of the many Petersfield residents who have asked me to speak on their behalf, I previously emailed LGBCE objecting to the proposed boundary change on the grounds of the deleterious effect it would have on the established community of St Matthews.
I now wish to state that I fully endorse the attached alternative proposals submitted by Petersfield County Councillor Ashley Walsh.
Ann Sinnott Councillor for Petersfield Ward Lead Councillor, Domestic Violence and Community Safety Lead Councillor, Anti-Poverty Strategy Chair, Community Services Scrutiny Committee
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail? ______
The information in this email may be confidential and legally privileged.
You are advised to scan attachments for viruses before opening them.
Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived
1 Cambridgeshire County Council Labour Group’s response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s new draft recommendations for Cambridge District
Cambridgeshire County Council Labour Group finds broadly acceptable most of the new draft recommendations produced by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) in Cambridge District. The Labour Group accepts that the recommendations for Cambridge attempt broadly to balance the priorities of improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors in each division, reflecting community identity, and providing for effective and convenient local government.
The Labour Group fully supports the proposals for the following divisions: Cherry Hinton, Chesterton, King’s Hedges, Newnham, Castle, and Market. While we are pleased that the LGBCE has removed proposals to join together Castle and Newnham into a dual-member division, we continue to oppose the principle of two-member divisions for Cambridge District. No such form of representation on the County Council has ever existed in the city. All political groups on the County Council oppose dual-member divisions. Further we believe electors in Cambridge agree that co-terminosity of boundaries between City and County Council elections benefits effective and convenient local government by minimising confusion. During the first consultation, both major political groups on Cambridge City Council resolved at a meeting of the Civic Affairs Committee to support the principle of co- terminosity between divisions and ward boundaries. But a two-member division would render this proposal impossible when the City Council comes to review its own boundaries over coming years.
We remain opposed to the proposal creating a dual-member divisions in Trumpington & Queen Edith’s. We surmise that the Commission’s draft proposals stem from concerns about housing growth proposals in Trumpington. But we believe these concerns could be adequately addressed and adequate numerical equality achieved by keeping Queen Edith’s separate from Trumpington.
We believe the dual-member seat would be both objectionable in principle and unwieldy in practice because it would each unite two distinct and identifiable communities whose centres lie at significant geographical distance from each other. We do not accept that a variance of more than +/- 10% would plausibly be the result of two single-member divisions in Trumpington and Queen Edith’s. The proposed two-member division would be unwieldy as the centre of the village community in Trumpington would lie in the far south-west of the division while the centre of the community in Queen Edith’s would lie far to the east.
We propose two single-member divisions that should be demarcated by a clear boundary. Queen Edith’s division, to the west, would be bounded by the railway as far south as Long Road. The area around Addenbrooke’s Hospital is identified as part of the major development in the south of the city associated with Trumpington and the boundary of Queen Edith’s division would therefore be set to exclude those properties on Hills Road and Babraham Road which abut the hospital site. The boundary would then run down Hills Road as far as the district boundary.
Trumpington division would be based on the historic village and would match the catchment area of Fawcett Primary School. It would also incorporate all of Long Road and the roads abutting Addenbrooke’s Hospital on the west side of Hills Road and Babraham Road. Further development in the south of the city will lead to an increase in the numbers of voters in this division and care has been taken to ensure that this division will continue to provide electoral equality in 2020 and beyond. New bus connections now mean that Addenbrooke’s is accessible from Trumpington. The division would thus respect the continuing identity of Trumpington as a community partially separate from Cambridge and also unites the city’s hospital and a large number of its employees in the same division.
We also propose a series of minor amendments to the following divisions:
a) Arbury: We propose that the area to the west of Histon Road known as the MacManus Estate should remain in the Castle division rather than being moved into the Arbury division. The submission of the County Council to the LGBCE proposed this boundary and clearly demonstrated that both Arbury and Castle divisions would remain within the LGBCE’s required variance limits. Further, the MacManus Estate has always remained within the Castle division and identifies more with the community residing around the Mayfield Primary School than with the Arbury community to the west of Histon Road. b) Abbey: We propose that the boundary between Abbey and Petersfield should not run along St Matthew’s Street and Norfolk Street before bisecting Sturton Street. This proposal does not enjoy community support and it is rightly opposed by the Petersfield Area Community Trust because it would divide clear community identity in the St Matthew’s area. Although a boundary once existed there, social and demographic change now means that the proposed boundary cannot adequately respect community identity. We propose that the following streets only should be moved from Petersfield to Abbey: St Matthew’s Gardens, the section of York Street north of the junction with St Matthew’s Gardens, the entirety of New Street, and the eastern side of East Road including Parker’s Terrace. The following streets would remain, in their entirety, in Petersfield: Young Street, Petworth Street, Geldart Street, St Matthew’s Court, Vicarage Terrace, Edward Street, St Matthew’s Street, Norfolk Street, Upper Gwydir Street, and Sturton Street. We also propose that the eastern boundary of the Abbey division be extended over the Elizabeth Way bridge into the ‘Riverside’ development, taking in Kingsley Walk and Walnut Tree Avenue. Abbey should also gain Evening Court and the northern side of Newmarket Road as far as Evening Court. This area shares a community identity with the Riverside area on the other side of the roundabout and both areas back onto the River Cam. We believe this alternative proposal would maintain numerical equality of representation in Abbey, Market, and Petersfield while better respecting community identities across the three divisions. c) Petersfield: We propose that the area south of the Botanical Gardens, including the roads off and including Brooklands Avenue between Hills Road and Trumpington Road, should remain in the Trumpington division rather than being moved into the Petersfield division. The LGBCE’s current proposals show Petersfield is too large whereas a separate Trumpington division might at present be too small. As such, our proposed boundary would better preserve the principle of electoral equality. It would also better respect community identity as the area south of the Botanical Gardens has historically remained within the Trumpington division. Its residents do not identify with the centre of the community in Petersfield but rather identify with the community gathered alongside Trumpington Road. d) Romsey: We propose that the entirety of the roads north of Cherry Hinton Road from Hills Road to Perne Road should be moved into the Romsey division rather than being moved into Queen Edith’s. The community on Lichfield Road, Neville Road, Cowper Road, and Coniston Road identifies more with the community that sits alongside Rustat Road, Perne Road, and Coleridge Road, currently proposed to move into Romsey division, than with the community south of Cherry Hinton Road. Our proposed boundary therefore better respects historic community identity. Nor would it break the LGBCE’s requirements for electoral equality.
Cllr Ashley Walsh Leader of the Labour Group, on behalf of the Labour Group 5/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Cambridgeshire County
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Amanda Taylor E-m ail:
Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I am writing with particular reference to the new two-member divisions, which will create vast areas without natural community links. By their size and high populations, they will compromise effective local representation. I am the county councillor for the Queen Edith's division, which you propose to merge with Trumpington, part of Cambridge City constituency and I object to the merger on the following grounds: The new division would straddle two parliamentary constituencies, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. It would have two Members of Parliament, which is confusing for the electorate. The new division would have eight councillors but each voter would only be represented by half of them. This is in addition to it straddling two policing areas (south and east Cambridge neighbourhood policing teams). The population is c 16,000 on current projections – a huge number of people for a councillor to cover effectively, and it spans about a third of the city of Cambridge. Although two councillors might divide the division geographically between themselves, effective co- operation would depend on their both being from the same political party. If the councillors were not able to work together they would have twice the workload of most other county councillors, and it would be yet more arduous for an independent candidate. This creates a democratic deficit for people living in such divisions. The proposal precludes co-terminosity between the county council division and the city council ward, as at present. This is because the Boundary Commission's own guidelines set a maximum number of members per ward, and would not allow six city councillors for one big division – so Queen Edith’s and Trumpington would be separate for city council elections, yet joint for county council elections. The two areas don't have natural community links: there is little crossover for schools, churches or other community facilities, and transport links between the two wards are poor. The division would be divided by a railway line. This breaches the Commission's guiding principle to 'reflect local community interests and identities'. The strong preference for single-member divisions has been supported by all five political groups in Cambridgeshire, as well as by the County Council collectively, and by several residents' associations and individuals. It is not clear why the Commission needs to join Queen Edith's and Trumpington, as it would be a simple matter to draw a line down the middle, for example down Hills Road, where the boundary was before the last boundary changes. A division has been proposed as part of the consultation, which can be viewed at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/27347/Complete-A-L.pdf.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8100 1/1 Hinds, Alex
From: Sent: 29 February 2016 21:11 To: Cleverly, Karen Subject: Complaint about Cambridgeshire Review
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Karen,
I wish to complain about the procedure for proposed division changes in the Cambridge District of the recent electoral review of Cambridgeshire County Council.
The LGBCE went to great lengths to consult Cambridge and even went through a further draft recommendation and consultation. This was because the LGBCE wished to respect the community identity of certain divisions, especially Romsey and Abbey, in the first draft recommendations.
However, the LGBCE has since proposed a boundary change between the Petersfield and Abbey divisions upon which it did not consult at all. This change does not provide parity for the electors of Petersfield in terms of equal access to consultation as it does the electors of Abbey and Romsey.
This change has not received community support and I believe it severs clear community identity in the St Matthew's area. It cuts through the area served by the local residents' association, Petersfield Area Community Trust (PACT). Social and demographic change in Petersfield now means that the proposed boundary no longer adequately respects community identity.
It is more surprising that the boundary has been proposed because the LGBCE had 'discovered an error in the electorate count in the Abbey and Romsey areas'. That the LGBCE had made a mistake in its elector calculations is not an adequate reason to propose a boundary change which has not been put to any consultation whatsoever.
The LGBCE has not explained the provenance of the proposed boundary. Did it come, for instance, from a political group, a resident, the County Council or the LGBCE itself?
I believe that the electors of Petersfield would have heavily opposed the proposed boundary in the event that the LGBCE had consulted them.
Kind regards,
Cllr Ashley Walsh Member for Petersfield Division, Cambridge Leader of the Labour Group Cambridgeshire County Council
1
Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) %E r ! % %)"( U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )8h i vqtruv r88pvy9vvv
From: Bill Hunt Sent: 03 June 2016 17:02 To: reviews
From: Subject: Cambridgeshire County Council Divisions.
Attention: LGBCE.
Dear Sirs,
I am the current elected Cambridgeshire County Council Member for the Haddenham Division. I have considerable experience in this area as I have served three x4 year terms. I am able to meet the needs of this area which you know is a one Member Division and includes x6 Parish Councils. Many of my colleagues are in similar positions.
Earlier this year, you announced a scheme which allowed for only x8 Divisions in East Cambs(61 in the whole County) and which flew in the face of strong opposition and soundly argued proposals by Members, Members of the public, Councils and in particular East Cambs District Council. It is surprising that the LGBCE proposal suggests that residents of this area could be served by x2 members covering an area which is over 20 miles across(Earith Bridge to Brandon Creek). It would be difficult for any human councillor to engage with nearly 20,000 people, have an intimate knowledge of the communities and serve the large numbers of people and Parishes in a way the population has come rightly to expect. Localism surely requires councillors to become closer to the people and your proposals do not achieve this requirement. It is clear there was valid and extensive opposition to the LGBCE proposal and little if any support. The LGBCE proposal had little if any merit and as far as I can see did not conform to it's own rules and should be abandoned.
It is good to hear that you have determined to re‐consult and I hope you will re‐consider your stance and adopt the East Cambs District Council's proposal for x9 single member divisions.
There is a general feeling amongst my colleagues, that LGBCE did not have an "Open Mind" throughout this process, which of course if true creates all sorts of difficulties and potential outcomes.
Time marches on and potential Candidates, Political parties, Parish/Town Councils, Residents need to know how to prepare for the future which at present is un‐known. This is particularly the case with potential serious Independent Candidates who would be effectively eliminated by the LGBCE proposals.
1
The East Cambs Proposal is the best one on the table but I believe that things have now gone too far. There is not enough time for adequate preparation for Spring 2017 elections.
The best way forward is to abandon any change until the District elections in 2019 and run the 2017 County elections with the current (satisfactory) division structure in place. Change should not be introduced until it is certain to be an improvement and that together with the possible procedural questions means a delay would be the best course of action. Take time, get it right.
Finally many of the large housing schemes which the revised arrangements are hoped to cater for have suffered delay and in many cases are unlikely to be in place before 2019 or possibly 2021.
Yours
William Thomas Hunt
3rd June 2016.
2
!" # #$ %& '( " ) * + , -! '. $
This is one for you I think Alex, rather than me!
Emily Starkie Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1280
From: reviews Sent: 14 June 2016 15:38 To: Starkie, Emily
From: Bill Hunt Sent: 14 June 2016 14:33 To: reviews
Subject: Review of East Cambridgeshire
Dear Sirs,
You will have already received my letter (by email) dated 3rd June which states my position.
Since 3rd June, I have been thinking about this matter a lot and so now I advise you of some more thoughts.
1. I have been the one and only County Member for the Haddenham Division ever since it was created in 2005 and I would be more potentially effected than any other if I am selected by my party as a candidate for 2017 elections.. 2. I can claim to be an expert on the Haddenham Division and therefore know the people and area I would wish to serve. 3. The idea of having a two member Division called "Littleport West" covering x13 Parish Councils has no merit. Littleport, Ely, Sutton and Haddenham are separate communities and transport links are poor. 4. I am not convinced that the process has been correctly followed. Additionally many people have suggested to me that LGBCE have not approached this with an open mind at every stage. 5. Generally I support the proposals to reduce the number of members from 69 to 63 not 61. (There is a fast growing population in this area). 6. If you cannot find a sensible, workable and legally compliant solution very soon, the County elections in Spring 2017 will be a shambles. 7. I suggest you leave everything as it is currently with the current divisions until you introduce District Ward changes in 2019.
1 Regards
Mr Bill Hunt County and District Councillor
2
! " #$% &$ &%&!
From: Christine Ambrose Smith Sent: 17 June 2016 18:39 To: reviews
I am a District & Parish Councillor for Littleport West. The proposals for splitting Littleport and hiving off part of the area to join Sutton & part to join with Soham are unacceptable. The two proposed divisions would be almost impossible to represent properly and considerable conflict of interest would occur. Littleport has no close ties with either of these communities, Littleport has closer ties with Ely in the locality. Littleport is a growing & expanding town. Three new schools, a new Leisure Centre, the upgrade of the train service between Kings Lynn & Kings Cross in London, the enhancement of the rail station, the prospect of almost 1000 new homes and increased local employment opportunities are powerful factors to help with the regeneration of Littleport. It would surely make sense for Littleport to be a stand alone single member division, with two small local hamlets/villages, Prickwillow & Queen Adelaide, included to make up the perceived correct number of voters, as in the recommendations put forward by East Cambridgeshire District Council. Please look very carefully at your proposals and reconsider your recommendations.
Thank you
Christine Ambrose Smith
1 LGBCE REVIEW OF COUNTY DIVISION BOUNDARIES IN CAMBRIDGESHIRE
I am the current Cambridgeshire County Councillor representing the County’s Whittlesey North Division. I am also a Fenland District Councillor (for Bassenhally Ward) and a Whittlesey Town Councillor (for Elm Ward).
I support the LGBCE’s draft recommendations for divisions in Cambridgeshire in respect of some divisions, but I oppose the draft recommendations in respect of other divisions. To the extent that I oppose the LGBCE’s draft recommendations, my reasons for opposition are that: 1. the LGBCE has not followed its own guidelines in reaching its draft recommendations 2. the LGBCE’s draft recommendations do not comply with the statutory requirements
Draft Recommendations Supported:
I support the following draft recommendations from the LGBCE on the grounds that the statutory criteria are most effectively satisfied:
The proposed divisions in the Districts of Huntingdonshire & South Cambridgeshire The proposed Cambridge City divisions (apart from “Trumpington & Queen Edith’s”) The proposed Chatteris division The proposed Wisbech West & Wisbech East divisions
In respect of the proposed Chatteris division, this division (although on the large side) is exactly coterminous with both the Town of Chatteris and with the four Fenland District Council seats in the area. It achieves perfect coterminosity, reflects community identity and is administratively effective and convenient when considering the interaction between the County Councillor, the Town Council and councillors representing the local Town and District Wards.
In respect of the proposed Wisbech West & Wisbech East divisions, there is perfect coterminosity with existing District and Town Council Wards, there is a good arithmetic split between the two divisions east of the river, and those Wards with commonalities of interest are suitably included in the relevant division. The three riverside wards, which carry the main risk of fluvial flooding, are correctly joined together in Wisbech West division, and that division has good internal road links with the B198. The historic links between Octavia Hill and Staithe Wards is reflected in the Wisbech East division draft recommendation, and the Wisbech East division also ensures that the community of Walsoken (which is split between the FDC Wards of Staithe and Kirkgate) is contained entirely within a single division, thus reflecting local community identities.
Draft Recommendations Opposed:
I oppose the LGBCE’s draft recommendations in respect of: the “Trumpington & Queen Edith’s” division the whole of East Cambridgeshire all of Fenland other than the “Wisbech West”, “Wisbech East” and “Chatteris” divisions.
I also oppose the Council size included in the LGBCE’s draft recommendations.
“Trumpington & Queen Edith’s” division
All political group leaders at Cambridgeshire County Council have already expressed their strong preference to avoid two-member divisions. Cambridgeshire County Council, in its initial submission to the LGBCE in July 2014, stated the following (on page 5 of its submission):
“The Council considers that it is appropriate to abolish its existing two Member divisions. This is because single member divisions are more transparent and accountable, and give greater clarity to both the electorate and local organisations (e.g. Parish and Town Councils) as to where the responsibility lies. Two member divisions can cause confusion, especially where Members have differing views on local issues”
I personally accept that there may be some more rural areas where parish and town boundaries, defining long-standing local communities, make it impossible to satisfy the statutory criteria without considering a two-member option, despite the fact that that may be opposed by everyone locally. Within the built up area of the City of Cambridge, however, the situation is very different. There is relatively little physical separation between different parts of the City – it is the most densely populated part of the County with many small local communities being in very close proximity to each other. In those circumstances, to propose a two-member division covering the whole of the most southern part of the City appears perverse when better and more locally responsive representation could be achieved by splitting the LGBCE’s proposed two-member division into two single-member divisions: an eastern “Queen Edith’s” division and a western “Trumpington” Division”.
Council Size
It is in dealing with the question of Council size that the LGBCE has, in my opinion, most blatantly failed to observe its own guidelines, correct process and the statutory criteria. It will be helpful first of all to give a brief summary of how the LGBCE came to make its recommendation of a Council size of 61. It can then be clearly shown where the LGBCE made a mistake which was compounded at a later stage by the LGBCE’s failure to follow its own procedures properly, thus ending up with the current LGBCE draft recommendations which do not best satisfy the statutory criteria governing the redrawing of County Division boundaries:
July 2013: The LGBCE wrote to the Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire County Council to advise that due to imbalance in the existing electoral divisions, it would be reviewing the electoral arrangements for Cambridgeshire County Council. The Commission invited the Council and/or political groups to submit council size proposals for its consideration by 3rd August 2014, as part of the preliminary stage prior to the commencement of the formal review
August 2014: Four responses were received to the Council size consultation, including a very comprehensive analysis by Cambridgeshire County Council itself. Two of the four responses (including that of the County Council) recommended a Council size of 63. The other two responses recommended a Council size of 71.
21 October 2014: The LGBCE made its “decision” as to Council size, stating that it was “minded” to agree with the County Council’s recommendation that the Council size be 63.
28 October 2014: The LGBCE (quoting from its own website) “opened the first period of consultation for a new pattern of electoral divisions for Cambridgeshire County Council. Between 28 October and 19 January, we are inviting comments on division boundaries across the whole county. The Commission has also announced that it is minded to recommend that the county council should have 63 county councillors in the future, six fewer than the current arrangements. The Commission now needs information from people and groups across Cambridgeshire to help it to produce a new pattern of electoral divisions to accommodate 63 county councillors.”
12 May 2015: The LGBCE published its draft recommendations for consultation. The draft recommendations comprised a scheme of divisions based on a Council size of 61. The reason given by the LGBCE for deciding to issue a draft recommendation of 61 for the Council size rather than the 63 it had previously been minded to adopt was as follows (in paragraph 19 of the draft recommendations report): “As we developed our draft recommendations, we discovered that 63 councillors did not provide the best allocation of county councillors between Cambridgeshire’s five districts. As detailed later in this report, we found it particularly difficult to develop a pattern of divisions in Fenland that would have good electoral equality and reflect community identities. As a consequence, we examined alternative division arrangements under council sizes of between 64 and 61 members. We have concluded that 61 councillors will ensure a good allocation of councillors across Cambridgeshire. As stated in our Guidance, we will use our discretion to vary the number of councillors from the figure previously agreed if we find that an alternative will provide ‘a better fit’ of divisions across the county. On this basis we have decided to put forward draft recommendations based on a council size of 61 members.”
9 February 2016: The LGBCE issued its final recommendations on the basis of a Council size of 61.
14 March 2016: The LGBCE discussed a paper produced by Marcus Bowell, its Director of Strategy and Communications. This paper (obtained by County Councillor Anna Bailey on 5th May 2016 through a Freedom of Information request) disclosed the following in relation to the LGBCE’s internal decision making process leading to the final recommendations published on 9th February 2016: “ …the Commission’s decision to alter council size from the 63 it agreed at the start of the consultation on division patterns to 61, at draft recommendations stage, in order to accommodate an electoral pattern in parts of the county that would not be possible under the proposed size … changed the allocation of county councillors for East Cambridgeshire and Fenland … . ….. During the initial consultation on division patterns, interested parties – in good faith – put forward proposals based on a council size of 63. However, their views could not be adopted as part of the draft recommendations because they would not meet the statutory criteria under a council size of 61.”
10 May 2016: The LGBCE publishes new draft recommendations for consultation (identical to their final recommendations issued on 9th February 2016) stating (on page 2 of their consultation report) that the LGBCE has “an open mind about potential changes to these recommendations as a result of this consultation and will welcome views in support of the proposals and suggestions for alternative boundaries that meet the criteria set out in law.”
The problem with the process outlined above is that the LGBCE made an error when it announced on 12th May 2015 that “63 councillors did not provide the best allocation of county councillors between Cambridgeshire’s five districts” and that it was “ particularly difficult to develop a pattern of divisions in Fenland that would have good electoral equality and reflect community identities”. The submissions by Fenland District Council and by East Cambs District Council, supported by many other submissions, evidenced how a scheme of divisions based on 63 councillors could be created which better satisfied the statutory criteria than the LGBCE’s proposal based on 61 councillors. Unfortunately, by that time, the Commission had closed its mind to considering a Council size of 63, as evidenced in the paper discussed by the LGBCE on 14th March 2016. Had the LGBCE properly considered the detailed proposals for 10 Councillors in Fenland and 9 in East Cambridgeshire, the Commission would have been able to see for itself that those proposals, on a Council size of 63, not only satisfied the statutory criteria but did so, in the case of Fenland and East Cambridgeshire, far more successfully than the Commission had managed using a Council size of 61.
The LGBCE’s error, in its draft recommendations published on 12 May 2015 (stating that a Council size of 63 could not produce a scheme of divisions which satisfied the statutory criteria) was an error of judgment but it was not an error of process, not was it an error in law – the whole purpose of the consultation should have been fully and properly to consider representations made in response to those draft recommendations. The LGBCE’s error both of process and in law occurred when the Commission, during the consultation period (as it itself admitted in its March 2016 internal report) prematurely closed its mind to any Council size other than 61, without properly considering the merits of the many submissions made based on a Council size of 63. Had the Commission considered those representations based on a Council size of 63, it would have been able to ascertain that the schemes of arrangement of divisions put forward better satisfied the statutory criteria than did its own draft recommendations based on a Council size of 61. To quote the LGBCE’s internal March 2016 report, it was indeed correct for the Commission to determine that “proposals based on a council size of 63 ….. could not be adopted as part of the draft recommendations because they would not meet the statutory criteria under a council size of 61” However, the Commission should in law, and under its own published procedures, have reconsidered at that stage of the consultation, in the light of the detailed submissions received, whether a council size of 63 could better have satisfied the statutory criteria than did their draft recommendations based on a council size of 61.
The Commission has quite recently (since it last substantially reviewed its own guidelines for reviews) set a precedent on reconsidering Council size at a relatively late stage in a County Council review process: in May 2015 the LGBCE issued its final recommendations in relation to Hertfordshire, using a Council size of 78. However, at the draft recommendations stage, the Commission had proposed (and consulted upon) a scheme based on a Council size of 77. As a result of the representations made during the draft recommendations consultation, the Commission used its discretion to increase the Council size in Hertfordshire, and did so at the very end of the process, with no “opportunity” for further consultation. Unfortunately, in the Cambridgeshire review, the LGBCE admits in its own internal report that the Commission prematurely closed its mind to submissions made during the draft recommendations consultation which did not conform to the recommended Council size of 61. That inconsistency of treatment needs to be fully addressed by the Commission in this current review.
A Council size of 63, as proposed by Fenland District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and by many others throughout the consultation process, would necessarily change the average councillor/elector ratio across the whole county when compared to the recommended Council size of 61. However, adopting a Council size of 63 would not produce greater electoral inequality across the county than that produced in the Commission’s draft 61 member recommendations. The Commission is recommending 61 councillors with one division (Newnham in Cambridge City) having an electoral disparity in 2021 greater than 10%. If the Commission were properly to consider the proposals for a Council size of 63, based on the representations previously referred to, then Newnham division would no longer have an electoral disparity greater than 10%, although Romsey division (also in Cambridge City) would be pushed outside the 10% variation limit. So, regardless of whether the Commission retains its proposed Council size of 61 or accepts the proposals for East Cambridgeshire and Fenland which would give a Council size of 63, only one single-member division in the County (in either case, one of the Cambridge City divisions) would show an electoral variation in 2021 greater than 10%.
The detailed proposals for Fenland and for East Cambridgeshire are listed below. The electorates for these proposed divisions were given at the previous consultation stage. There were many reasons given in submissions made in the previous consultation stage, by many local residents, councillors and councils, explaining why these proposals provide a better reflection of local community identity than is achieved by the Commission’s draft recommendations. Given the Commission’s failure properly to consider proposals based on a Council size of 63, I would ask in the interests of fairness that the Commission re-examine those representations from the earlier consultation (including my own comments) so that the evidence put forward as to community identity in Fenland and in East Cambridgeshire could be properly considered as required both by law and by the LGBCE’s own published guidance.
Proposed revised scheme of 10 Divisions in Fenland District:
Chatteris Division: The Town of Chatteris
Roman Bank & Peckover Division: The FDC Wards of Roman Bank and Peckover
Waldersey Division: The FDC Ward of Parson Drove & Wisbech St Mary The Western part of March per the LGBCE proposed split (being the proposed “March Rural North” and “March Rural South” Town Wards)
Wisbech West Division: The FDC Wards of Medworth, Clarkson & Waterlees Village
Wisbech East Division: The FDC Wards of Octavia Hill, Staithe & Kirkgate
March North East Division: The FDC Ward of March North (less the LGBCE’s proposed “March Rural North” Town Ward) That part of polling district BA1 north of Creek Road That part of polling district BC1 east of the Railway Line and west of Waveney Drive/Pentland Way
March Central Division: That part of polling district BA1 south of (and including) Creek Road That part of polling district BC1 east of Waveney Drive/Pentland Way Polling Districts BA2 and BA4 That part of polling district BC2_3 between Wimblington Road and the A141 That part of polling district BC4 east of the A141
March South East Division: The FDC Ward of Manea The Parishes of Wimblington & Christchurch Polling district BA3 That part of polling district BC2_3 east of Wimblington Road
Whittlesey Division: The FDC Wards of Bassenhally and Stonald The Whittlesey Town Council Ward of St Andrews
South West Fenland Division: The FDC Ward of Lattersey The FDC Ward of Benwick, Coates & Eastrea The Parish of Doddington The Whittlesey Town Council Ward of St Marys
Proposed revised scheme of 9 Divisions in East Cambs District:
EC_1 Littleport
Littleport East, Littleport West, Queen Adelaide, Prickwillow
EC_2 Ely West
Ely West (less 2-62 Cambridge Rd, Samuels Way, Cambridge Court, Marriott Drive, Houghton Gardens, Tower Road) and polling district HF2 to left of Lynn Road only
EC3_ Ely East
Rest of Ely
EC_4 Sutton North & Downham Villages
Chettisham, Downham South, Pymoor, Witchford, Coveney, Witcham, Mepal, Wentworth and part of Sutton, north of Station Road, High Street and along B1381 to The America
EC_5 Sutton South & South Ely Villages
Little Thetford, Stretham, Wilburton, Haddenham, Aldreth, and part of Sutton, south of Station Road, HIgh Street and along B1381 to The America
EC_6 Soham North
Wicken, Stuntney, Soham North and rest of Soham Central
EC_7 Soham South & South Soham Villages
Soham South, Isleham, Fordham, Kennett, Chippenham, Snailwell and part of Soham Central (Brook Dam Lane, College Close, Ennion Close, Frank Bridges Close, Gidney Lane, High Street (no.s 2-16 and 7-13), Ranthorne Mews, Red Lion Square, Regent Place, Sand Street, The Causeway)
EC_8 Burwell
Burwell, Reach, Swaffhams, Lode
EC_9 Woodditton
Cheveley district ward, Dullingham Villages district ward, Bottisham district ward excluding Lode
From a purely local perspective, in the event that the Commission, despite the evidence submitted to the contrary, is minded to confirm its draft recommendations so far as Whittlesey is concerned, I would request that two matters are considered further:
1. The draft recommendation to split St Marys Town Ward between Whittlesey North and Whittlesey South divisions is unpopular locally and in no way reflects community identity. Given that the Commission’s proposed Whittlesey North division is by far the most over-represented in Fenland, whereas the proposed Whittlesey South division is of average size, I would ask, as the local member, that the Commission consider placing the whole of St Marys Town Ward within Whittlesey North division. This would have the benefit of better reflecting community identity, making for more convenient and effective local government and improving the level of coterminosity with FDC District Council Wards (the Commission has a statutory duty to promote coterminosity). Such a change would leave Whittlesey North comprising the whole of Bassenhally, Stonald and St Andrews FDC Wards, with Whittlesey South comprising the whole of Lattersey and Benwick, Coates and Eastrea FDC Wards, together with the Parish of Doddington and the western part (as currently proposed by the Commission) of the Town of March.
2. In the event that the Commission is not inclined to make any change to its draft recommendations in respect of the Whittlesey Divisions, I would request, to ensure fairer representation and to promote effective and efficient local government, that the Commission’s consequential changes to representation on Whittlesey Town Council be amended. In the Commission’s “final” recommendations in February, it was proposed that Stonald Town Council Ward should have its number of Town Councillors reduced from 2 to 1, that St Andrews Town Ward should retain its current single town councillor on its existing boundaries and that two new single member Town Council wards (St Marys North and St Marys South) should be created from the existing single-member Town Council ward of St Marys. Given the respective electorates, it would be fairer, instead, if Stonald Ward were to retain its two members of Whittlesey Town Council, if St Andrews Town Ward were to be extended to include the Commission’s proposed “St Marys North” Town Ward in a new single member St Andrews Town Ward, and if the Commission’s proposed “St Marys South” Town Ward were to be re-named “St Marys” Town Ward, returning a single member to Whittlesey Town Council.
Chris Boden 20th June 2016 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Cambridgeshire County
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Donald Adey E-m ail:
Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Double headed divisions are very bad for democracy..... How can Cllrs elected properly deal with such numbers of electors. How can 'independent' candidates cover the ground., why do you not split the new division of Trumpington/Queen Edith down Hills Rd. Surely the numbers the numbers can be made to stack up. Please no double headed divisions.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8080 1/1
Dear Mr Hinds
Ref review of recommendation by Cambridgeshire County Council for Eaton Ford
I am writing to you in my capacity of a Town Councillor for Eaton Ford Ward on St Neots Town Council.
I am also a Cambridgeshire County Councillor (CCC) representing a two member Ward ie Eaton Socon & Eynesbury Division.
As a County Councillor I thoroughly agreed with the original proposal by CCC to reduce the membership here in St Neots from 2 two member Divisions to 3 one member Divisions. Indeed this is exactly how this used to be up until a few years ago. I was completely happy that The Eaton’s should once again become a self contained Division again along with Eynesbury as another Division and The Priory and Paxton Division as the third Division.
I put this agreement to the CCC boundary committee and thought no more about it UNTIL two days before the final submission was presented to CCC , when I was informed that the new idea was NOT TO include part of Eaton Ford ie the Poets Estate, Crosshall Road and Saviles Close in The Eaton’s, but for those areas to be put into The Priory & Little Paxton Division across the River Ouse. I was told at that meeting that the reason for this was to ‘balance the population between Divisions’.
I put forward to CCC that The Eaton’s (that is Eaton Socon & Eaton Ford) have always been historically linked and until 40 odd years ago were part of Bedfordshire. In fact our Eaton’s Parish Church is in a completely different Diocese to the rest of St Neots. The Eaton’s have our own Community Association as well as our own schools , shops, industrial estate and shopping centre. We are a community!
An interesting situation occurred recently with a campaign about safety and parking around our local school (Crosshall School) which incidentally if the proposal by CCC to fragment Eaton Ford goes ahead then Crosshall School will no longer be part of Crosshall. The situation was about parking in front and behind the school. This has been resolved satisfactorily BUT if the proposed boundary had taken place the front of the school would be in Eaton’s Division and the streets behind the school would be in the other Division.
Let us now consider one of the criteria that CCC had to consider. That is equal population in Divisions. I can see the relevance of that in rural areas with small villages and several Parish councils for elected County Councillors to attend. However, larger populated areas such as The Eaton’s is ‘managed’ quite easily by one elected member to deal with School issues, highway issues, bus routes and the many other County Council issues that occur. A community area like The Eaton’s or indeed Eynesbury might have a population outside of the guidelines but is much easily supported than large rural areas with less population. I know because I have been a local councillor serving on Town, District & County for nearly 30 years. My wife, a District Councillor for Eaton Ford, has recently been petitioned by some 250 residents of the affected area, (all wishing to remain part of Eaton Ford )such is the strength of feeling about these new boundaries. My wife will be writing to you no doubt under separate cover.
I do ask that common sense prevails and that The Eaton’s is maintained ‘intact’ without part of it being ‘hived off’ across the river into a different part of St Neots.
Yours sincerely
Derek Giles
Town, District and County Councillor.
! " ! #$#$#%&' () *#% ! #+ ,,*-,./ 0 012'2- &)0//*- #!3 &' () *) #$+!
From: David Harty Sent: 14 June 2016 13:13 To: reviews
1. I agree to support the bringing together of Eaton Ford and Eaton Socon, to form the Eatons.
2. Proposals for 61 single member wards would be my preference.
3. I continue to STRONGLY object to the removal of Crosshall Road and Milton Avenue and the roads off, being placed in the adjoining ward. This makes little sense as the River Great Ouse forms a natural boundary, and the changes proposed are a complete change and separation of community and identity. THIS IS A NUMBERS GAME! THE WARD WORKS WELL IF LEFT ALONE FOR THE SAKE OF THE COMMUNITY!! It should remain as part of the Eatons and should be recognised within the boundary lines, following the contour of the river. In addition the green swathe of land and variety of river movement creates an attractive zone for leisure activities, and further enhances the reasoning for this part of Eaton Ford to remain within the natural boundaries
Please acknowledge this addendum.
Cllr David Harty. Member of Cambridgeshire County Council and Huntingdonshire District Council .
Begin forwarded message:
1 Comment on recommendations from LGBCE e mail to: [email protected]
Comment on various points/issues in and around St Neots, as part of the draft recommendations LGBCE
1. Agree with bringing together the two wards to form “The Eatons”.
2. Proposals for 61 councillors, 53 single member wards and 4 member divisions across the County. Disappointed at 4x2 member divisions.
3. River and well defined areas form suitable and often well known boundary lines – and object strongly to Crosshall Road (B1048) being taken out of the Eatons division, and replaced with a twisting stepped line running uphill, behind the properties in and off Milton Avenue. A complete change and separation of community and identity. Works well if left alone!
River forms a natural identifiable boundary line – please retain.
The green swathe of land and variety of river movement and direction creates an attractive zone and opportunities for leisure activities.
It should be part of St Neots and should be recognised within the boundary lines – the centre line of the river.
The area is well recognised locally and within it is the golf course, Riverside Meadows and other recreational activities, all in place for many years.
4. Agree with changes at Church Meadows, Church Street, Cambridge Street and Hen Brook.
Cllr David Harty
Cambridgeshire County Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
30th June 2015
Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) &E r ! %()"$ U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )bph ipt dAX )8h i vqtruv r88pvy 6hpur) hiuvr hvy0H GGTi vvGB 78 @qp
From: David Jenkins Sent: 17 June 2016 09:09 To: reviews
I support Maurice Leeke's submission.
As a councillor for a division which is currently a two member division I can confirm that such divisions do not make sense and result in incomplete and inefficient representation.
David Jenkins
County Councillor, Cambridgeshire County Council Cottenham, Histon and Impington (including the Meadows, Oakington and Westwick, Orchard Park and Rampton)
From: Maurice Leeke Sent: 14 June, 2016 10:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Soper Michael
Subject: Cambridgeshire County Council
Please find attached an alternative proposal for New Electoral Arrangements for Cambridgeshire County Council, together with maps of the proposed changes.
Cllr Maurice Leeke
I've linked 3 files to this email: 1 New Electoral Arrangements for Cambridgeshire County Council
Proposed Alternative Arrangements by Cllr Maurice Leeke
The main criticisms of the Final (now Draft) Recommendations for Cambridgeshire County Council are that they include two-member divisions, and that they split parishes between divisions more than is necessary.
The County Council has expressed its preference for single-member divisions, believing that they give clearer accountability, and more effective representation, than the necessarily much larger two- member divisions.
While split parishes may be acceptable where they include clearly defined separate or new communities, such as the Wing development in Fen Ditton parish, it is a very different case where a single community such as Littleport is split between different divisions. To accommodate single- member divisions larger parishes/towns must necessarily be split, but for parts of the town of March to feature in three separate divisions, one of them a two-member division, and for the City of Ely to fall partly in four different divisions, one of them a two-member division, does seem excessive.
I would like to offer the proposed scheme that follows for your consideration. I believe it addresses the above concerns as well as the need for electoral equality, community identity and providing for effective and convenient local government.
Cambridge City
I support the Commission’s recommendations for Cambridge City (particularly the proposals for Newnham, Market, Petersfield and Romsey) but I do not support your proposal for a two-member Trumpington and Queen Edith’s division.
Instead I propose two separate single-member divisions, one for Trumpington and another for Queen Edith’s. Trumpington would contain all of the Commission’s two-member division to the west of the railway line plus that part of the KA polling district south of Homerton College and west of the centre of Hills Road. All of the resulting single-member division was contained in the former Trumpington division from 1985-2005 and is linked across the railway line by Long Road. The Queen Edith’s division contains the remainder of the two-member proposal. Both of these divisions have estimated 2021 electorates within 10% of the county average (Trumpington -1%, Queen Edith’s - 7%).
East Cambridgeshire
I propose a different arrangement for East Cambs made up of eight single-member divisions.
I would point out that this proposal does not split any parishes except for the two, the City of Ely and Soham, which have too many electors to form a single division. In the case of the City of Ely it is divided into two divisions without including any additional parishes. In the case of Soham, the adjacent parish of Isleham is added to the northern half of the town. The Soham Central polling district is divided along the most prominent natural feature in the polling district, Soham Lode, and the southern part of the town is added to all the other parishes that lie along the route of the A1123. This respects the wishes of Wicken Parish Council to retain its link with Soham.
Littleport forms its own discrete division rather than being shared between two different divisions.
As can be seen in the table all of these proposed single-member divisions have electorates within 10% of the county average except Soham North & Isleham which is 11% above the county average. This could be corrected by a slight alteration to the proposed boundary within the Soham Central polling district, but I consider that the benefit of the strong and obvious boundary of the Soham Lode outweighs the small electoral inequality here.
Fenland
In the Commission’s proposals for Fenland we also have a two-member division and split parishes.
I support the proposals for the Chatteris, Wisbech East and Wisbech West divisions. I note that the proposed Roman Bank and Peckover division includes the Murrow polling district and I propose that this should instead be united with the rest of Wisbech St Mary parish.
The electorate of the town of March indicates that it should have two county councillors. I propose that they should represent two single-member divisions with the River Nene, as a prominent natural feature, forming the boundary between the two. Whilst March North is 11% over the county average, and March South 3% over on the 2014 figures, these positions are almost exactly reversed on the 2021 projections. The 2021 situation could be addressed by a slight adjustment to the boundary, but again I believe that the extra variance is justified by having such a strong natural boundary for these proposed divisions for March.
A criticism of my proposed Elm division might be the lack of direct connections across the division. I do note however that this weakness has already been taken into account with the existing Elm and Christchurch ward, and that the parish of Wisbech St Mary has good connections with Elm, as does Manea with Christchurch. Despite its unusual shape the proposed Elm division contains just these four parishes.
My proposed Whittlesey North division contains the Whittlesey wards of Bassenhally; St Andrews and Stonald. Whittlesey South contains the wards of Lattersey; Benwick, Coates & Eastrea; and Doddington & Wimblington.
Huntingdonshire
I note that the February 2016 proposals for Huntingdonshire contain only single-member divisions and therefore I wish to support those proposals.
South Cambridgeshire
I support the L Commission’s proposals for the northern part of the district, including the proposed split of Fen Ditton parish between the current village and the “Wing” development. My concern is the proposal for a two-member Sawston and Shelford division. I believe this was proposed as a way of meeting the desire of Stapleford to continue to be linked to Shelford rather than Sawston, (which has arguably been only partly achieved).
My proposals for the south of the district respect the wishes of Stapleford, do not divide any parishes, take into account the ward boundaries in the district, and reflect community identity, I believe, at least as well as the Commission’s proposals.
My proposals replace the proposed Duxford, Gamlingay, Hardwick, Melbourn & Bassingbourn, and Sawston & Shelford divisions with a Bassingbourn, revised Gamlingay, a slightly reduced Hardwick, a Melbourn, a Sawston and a Shelford division. The details of the new divisions are as follows:
Bassingbourn comprises the district wards of Bassingbourn, Meldreth, and The Mordens, together with the village of Foxton.
Gamlingay is very similar to the current division, but respecting the Commission’s recommendation to add Little Gransden and Longstowe to their proposed Cambourne division. It comprises the three district wards of Gamlingay (with the exception of Little Gransden and Longstowe mentioned above), Haslingfield & The Eversdens, and Orwell & Barrington.
Hardwick is very similar to the Commission’s proposal with the three small villages of Harlton, Great and Little Eversden re-united with Haslingfield as they are in the same district ward, and in the current Gamlingay division.
Melbourn contains the district wards of Duxford and Melbourn, and the parishes of Fowlmere and Thriplow.
Sawston is made up of the parish and ward of Sawston, and the parishes of Babraham, Hinxton, Pampisford and Whittlesford.
Shelford comprises the two wards of Harston & Hauxton, and The Shelfords and Stapleford.
Cambridge City Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Abbey 1 7,649 -3% 7,794 -9% Arbury 1 7,382 -6% 8,404 -2% Castle 1 6,366 -19% 8,327 -3% Cherry Hinton 1 8,750 11% 8,945 5% Chesterton 1 8,679 11% 8,977 5% King's Hedges 1 9,029 15% 8,996 5% Market 1 7,839 0% 8,361 -2% Newnham 1 7,502 -4% 7,545 -12% Petersfield 1 8,267 5% 8,618 1% Queen Edith's 1 7,554 -4% 7,982 -7% Romsey 1 8,981 14% 9,328 9% Trumpington 1 5,161 -34% 8,473 -1%
Total 93,159 101,750 County Average 7,851 8,547
East Cambridgeshire Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Burwell 1 8,797 12% 9,440 10% Ely North 1 6,975 -11% 9,030 6% Ely South 1 8,461 8% 8,840 3% Littleport 1 6,657 -15% 7,740 -9% Soham North & Isleham 1 8,730 11% 9,520 11% Soham South & Haddenham 1 8,429 7% 9,150 7% Sutton 1 8,720 11% 8,820 3% Woodditton 1 8,761 12% 9,110 7%
Total 65,530 71,650 County Average 7,851 8,547
Fenland Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Chatteris 1 8,095 3% 8,975 5% Elm 1 8,421 7% 8,585 0% March North 1 8,721 11% 8,810 3% March South 1 8,096 3% 9,610 12% Roman Bank & Peckover 1 8,219 5% 8,470 -1% Whittlesey North 1 8,160 4% 8,525 0% Whittlesey South 1 9,194 17% 9,275 9% Wisbech East 1 8,025 2% 8,397 -2% Wisbech West 1 7,944 1% 8,453 -1%
Total 74,875 79,100 County Average 7,851 8,547
South Cambridgeshire Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Bar Hill 1 7,337 -7% 8,760 2% Bassingbourn 1 8,532 9% 8,500 -1% Cambourne 1 7,224 -8% 7,720 -10% Cottenham & Willingham 1 8,163 4% 8,900 4% Fulbourn 1 7,086 -10% 9,069 6% Gamlingay 1 7,493 -5% 8,440 -1% Hardwick 1 7,836 0% 8,040 -6% Histon & Impington 1 7,986 2% 8,850 4% Linton 1 8,420 7% 8,440 -1% Longstanton, Northstowe & Over 1 5,888 -25% 8,590 1% Melbourn 1 8,184 4% 8,230 -4% Papworth & Swavesey 1 7,010 -11% 8,830 3% Sawston 1 7,655 -2% 8,100 -5% Shelford 1 7,864 0% 8,540 0% Waterbeach 1 7,909 1% 8,091 -5%
Total 114,587 127,100 County Average 7,851 8,547
MLL14vi16
! " #$ % & #'#! ($')
From: Gavin Booth Sent: 20 June 2016 19:22 To: reviews
Dear Sir / Madam
Following the re‐opening of the consultation process for the Cambridgeshire County Council Boundary Review. I wish to express my disappointment that previous comments have not been taken into account and appear to completely disregard all opinions presented.
My previous comments relating to the Fenland District Council area remain largely unchanged:
1. I do not believe any division should be represented by more than one county councillor. The geographic area that is covered by one County Councillor is already very large. The proposed creation of two member divisions would double the areas and make representation for individuals very difficult. It would also be impossible for County Council Candidates to visit all residents as part of election campaigns and therefore detract from the democratic processes.
2. Creation of new divisions. I believe that a new County Council Division should be created from the Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary and Roman Bank wards of Fenland District Council. This area represents the rural villages to the west and south of Wisbech. This is an area of historical local connection, previously covered by the old Leverington County Council division. There are also a number of charities that operate in this area that connect the villages. The villages in this area have also worked together on a number of initiatives such as outreach Citizen Advice Bureau sessions. These villages also receive the same newsletter (Village Voices). To split the area as suggested, could well lead to confusion as to which County Councillors represent the respective villages. I have also received representation from local residents that they do not associate themselves with Waldersey division, preferring the old Leverington County Council seat boundaries.
3. I have spoken at Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary Parish Councils, where concern’s have been expressed on the proposed arrangements. Particularly concerning is the splitting of Wisbech St Mary Parish Council area and the creation of a Murrow Ward. The feedback received from local residents indicates that this proposal is not supported as it could pose a barrier to community cohesion.
4. The existing Waldersey division should be amended to remove the Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary ward, as there are distinct physical barriers (The River Nene and A47) that bisect the existing Waldersey Division. This makes travel across the Division time consuming. There is also little community identity shared with villages either side of these physical barriers. Therefore the existing division would not fulfil the LGBC criteria for determining the area covered by County Divisions. The LGBC should take into account the physical & community barriers, which have not been taken into account and therefore you are fulfilling your own guidelines.
5. Wisbech Divisions – Wisbech North should incorporate Peckover ward of Fenland District Council to help achieve electoral equality. This ward is part of the Wisbech Town Council municipal area and identifies with the other wards in Wisbech. Wisbech South should broadly cover the existing area, although possible be renamed. However it would
1 be possible to create a new Division covering Medworth ward and Elm & Christchurch ward and surrounding areas to create a Wisbech and Rural Division.
6. If you need to consider the number of county councillors required then this should be duly considered. Sticking at the previous number has obviously created issues and therefore I would suggest that the number of councillors is seriously reconsidered, to allow boundaries to be established that would better serve the electorate.
Kind Regards
Cllr Gavin Booth
District Councillor Parson Drove & Wisbech St Mary Ward Parish Councillor Parson Drove (Chairman)
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
2
! " #$%&
From: Sent: 14 June 2016 12:34 To: reviews
Review of the Electoral Division boundaries for the County of Cambridgeshire
1. I support the submission from Cambridgeshire County Council that the number of County Councillors be reduced from 69 to 63. Reducing the number to 61, despite Cambridgeshire’s rapidly growing population, will lead to a significant increase in the ratio of electors to Councillors, making it more difficult for County Councillors adequately to represent local residents.
2. I believe that all of the County Councillors should be elected in single-member Divisions, to maintain the best possible contact between electors and their local County Councillor.
3. I support the proposals for boundaries for the County Electoral Divisions which were put forward last year by East Cambridgeshire District Council (9 County Councillors for East Cambridgeshire) and by Fenland District Council (10 County Councillors for Fenland).
These views reflect my Council’s submissions to the previous rounds of consultation.
Yours Cllr Ian Lindsay Chairman City of Ely Council
1 Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) "E r ! % ")$" U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )Srvr sur@yrp hy9vvviqh vrs ur8s8h i vqtruv r
From: Jo Webber Sent: 13 June 2016 13:11 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
I represent the Parish of Littleport as both a Parish and District Councillor. With regards to the review of the electoral division boundaries for the County of Cambridgeshire, apart from the proposed Divisions of Chatteris, Wisbech West and Wisbech East, which I do support, I do not agree with the draft recommendations of the LGBCE in respect of Cambridgeshire. Specifically:
1. I support the submission from Cambridgeshire County Council that the number of County Councillors be reduced from 69 to 63. Reducing the number to 61, despite Cambridgeshire’s rapidly growing population, will lead to a significant increase in the ratio of electors to councillors, making it more difficult for County Councillors adequately to represent local residents.
2. I believe that all of the County Councillors should be elected in single-member Divisions, to maintain the best possible contact between electors and their local County Councillor.
3. I support the proposals for boundaries for the County Electoral Divisions which were put forward last year by East Cambridgeshire District Council (9 County Councillors for East Cambridgeshire) and by Fenland District Council (10 County Councillors for Fenland).
The proposal to split the parish of Littleport into two divisions just does not make sense and has not been received well by the parishioners, the Parish Council and the District Councillors. Littleport shares no amenities, facilities or common identity with either Soham in the east or Sutton in the west, and is not even well connected to these other settlements by road. With the projected increase in population going forward, it would seem unnecessary to split Littleport, but to simple include smaller villages on the outskirts to enable this to remain a single member division.
Kind regards
Joanne Webber Parish Councillor for Littleport (East) District Councillor (East)
1
!"#!$%$ & ' ( ) *( + (, + --
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Windle Sent: 20 June 2016 23:41 To: reviews
Dear Sir or Madam, I write to object to the boundary commission's proposals for the county council divisions in Cambridgeshire. Primarily the arrangements for the divisions of Whittlesey North and Whittlesey South mean that the Whittlesey Town Council ward of St. Mary's would be split in half between the two Whittlesey county council divisions and ultimately would be made into two very small town council wards for subsequent local elections. The division of St. Mary's ward into St. Mary's North and St. Mary's South, each with very small electorates makes no sense at all. I strongly urge the commission to look again at these proposals for Whittlesey and in particular the splitting of St. Mary's ward, as the current recommendations I think will create major problems in the future for local elections in Whittlesey. Please record my objection to the commission's proposals.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Julie Windle St. Mary's Ward Whittlesey Town Council
Sent from my iPad
1 Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) &E r ! %()"% U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )8h i vqtruv r88pvyiqh vr 6hpur) H GGTi vvGB 78 @9P8Y0@h8fH GQI B
From: Lorna Dupré Sent: 17 June 2016 00:00 To: reviews
Dear Sirs,
I am writing as the county councillor for the Sutton division of Cambridgeshire County Council, firstly to express my support for the proposal submitted by Cllr Maurice Leeke for new boundaries for divisions in the County Council, in so far as they affect the villages in my current division. I attach Cllr Leeke’s proposal, which he has already submitted to you, and the map which illustrates the effect of his proposal on East Cambridgeshire.
The advantages of Cllr Leeke’s proposal for East Cambridgeshire divisions in general are as follows:
1. It assumes eight county councillors in East Cambridgeshire, which is what you have invited; 2. It creates single-councillor divisions, rather than large and unwieldy two-councillor divisions which have no local support; 3. It keeps all parishes in the district intact, apart from Ely and Soham which are too large to be single divisions;
And with particular reference to the villages in the current Sutton division:
4. It keeps together all the villages in the existing Sutton division, with the addition of Witchford and Wentworth; 5. It avoids splitting the village of Sutton down the middle, as the East Cambridgeshire District Council proposal does.
The attached proposal from Cllr Leeke therefore has my full support, as I believe it to be in the interests of the parishes in my existing division, and of Witchford (and of Wentworth which has expressed a wish to remain with Witchford), and in the interests of the good governance of the county council.
Secondly, I wish to record my firm opposition to the proposal submitted by East Cambridgeshire District Council, which proposes nine county councillors for East Cambridgeshire rather than the eight you have invited; and which splits the village of Sutton through the middle for no necessary reason, against the wish of Sutton Parish Council.
The village of Sutton is compact and clearly defined; it has a strong community identity, and in no aspect of its community life does the cut through the middle of the parish proposed by East Cambridgeshire District Council make any sense. The result of the unnecessary division of the parish would be two county councillors (along with potentially three district councillors) reporting to a single small parish council; and the parish council having to manage relationships on matters such as minor highways applications, street
1 lighting or grass cutting with two councillors representing opposite sides of the road. Sutton Parish Council has expressed its clear view that it would prefer a single member division containing the whole of Sutton parish; and Cllr Leeke’s proposal shows the District Council’s artificial division of the parish to be totally unnecessary.
I would therefore urge that the LGBCE adopt the proposals of Cllr Leeke, and reject those of East Cambridgeshire District Council.
Yours faithfully,
Cllr Lorna Dupré County Councillor, Sutton division District Councillor, Sutton ward
2 New Electoral Arrangements for Cambridgeshire County Council
Proposed Alternative Arrangements by Cllr Maurice Leeke
The main criticisms of the Final (now Draft) Recommendations for Cambridgeshire County Council are that they include two-member divisions, and that they split parishes between divisions more than is necessary.
The County Council has expressed its preference for single-member divisions, believing that they give clearer accountability, and more effective representation, than the necessarily much larger two- member divisions.
While split parishes may be acceptable where they include clearly defined separate or new communities, such as the Wing development in Fen Ditton parish, it is a very different case where a single community such as Littleport is split between different divisions. To accommodate single- member divisions larger parishes/towns must necessarily be split, but for parts of the town of March to feature in three separate divisions, one of them a two-member division, and for the City of Ely to fall partly in four different divisions, one of them a two-member division, does seem excessive.
I would like to offer the proposed scheme that follows for your consideration. I believe it addresses the above concerns as well as the need for electoral equality, community identity and providing for effective and convenient local government.
Cambridge City
I support the Commission’s recommendations for Cambridge City (particularly the proposals for Newnham, Market, Petersfield and Romsey) but I do not support your proposal for a two-member Trumpington and Queen Edith’s division.
Instead I propose two separate single-member divisions, one for Trumpington and another for Queen Edith’s. Trumpington would contain all of the Commission’s two-member division to the west of the railway line plus that part of the KA polling district south of Homerton College and west of the centre of Hills Road. All of the resulting single-member division was contained in the former Trumpington division from 1985-2005 and is linked across the railway line by Long Road. The Queen Edith’s division contains the remainder of the two-member proposal. Both of these divisions have estimated 2021 electorates within 10% of the county average (Trumpington -1%, Queen Edith’s - 7%).
East Cambridgeshire
I propose a different arrangement for East Cambs made up of eight single-member divisions.
I would point out that this proposal does not split any parishes except for the two, the City of Ely and Soham, which have too many electors to form a single division. In the case of the City of Ely it is divided into two divisions without including any additional parishes. In the case of Soham, the adjacent parish of Isleham is added to the northern half of the town. The Soham Central polling district is divided along the most prominent natural feature in the polling district, Soham Lode, and the southern part of the town is added to all the other parishes that lie along the route of the A1123. This respects the wishes of Wicken Parish Council to retain its link with Soham.
Littleport forms its own discrete division rather than being shared between two different divisions.
As can be seen in the table all of these proposed single-member divisions have electorates within 10% of the county average except Soham North & Isleham which is 11% above the county average. This could be corrected by a slight alteration to the proposed boundary within the Soham Central polling district, but I consider that the benefit of the strong and obvious boundary of the Soham Lode outweighs the small electoral inequality here.
Fenland
In the Commission’s proposals for Fenland we also have a two-member division and split parishes.
I support the proposals for the Chatteris, Wisbech East and Wisbech West divisions. I note that the proposed Roman Bank and Peckover division includes the Murrow polling district and I propose that this should instead be united with the rest of Wisbech St Mary parish.
The electorate of the town of March indicates that it should have two county councillors. I propose that they should represent two single-member divisions with the River Nene, as a prominent natural feature, forming the boundary between the two. Whilst March North is 11% over the county average, and March South 3% over on the 2014 figures, these positions are almost exactly reversed on the 2021 projections. The 2021 situation could be addressed by a slight adjustment to the boundary, but again I believe that the extra variance is justified by having such a strong natural boundary for these proposed divisions for March.
A criticism of my proposed Elm division might be the lack of direct connections across the division. I do note however that this weakness has already been taken into account with the existing Elm and Christchurch ward, and that the parish of Wisbech St Mary has good connections with Elm, as does Manea with Christchurch. Despite its unusual shape the proposed Elm division contains just these four parishes.
My proposed Whittlesey North division contains the Whittlesey wards of Bassenhally; St Andrews and Stonald. Whittlesey South contains the wards of Lattersey; Benwick, Coates & Eastrea; and Doddington & Wimblington.
Huntingdonshire
I note that the February 2016 proposals for Huntingdonshire contain only single-member divisions and therefore I wish to support those proposals.
South Cambridgeshire
I support the L Commission’s proposals for the northern part of the district, including the proposed split of Fen Ditton parish between the current village and the “Wing” development. My concern is the proposal for a two-member Sawston and Shelford division. I believe this was proposed as a way of meeting the desire of Stapleford to continue to be linked to Shelford rather than Sawston, (which has arguably been only partly achieved).
My proposals for the south of the district respect the wishes of Stapleford, do not divide any parishes, take into account the ward boundaries in the district, and reflect community identity, I believe, at least as well as the Commission’s proposals.
My proposals replace the proposed Duxford, Gamlingay, Hardwick, Melbourn & Bassingbourn, and Sawston & Shelford divisions with a Bassingbourn, revised Gamlingay, a slightly reduced Hardwick, a Melbourn, a Sawston and a Shelford division. The details of the new divisions are as follows:
Bassingbourn comprises the district wards of Bassingbourn, Meldreth, and The Mordens, together with the village of Foxton.
Gamlingay is very similar to the current division, but respecting the Commission’s recommendation to add Little Gransden and Longstowe to their proposed Cambourne division. It comprises the three district wards of Gamlingay (with the exception of Little Gransden and Longstowe mentioned above), Haslingfield & The Eversdens, and Orwell & Barrington.
Hardwick is very similar to the Commission’s proposal with the three small villages of Harlton, Great and Little Eversden re-united with Haslingfield as they are in the same district ward, and in the current Gamlingay division.
Melbourn contains the district wards of Duxford and Melbourn, and the parishes of Fowlmere and Thriplow.
Sawston is made up of the parish and ward of Sawston, and the parishes of Babraham, Hinxton, Pampisford and Whittlesford.
Shelford comprises the two wards of Harston & Hauxton, and The Shelfords and Stapleford.
Cambridge City Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Abbey 1 7,649 -3% 7,794 -9% Arbury 1 7,382 -6% 8,404 -2% Castle 1 6,366 -19% 8,327 -3% Cherry Hinton 1 8,750 11% 8,945 5% Chesterton 1 8,679 11% 8,977 5% King's Hedges 1 9,029 15% 8,996 5% Market 1 7,839 0% 8,361 -2% Newnham 1 7,502 -4% 7,545 -12% Petersfield 1 8,267 5% 8,618 1% Queen Edith's 1 7,554 -4% 7,982 -7% Romsey 1 8,981 14% 9,328 9% Trumpington 1 5,161 -34% 8,473 -1%
Total 93,159 101,750 County Average 7,851 8,547
East Cambridgeshire Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Burwell 1 8,797 12% 9,440 10% Ely North 1 6,975 -11% 9,030 6% Ely South 1 8,461 8% 8,840 3% Littleport 1 6,657 -15% 7,740 -9% Soham North & Isleham 1 8,730 11% 9,520 11% Soham South & Haddenham 1 8,429 7% 9,150 7% Sutton 1 8,720 11% 8,820 3% Woodditton 1 8,761 12% 9,110 7%
Total 65,530 71,650 County Average 7,851 8,547
Fenland Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Chatteris 1 8,095 3% 8,975 5% Elm 1 8,421 7% 8,585 0% March North 1 8,721 11% 8,810 3% March South 1 8,096 3% 9,610 12% Roman Bank & Peckover 1 8,219 5% 8,470 -1% Whittlesey North 1 8,160 4% 8,525 0% Whittlesey South 1 9,194 17% 9,275 9% Wisbech East 1 8,025 2% 8,397 -2% Wisbech West 1 7,944 1% 8,453 -1%
Total 74,875 79,100 County Average 7,851 8,547
South Cambridgeshire Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Bar Hill 1 7,337 -7% 8,760 2% Bassingbourn 1 8,532 9% 8,500 -1% Cambourne 1 7,224 -8% 7,720 -10% Cottenham & Willingham 1 8,163 4% 8,900 4% Fulbourn 1 7,086 -10% 9,069 6% Gamlingay 1 7,493 -5% 8,440 -1% Hardwick 1 7,836 0% 8,040 -6% Histon & Impington 1 7,986 2% 8,850 4% Linton 1 8,420 7% 8,440 -1% Longstanton, Northstowe & Over 1 5,888 -25% 8,590 1% Melbourn 1 8,184 4% 8,230 -4% Papworth & Swavesey 1 7,010 -11% 8,830 3% Sawston 1 7,655 -2% 8,100 -5% Shelford 1 7,864 0% 8,540 0% Waterbeach 1 7,909 1% 8,091 -5%
Total 114,587 127,100 County Average 7,851 8,547
MLL14vi16
! " #$ % & #'#! $'
From: Lorna Dupré Sent: 20 June 2016 14:53 To: reviews
Dear Sirs,
The Liberal Democrat Group on East Cambridgeshire District Council does not support the nine-member proposal for county council boundaries in East Cambridgeshire submitted by the district council. We believe the alternative eight-member proposal submitted by county councillor Maurice Leeke has greater merit and would encourage the Commission to adopt Cllr Leeke’s proposal.
The district council’s proposal and Cllr Leeke’s proposal differ in a number of respects.
1. Both proposals keep Littleport intact, but the council’s proposal adds on to it the villages of Prickwillow and Queen Adelaide. We believe these villages have a greater connection to Ely than to Littleport, and therefore prefer Cllr Leeke’s proposal. 2. The district council’s proposal splits the village of Sutton between two different divisions. This cannot be justified on grounds of community identity, and Cllr Leeke’s proposal shows that it is possible to achieve electoral equality without splitting this parish in two against its wishes. The district council’s proposal for this division also includes the settlement of Chettisham, which has a strong connection to Ely through the Lynn Road which joins them. Cllr Leeke’s proposal retains Chettisham within Ely, which we believe is to be preferred. 3. We believe the north-south split of Ely offered by Cllr Leeke is preferable to the east-west split proposed by the district council as it retains a better sense of community identity. Cllr Leeke’s proposal also divides Ely cleanly into two divisions, making liaison between county councillors and the City of Ely Council more straightforward. 4. The addition of Isleham to the north of Soham in Cllr Leeke’s proposal reflects existing connections between the two communities, and divides Soham along the Soham Lode. The village of Stuntney has greater connections with Ely than with Soham, and we do not support the district council’s proposal to include Stuntney in a Soham division. 5. Cllr Leeke’s proposal for a Soham South and Haddenham division retains the existing connections between Haddenham, Aldreth, Wilburton, Little Thetford and Stretham; and between Soham and Wicken. 6. Cllr Leeke’s proposal for Burwell similarly retains connections between Burwell and its surrounding villages, and between Fordham, Chippenham and Snailwell. 7. We support Cllr Leeke’s proposal for the Woodditton division, which retains the strong connection between Bottisham and Lode which is lost in the district council’s proposal.
For these reasons we believe the eight-member proposal submitted by Cllr Leeke should be adopted by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and we strongly urge the Commission to do so.
Yours faithfully,
1
Cllr Lorna Dupré Liberal Democrat Group Leader East Cambridgeshire District Council
2 Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) !"Hh! % )!" U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )Srvr s8h i vqtruv r88pvy 6hpur) 8h i vqtruv rI r 9 hsSrprqhvqs06UU u
From: Lynda Harford Sent: 20 May 2016 15:05 To: reviews
As the County Councillor representing Bar Hill Division of Cambridgeshire County Council I am writing to give strong support to the proposal that the division should include the villages of Bar Hill, Dry Drayton, Girton and Lolworth. I believe that such a proposal meets the criteria which guide proposals made by LGBCE namely: electoral equality; community identity; effective and convenient local government. The revision made to include Lolworth in the Bar Hill Division particularly supports the objective of community identity and does not adversely affect electoral equality or effective convenient local government. I am particularly supportive of the revision and request that it be retained in any new proposal.
Best wishes Lynda
1 Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) "E r ! % !)#( U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )8h i vqtruv r88pvy7qh Srvr
From: Mike Bradley Sent: 13 June 2016 12:38 To: reviews
Dear All,
1. I support the submission from Cambridgeshire County Council that the number of County Councillors be reduced from 69 to 63. Reducing the number to 61, despite Cambridgeshire’s rapidly growing population, will lead to a significant increase in the ratio of electors to councillors, making it more difficult for County Councillors adequately to represent local residents.
2. I believe that all of the County Councillors should be elected in single‐member Divisions, to maintain the best possible contact between electors and their local County Councillor.
3. I support the proposals for boundaries for the County Electoral Divisions which were put forward last year by East Cambridgeshire District Council (9 County Councillors for East Cambridgeshire) and by Fenland District Council (10 County Councillors for Fenland).
I strongly oppose the pattern of divisions proposed by the LGBCE because it does not reflect the identity and interests of local communities, nor does it enable effective and convenient local government. This view is echoed by many of the parish councils in the district.
The market towns of Ely, Littleport and Soham have very distinct identities and communities and there is little evidence of any shared links or associations, infrastructure or facilities. It is imperative that they are kept within separate electoral divisions and not merged as in the LGBCE proposal.
Equally the rural villages have very different characteristics to the market towns and as such careful consideration should be given when aligning them in divisions. The proposed Littleport East and Soham South division incorporates such a large and varied area of the district that all sense of individual community identity is lost. Similarly, the proposed Littleport West Division would cover 13 Parish Councils, with different identities.
The ECDC proposal better reflects the needs of the community whilst the LGBCE proposal for a two councillor division has a +9% variation which could soon increase to over 10%, since more land has been proposed for incorporation into the new Local Plan including upto 500 additional homes at Sutton.
Therefore, please accept the need for 63 single division and the ECDC proposals that are designed to serve our community.
Best regards mike
Mike Bradley District Councillor, Downham Villages, East Cambridgeshire District Council
1 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Cambridgeshire County
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Martin Curtis E-m ail:
Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
The Boundary Commissions own guidance says that two of its criteria are: Ward patterns should – as far as possible – reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable. . The electoral arrangements should promote effective and convenient local government and reflect the electoral cycle of the council. I contend that the arrangements for Whittlesey and Fenland have not met the Commission's own remit - not helped by the review of Fenland a few years ago. There are too many boundaries that are no longer coterminous with the District Council Wards, the number of multi-member wards makes representation less clear to the public. In Whittlesey the decision to move away from two dedicated Councillors does not reflect community interests. The structure that is currently proposed is extremely similar to the one that existed prior to 2005, by coupling a large swathe of Whittlesey with a huge rural area it makes the Division very difficult to manage by a single councillor and therefore reduces the effectiveness of representation in Whittlesey. It also does not take into account the full level of development that is currently planned in the area. The Boundaries that existed pre=2005 were proven not to work, so it is clear that moving back to those arrangements do not reflect community interests. It is my view that, having failed to achieve its own objectives, the boundary commission should revisit its proposals for the Fenland area, perhaps by also revisiting the Boundary review of Fenland District Council, making the arrangements once again, totally coterminous to achieve effective and convenient war/Division structures and which respects community interests and boundaries.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8017 1/1 Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) $E r ! %()!' U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )8h i vqtruv r88pvy 6hpur) 6UU iv06UU!iv06UU"iv0H GGTi vvGB 78 @qp
From: Maurice Leeke Sent: 14 June 2016 22:30 To: reviews
Please find attached an alternative proposal for New Electoral Arrangements for Cambridgeshire County Council, together with maps of the proposed changes.
Cllr Maurice Leeke
I've linked 3 files to this email:
EastC_ML.png(1.3 MB) Boxhttps://app.box.com/s/lqupggde7e719994v10bwkjseqd0f35r
Fenland_ML.png(1.3 MB) Boxhttps://app.box.com/s/0yrwjp5icg767pzlblj8ycza6almaaa1
SCambs_ML.png(4.3 MB) Boxhttps://app.box.com/s/eoe3rtxlbbmh8trpmau3mfrixjw3ktzk
Mozilla Thunderbird makes it easy to share large files over email.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
1 New Electoral Arrangements for Cambridgeshire County Council
Proposed Alternative Arrangements by Cllr Maurice Leeke
The main criticisms of the Final (now Draft) Recommendations for Cambridgeshire County Council are that they include two-member divisions, and that they split parishes between divisions more than is necessary.
The County Council has expressed its preference for single-member divisions, believing that they give clearer accountability, and more effective representation, than the necessarily much larger two- member divisions.
While split parishes may be acceptable where they include clearly defined separate or new communities, such as the Wing development in Fen Ditton parish, it is a very different case where a single community such as Littleport is split between different divisions. To accommodate single- member divisions larger parishes/towns must necessarily be split, but for parts of the town of March to feature in three separate divisions, one of them a two-member division, and for the City of Ely to fall partly in four different divisions, one of them a two-member division, does seem excessive.
I would like to offer the proposed scheme that follows for your consideration. I believe it addresses the above concerns as well as the need for electoral equality, community identity and providing for effective and convenient local government.
Cambridge City
I support the Commission’s recommendations for Cambridge City (particularly the proposals for Newnham, Market, Petersfield and Romsey) but I do not support your proposal for a two-member Trumpington and Queen Edith’s division.
Instead I propose two separate single-member divisions, one for Trumpington and another for Queen Edith’s. Trumpington would contain all of the Commission’s two-member division to the west of the railway line plus that part of the KA polling district south of Homerton College and west of the centre of Hills Road. All of the resulting single-member division was contained in the former Trumpington division from 1985-2005 and is linked across the railway line by Long Road. The Queen Edith’s division contains the remainder of the two-member proposal. Both of these divisions have estimated 2021 electorates within 10% of the county average (Trumpington -1%, Queen Edith’s - 7%).
East Cambridgeshire
I propose a different arrangement for East Cambs made up of eight single-member divisions.
I would point out that this proposal does not split any parishes except for the two, the City of Ely and Soham, which have too many electors to form a single division. In the case of the City of Ely it is divided into two divisions without including any additional parishes. In the case of Soham, the adjacent parish of Isleham is added to the northern half of the town. The Soham Central polling district is divided along the most prominent natural feature in the polling district, Soham Lode, and the southern part of the town is added to all the other parishes that lie along the route of the A1123. This respects the wishes of Wicken Parish Council to retain its link with Soham.
Littleport forms its own discrete division rather than being shared between two different divisions.
As can be seen in the table all of these proposed single-member divisions have electorates within 10% of the county average except Soham North & Isleham which is 11% above the county average. This could be corrected by a slight alteration to the proposed boundary within the Soham Central polling district, but I consider that the benefit of the strong and obvious boundary of the Soham Lode outweighs the small electoral inequality here.
Fenland
In the Commission’s proposals for Fenland we also have a two-member division and split parishes.
I support the proposals for the Chatteris, Wisbech East and Wisbech West divisions. I note that the proposed Roman Bank and Peckover division includes the Murrow polling district and I propose that this should instead be united with the rest of Wisbech St Mary parish.
The electorate of the town of March indicates that it should have two county councillors. I propose that they should represent two single-member divisions with the River Nene, as a prominent natural feature, forming the boundary between the two. Whilst March North is 11% over the county average, and March South 3% over on the 2014 figures, these positions are almost exactly reversed on the 2021 projections. The 2021 situation could be addressed by a slight adjustment to the boundary, but again I believe that the extra variance is justified by having such a strong natural boundary for these proposed divisions for March.
A criticism of my proposed Elm division might be the lack of direct connections across the division. I do note however that this weakness has already been taken into account with the existing Elm and Christchurch ward, and that the parish of Wisbech St Mary has good connections with Elm, as does Manea with Christchurch. Despite its unusual shape the proposed Elm division contains just these four parishes.
My proposed Whittlesey North division contains the Whittlesey wards of Bassenhally; St Andrews and Stonald. Whittlesey South contains the wards of Lattersey; Benwick, Coates & Eastrea; and Doddington & Wimblington.
Huntingdonshire
I note that the February 2016 proposals for Huntingdonshire contain only single-member divisions and therefore I wish to support those proposals.
South Cambridgeshire
I support the L Commission’s proposals for the northern part of the district, including the proposed split of Fen Ditton parish between the current village and the “Wing” development. My concern is the proposal for a two-member Sawston and Shelford division. I believe this was proposed as a way of meeting the desire of Stapleford to continue to be linked to Shelford rather than Sawston, (which has arguably been only partly achieved).
My proposals for the south of the district respect the wishes of Stapleford, do not divide any parishes, take into account the ward boundaries in the district, and reflect community identity, I believe, at least as well as the Commission’s proposals.
My proposals replace the proposed Duxford, Gamlingay, Hardwick, Melbourn & Bassingbourn, and Sawston & Shelford divisions with a Bassingbourn, revised Gamlingay, a slightly reduced Hardwick, a Melbourn, a Sawston and a Shelford division. The details of the new divisions are as follows:
Bassingbourn comprises the district wards of Bassingbourn, Meldreth, and The Mordens, together with the village of Foxton.
Gamlingay is very similar to the current division, but respecting the Commission’s recommendation to add Little Gransden and Longstowe to their proposed Cambourne division. It comprises the three district wards of Gamlingay (with the exception of Little Gransden and Longstowe mentioned above), Haslingfield & The Eversdens, and Orwell & Barrington.
Hardwick is very similar to the Commission’s proposal with the three small villages of Harlton, Great and Little Eversden re-united with Haslingfield as they are in the same district ward, and in the current Gamlingay division.
Melbourn contains the district wards of Duxford and Melbourn, and the parishes of Fowlmere and Thriplow.
Sawston is made up of the parish and ward of Sawston, and the parishes of Babraham, Hinxton, Pampisford and Whittlesford.
Shelford comprises the two wards of Harston & Hauxton, and The Shelfords and Stapleford.
Cambridge City Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Abbey 1 7,649 -3% 7,794 -9% Arbury 1 7,382 -6% 8,404 -2% Castle 1 6,366 -19% 8,327 -3% Cherry Hinton 1 8,750 11% 8,945 5% Chesterton 1 8,679 11% 8,977 5% King's Hedges 1 9,029 15% 8,996 5% Market 1 7,839 0% 8,361 -2% Newnham 1 7,502 -4% 7,545 -12% Petersfield 1 8,267 5% 8,618 1% Queen Edith's 1 7,554 -4% 7,982 -7% Romsey 1 8,981 14% 9,328 9% Trumpington 1 5,161 -34% 8,473 -1%
Total 93,159 101,750 County Average 7,851 8,547
East Cambridgeshire Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Burwell 1 8,797 12% 9,440 10% Ely North 1 6,975 -11% 9,030 6% Ely South 1 8,461 8% 8,840 3% Littleport 1 6,657 -15% 7,740 -9% Soham North & Isleham 1 8,730 11% 9,520 11% Soham South & Haddenham 1 8,429 7% 9,150 7% Sutton 1 8,720 11% 8,820 3% Woodditton 1 8,761 12% 9,110 7%
Total 65,530 71,650 County Average 7,851 8,547
Fenland Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Chatteris 1 8,095 3% 8,975 5% Elm 1 8,421 7% 8,585 0% March North 1 8,721 11% 8,810 3% March South 1 8,096 3% 9,610 12% Roman Bank & Peckover 1 8,219 5% 8,470 -1% Whittlesey North 1 8,160 4% 8,525 0% Whittlesey South 1 9,194 17% 9,275 9% Wisbech East 1 8,025 2% 8,397 -2% Wisbech West 1 7,944 1% 8,453 -1%
Total 74,875 79,100 County Average 7,851 8,547
South Cambridgeshire Division Name No. of Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Cllrs 2014 % 2021 % Bar Hill 1 7,337 -7% 8,760 2% Bassingbourn 1 8,532 9% 8,500 -1% Cambourne 1 7,224 -8% 7,720 -10% Cottenham & Willingham 1 8,163 4% 8,900 4% Fulbourn 1 7,086 -10% 9,069 6% Gamlingay 1 7,493 -5% 8,440 -1% Hardwick 1 7,836 0% 8,040 -6% Histon & Impington 1 7,986 2% 8,850 4% Linton 1 8,420 7% 8,440 -1% Longstanton, Northstowe & Over 1 5,888 -25% 8,590 1% Melbourn 1 8,184 4% 8,230 -4% Papworth & Swavesey 1 7,010 -11% 8,830 3% Sawston 1 7,655 -2% 8,100 -5% Shelford 1 7,864 0% 8,540 0% Waterbeach 1 7,909 1% 8,091 -5%
Total 114,587 127,100 County Average 7,851 8,547
MLL14vi16
Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) &E r ! %()# U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )8h i vqtruv r 6hpur) 88vfH Gwt0@h8h i! #X xurry0@h8h i!! X xurry0Aryhq! # X xurry0Aryhq!! X xurry0Tu8h i! #X xurry0Tu8h i !! X xurry
-----Original Message----- From: Maurice Leeke Sent: 16 June 2016 20:38 To: reviews
Dear Sir or Madam
Further to my submission on 14th June please find attached:
- a further map (for the proposed split of the Trumpington & Queen Edith's division into single-member divisions).
- worksheets for East Cambs, Fenland and part of South Cambs for both the 2014 electorate and the 2021 forecast electorate.
Do please contact me if you would like any further information on my proposals.
Yours
Maurice Leeke
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
1
Polling Location Burwell Ely North Ely South Littleport Soham N Soham S & Sutton Woodditton District & Isleham Haddenham
HA6 Stuntney 210 HC1 Prickwillow 410 HD6 Queen Adelaide 200 HF1 Ely North 3850 HF2 Ely North 3490 HG1 Ely East 670 HH1 Ely East 1270 HI1 Ely South 3510 HI2 Ely West 3180 HJ6 Chettisham 130 HK1 Ely East 950 IA1 Coveney 340 IB1 Downham 1760 ID1 Pymoor 340 IE1 Littleport West 3590 IF1 Littleport East 4010 IG1 Littleport East 140 JA1 Haddenham 2550 JB1 Aldreth 190 JC1 Mepal 800 JD1 Stretham 1520 JE1 Sutton 3180 JF1 Thetford 560 JG1 Wentworth 140 JH1 Wilburton 1150 JI1 Witcham 360 JJ1 Witchford 1900 KA1 Bottisham 1980 KB1 Burwell 2590 KB2 Burwell 2840 Polling Location Burwell Ely North Ely South Littleport Soham N Soham S & Sutton Woodditton District & Isleham Haddenham
KC1 Lode 740 KD1 Reach 290 KE1 Swaff Bulbeck 650 KF1 Swaff Prior 650 LA1 Chippenham 370 LB1 Fordham 2270 LC1 Isleham 1960 LE1 Kennett 290 LF1 Soham North 4290 LG1 Soham Central 3220 460 LG2 Soham South 2100 LI6 Snailwell 140 LJ1 Wicken 670 MA1 Ashley 490 MB1 Brinkley 300 MC1 Burrough Green 310 MD1 Cheveley North 730 ME1 Cheveley South 980 MF1 Dullingham 580 MG1 Kirtling 280 MH1 Stetchworth 520 MI6 Westley Waterless 120 MJ1 Woodditton Urban 930 MK1 Woodditton Rural 260 MK2 Saxon Street 240
71650 9440 9030 8840 7740 9470 9200 8820 9110 8547 % of County Av. 110 106 103 91 111 108 103 107 Polling Location Burwell Ely North Ely South Littleport Soham N Soham S & Sutton Woodditton District & Isleham Haddenham
HA6 Stuntney 206 HC1 Prickwillow 408 HD6 Queen Adelaide 195 HF1 Ely North 3717 HF2 Ely North 1570 HG1 Ely East 674 HH1 Ely East 762 HI1 Ely South 3582 HI2 Ely West 3237 HJ6 Chettisham 132 HK1 Ely East 953 IA1 Coveney 339 IB1 Downham 1752 ID1 Pymoor 336 IE1 Littleport West 2671 IF1 Littleport East 3847 IG1 Littleport East 139 JA1 Haddenham 2462 JB1 Aldreth 194 JC1 Mepal 797 JD1 Stretham 1432 JE1 Sutton 3121 JF1 Thetford 556 JG1 Wentworth 142 JH1 Wilburton 1150 JI1 Witcham 354 JJ1 Witchford 1879 KA1 Bottisham 1810 KB1 Burwell 2488 KB2 Burwell 2471 Polling Location Burwell Ely North Ely South Littleport Soham N Soham S & Sutton Woodditton District & Isleham Haddenham
KC1 Lode 736 KD1 Reach 289 KE1 Swaff Bulbeck 653 KF1 Swaff Prior 624 LA1 Chippenham 370 LB1 Fordham 2125 LC1 Isleham 1883 LE1 Kennett 291 LF1 Soham North 4290 LG1 Soham Central 2557 460 LG2 Soham South 1507 LI6 Snailwell 139 LJ1 Wicken 668 MA1 Ashley 485 MB1 Brinkley 296 MC1 Burrough Green 307 MD1 Cheveley North 731 ME1 Cheveley South 862 MF1 Dullingham 584 MG1 Kirtling 279 MH1 Stetchworth 517 MI6 Westley Waterless 121 MJ1 Woodditton Urban 882 MK1 Woodditton Rural 258 MK2 Saxon Street 240
65530 8797 6975 8461 6657 8730 8429 8720 8761 7851 % of County Av. 112 89 108 85 111 107 111 112 Chatteris Elm March March Roman Bank Whittlesey Whittlesey Wisbech Wisbech North South & Peckover North South East West
AA1 Birch 2205 2205 AB1 Slade Lode 2210 2210 AC1 The Mills 2180 2180 AD1 Wenneye 2380 2380 BA1 March East 1760 1760 BA2 March East 1800 1800 BA3 March East 1210 1210 BA4 March East 1410 1410 BB1 March North 1680 1680 BB2 March North 1660 1660 BB3 March North 2080 2080 BC1 March West 1630 1630 BC2_3 March West 2290 2290 BC4 March West 2900 2900 CA Benwick 840 840 DA1 Bassenhally 1280 1280 DB1 Delph 1580 1580 DC1 Kingsmoor 1590 1590 DD1 Lattersey 1870 1870 DE1 St Andrews 2080 2080 DF1 St Marys 2170 1995 175 DG1 Coates 1080 1080 Dh Eastrea 810 810 DI Pondersbridge 310 310 DJ Turves 470 470 DK Kings Delph 90 90 Wisbech East 8397 8397 Wisbech West 8453 8453 EE1 Peckover 2050 2050 FA Doddington 1860 1860 Chatteris Elm March NorthMarch SouthRoman Bank Whittlesey Whittlesey Wisbech Wisbech & Peckover North South East West
GA Friday Bridge 1070 1070 GB Elm 1730 1730 GC Coldham 190 190 GD Rings End 110 110 GE Christchurch 750 750 HA Manea 1875 1875 KA1 Wimblington 1650 1650 KB Stonea 120 120 PA Parson Drove 1020 1020 PB Wisbech St Mary 1380 1380 PC Murrow 780 780 PD Guyhirn 620 620 PE Thorney Toll 80 80 RA Gorefield 1000 1000 RB1 Leverington 1820 1820 RB2 Leverington 1010 1010 RC Newton 600 600 RD Coldham 970 970 79100 Total 79100 8975 8585 8810 9610 8470 8525 9275 8397 8453 8547 % of County Av. 105 100 103 112 99 100 109 98 99 Chatteris Elm March March Roman Bank Whittlesey Whittlesey Wisbech Wisbech North South & Peckover North South East West
AA1 Birch 1846 AB1 Slade Lode 2049 AC1 The Mills 2180 AD1 Wenneye 2020 BA1 March East 1649 BA2 March East 1686 BA3 March East 1134 BA4 March East 1315 BB1 March North 1710 BB2 March North 1689 BB3 March North 2112 BC1 March West 1561 BC2_3 March West 2027 BC4 March West 1934 CA Benwick 840 DA1 Bassenhally 1280 DB1 Delph 1575 DC1 Kingsmoor 1270 DD1 Lattersey 1840 DE1 St Andrews 2076 DF1 St Marys 1959 175 DG1 Coates 1063 Dh Eastrea 798 DI Pondersbridge 303 DJ Turves 460 DK Kings Delph 90 Wisbech East 8025 Wisbech West 7944 EE1 Peckover 1848 FA Doddington 1862 Chatteris Elm March NorthMarch SouthRoman Bank Whittlesey Whittlesey Wisbech Wisbech & Peckover North South East West
GA Friday Bridge 1061 GB Elm 1715 GC Coldham 186 GD Rings End 111 GE Christchurch 699 HA Manea 1806 KA1 Wimblington 1648 KB Stonea 115 PA Parson Drove 1007 PB Wisbech St Mary 1370 PC Murrow 773 PD Guyhirn 619 PE Thorney Toll 81 RA Gorefield 1001 RB1 Leverington 1780 RB2 Leverington 1012 RC Newton 597 RD Coldham 974
Total 8095 8421 8721 8096 8219 8160 9194 8025 7944 7851 % of County Av. 103 107 111 103 105 104 117 102 101 South Cambs Shelford Sawston Melbourn Bassing Gam'gay Hardwick Haslingfield 1980 1980 Harston 1380 1380 Hauxton 1100 1100 Newton 300 300 Lt Shelford 660 660 Gt Shelford 3440 3440 Stapleford 1660 1660 Sawston 5970 5970 Babraham 200 200 Sub Total 16690 Pampisford 270 270 Hinxton 260 260 Whittlesford 1400 1400 Duxford 1480 1480 Ickleton 520 520 Heydon 190 190 Gt Chishill 500 500 Lt Chishill 50 50 Fowlmere 920 920 Thriplow 390 390 Heathfield 490 490 Foxton 1000 1000 Shepreth 670 670 Sub Total 8140 Melbourn 3690 3690 Bassingbourn 2320 2320 Whaddon 350 350 Meldreth 1510 1510 Sub Total 7870 Litlington 670 670 Abington Pigotts 120 120 Steeple Morden 850 850 Guilden Morden 760 760 Tadlow 160 160 Shingay 90 90 Arrington 330 330 Croydon 180 180 Hatley 170 170 Gamlingay 2980 2980 Wimpole 240 240 Orwell 860 860 Barrington 820 820 Sub Total 8230 Hardwick 8920 8920 Harlton 240 ‐240 Lt Eversden 470 ‐470 Gt Eversden 170 ‐170 49850 8540 8100 8230 8500 8440 8040 Total 49850 Shelford Sawston Melbourn Bassing Gam'gay Hardwick South Cambs Shelford Sawston Melbourn Bassing Gam'gay Hardwick Haslingfield 1980 1229 Harston 1380 1381 Hauxton 1100 590 Newton 300 302 Lt Shelford 660 664 Gt Shelford 3440 3409 Stapleford 1660 1518 Sawston 5970 5519 Babraham 200 198 Sub Total 16690 Pampisford 270 270 Hinxton 260 260 Whittlesford 1400 1408 Duxford 1480 1493 Ickleton 520 522 Heydon 190 187 Gt Chishill 500 489 Lt Chishill 50 48 Fowlmere 920 931 Thriplow 390 398 Heathfield 490 490 Foxton 1000 979 Shepreth 670 655 Sub Total 8140 Melbourn 3690 3626 Bassingbourn 2320 2368 Whaddon 350 358 Meldreth 1510 1484 Sub Total 7870 Litlington 670 679 Abington Pigotts 120 117 Steeple Morden 850 869 Guilden Morden 760 775 Tadlow 160 160 Shingay 90 88 Arrington 330 325 Croydon 180 176 Hatley 170 169 Gamlingay 2980 2788 Wimpole 240 239 Orwell 860 861 Barrington 820 824 Sub Total 8230 Hardwick 8920 8718 Harlton 239 ‐239 Lt Eversden 469 ‐469 Gt Eversden 174 ‐174 47564 7864 7655 8184 8532 7493 7836 Total 49850 Shelford Sawston Melbourn Bassing Gam'gay Hardwick Cvq6yr
A ) Svpuh qSir 1Svpuh qSir 5 ph i vqtrtx3 Tr) !Er! % #) # U) 7pxSvpuh q 8p) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) Sr)Q rqiqh puhtrQrr svryqh q8h i vqtr
Dear Mr Buck
Further to your email of 10th May and the new consultation
St Matthew’s area of Petersfield ward Cambridge My concerns remain regarding the proposals put forward for re‐consultation. The community in the St Matthews area is well developed and integrated. The residents in the streets between East Road and York Street relate together and with us, their councillors. The proposed hiving off of some streets and parts of streets would be damaging to that community and entirely contrary to the Boundary Commission’s commitment “to ensure that the pattern of divisions reflects the interests and identities of local communities”. Residents in the same vicinity, and some in the same street, would need to contact councillors from different wards about the same concerns they might have, such as a contentious planning application. As local members we would have much greater difficulty serving the residents if the ward boundary split up the community and this goes against the Commission’s aim of “promoting effective local government”.
Currently New Street, at the very north end of the ward, forms a more natural divide between Petersfield and Abbey wards. However the boundary splits the street between the two wards and I suggest it would make more sense if the whole street is moved into Abbey ward. The block of modern houses on the corner of New Street and York Street should also be kept together and placed in Abbey ward. St Matthew’s Gardens, a new estate built some 10 years ago, also has more in common with the New Street housing than the rest of the area. Some of the houses off East Road (east of St Matthew’s Street) and Newmarket Road are also currently in Petersfield, eg Parkers Terrace, and these too could be moved into Abbey so that all the residents living in that block of properties are in the same ward
New Town and Brooklands Avenue area of Trumpington ward Cambridge The Commission proposes to add this area (currently the MA part of Trumpington ward) into Petersfield. The narrow terraced Victorian streets of the New Town area (between Trumpington Road and Hills Road) are similar to the JB area of Petersfield on the other side of Hills Road. The communities in both these areas relate to St Paul’s Church centre and to St Paul’s School and as ward councillors it would be easier for us to relate to the combined community, and they to us, than it is at present.
The same cannot be said of the new estates off Brooklands Avenue bounded by that avenue, Hills Road and the railway. I suggest that these blocks of new housing should remain in Trumpington where they will form part of a ward with other areas of new housing some of which is still being constructed. best regards
Richard Cllr Richard Robertson Petersfield ward Cambridge City Council
1 Cvq6yr
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) "E r ! % )# U) Cvq6yr Tiwrp) AX )8h i vqtruv r8iqh rvr
From: Steve Count Sent: 13 June 2016 09:56 To: reviews
Dear Sirs,
I am dismayed you continue to ignore representations from all quarters on your proposals which fundamentally undermines local democratic representation.
Apart from the proposed Divisions of Chatteris, Wisbech West and Wisbech East, which I do support, I do not agree with the draft recommendations of the LGBCE in respect of Cambridgeshire. Specifically:
1. I support the submission from Cambridgeshire County Council that the number of County Councillors be reduced from 69 to 63. Reducing the number to 61, despite Cambridgeshire’s rapidly growing population, will lead to a significant increase in the ratio of electors to councillors, making it more difficult for County Councillors adequately to represent local residents. It is this single arbitrary and un-evidenced decision you have taken without support from any quarter, that has led to the inability to design appropriate areas in Fenland and East Cambridgeshire.
2. I believe that all of the County Councillors should be elected in single-member Divisions, to maintain the best possible contact between electors and their local County Councillor. The ward I represent at present is March North, The Commission’s proposed “March North and Waldersey” Division is a massively oversized two-member division. This mixture of a large urban town area and a dozen rural villages in three rural parishes would not produce a division with coherent community interests. The proposals put forward for 63 councillors does have logical single member divisions for Fenland that you appear oblivious to and yet they support community cohesion and proportionate representation in a way that this two member diovision completely fails.
3. I support the proposals for boundaries for the County Electoral Divisions which were put forward last year by East Cambridgeshire District Council (9 County Councillors for East Cambridgeshire) and by Fenland District Council (10 County Councillors for Fenland).
Regards Steve Count Presently County Councilor for March North
Virus-free. www.avast.com
1
21st May 2016
Dear Mr. Hinds,
Ref: Proposed Boundary Changes Eaton Ford, St.Neots, Cambs.
I am writing to add my voice to the many objections regarding the proposed change to move part of Eaton Ford into Priory and Little Paxton Division on Cambridgeshire County Council.
I was first elected to serve on Cambridgeshire County Council back in 1993, as the only County Councillor representing The Eaton’s Division, which was made up of Eaton Socon and Eaton Ford. The Eaton’s is one side of the river, the rest of the town is the other side. Before the 1974 Boundary Changes we were actually part of Bedfordshire!
At that time, and for several more years following, the rest of the town was made up of The Eynesbury Division (one County Councillor) and the Priory & Little Paxton Division, (also one County Councillor.)
None of these Divisions was spread out, (unlike some more rural divisions where the County Councillor had up to 12 parishes in his/her division), and all three Divisions were ably managed by the three County Councillors.
The Eaton’s has always had its own identity, and it is the potential loss of this identity, amongst many other things, which has got the residents extremely worried, not to say rather irritated!
Our own Parish Church of St. Mary the Virgin is actually part of the St. Albans Diocese, unlike the rest of St.Neots which belongs to the Diocese of Ely. Eaton Ford also has its own Methodist Chapel and one of the more modern Churches which operate from our Community Centre.
We have our own Beaver/Cub/Scout organisations, as well as many other toddler groups, play schools, pre-school, infant and junior schools, not to mention all the various groups and clubs covering all age ranges which are run by many volunteers here in the Eaton’s. We have an extremely active, and very much appreciated, Community Association, plus our own shops, businesses, opticians, health centre and pharmacy, restaurants and pubs. In other words, the sense of community spirit is a very real thing here. I would also mention that we have our very own Sudbury Meadows which is cared for and managed by yet another group of Eaton Ford volunteers. Under the new proposals, this wildlife habitat and recreation area would be lost to Eaton Ford and moved to Little Paxton & Priory. It just does not make sense to take part of Eaton Ford and move it “across the river”.
Several years ago the division boundaries were altered because it was felt, at that time apparently, that St.Neots needed four County councillors not three. Imagine our dismay when instead of using the river as a natural boundary, we were divided in half by St.Neots Road and the High Street! Now that it has been decided that St.Neots can manage with just three County Councillors (and I have to say that locally we have always felt that three was plenty !) we were all pleased to think that The Eaton’s Division, for our side of the river, was going to be restored.
Horror of horrors is the only way to describe the reaction to the news that it has been suggested that part of Eaton Ford (ie: Milton Avenue Estate, Crosshall Road and Savilles Close) be moved across to the new Priory and Little Paxton Division.
Please have another re-think about this matter. Eaton Ford likes being part of The Eaton’s. Eaton Socon and Eaton Ford have been a community with its own identity for several centuries, so please keep Eaton Ford intact, and DO NOT move part of it in a number juggling exercise.
Speaking from many years of personal experience, to revert back to the three Divisions of Eynesbury, Priory & Little Paxton and The Eaton’s , which we know is easily manageable and works very well, would be the most sensible, and indeed, very welcome, outcome of your deliberations.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr. Mrs. Sandie Giles,
District Councillor for Eaton Ford. Response to consultation on new draft recommendations Councillor Zoë O’Connell - 19th June 2016
I am writing as a city councillor in Cambridge, for the ward of Trumpington, in response to the consultation on new draft recommendations for Cambridgeshire.
I support the need for updating the boundaries, particularly as it relates to Trumpington division as recent growth and the increase in issues that stem from that has left the existing ward too large and unwieldy for current levels of representation compared to elsewhere in Cambridge City. The flats around the station (Warren Close and Vinter Terrace) in particular share the least in common with other areas of Trumpington division. However, I object to the proposed merger of Trumpington and Queen Edith’s divisions and I do not believe this merger will best serve the interests of residents in either division.
Electoral equality & effective local government On the general topic of larger divisions, the problems of electoral non-proportionality under First Past The Post are well known and dual-member divisions risk exacerbating this problem. Specifically, the current situation is that a candidate in Trumpington or Queen Edith’s Ward needs to secure approximately 750-950 votes in order to win in a normal (Non-general) election year. Under the proposed boundaries, this would increase to ~1800 votes. This changes decreases the chances of an independent or third party being able to challenge the status quo and does not help democracy. The proposed two-member division also exacerbates the troubles with the overly-large Trumpington division requiring more attention and having more Residents’ Associations than any other division in Cambridge City. Whilst initially, members of a combined division are more likely to be more strongly identified with one half of the division than the other, over time and if members do not share the same party, this distinction is likely to erode and members are less likely to have time to properly address issues covering the whole area.
Community Identity There is little overlap in community or local activity interest between Trumpington and Queen Edith’s beyond that which would be expected between two wards sharing the same city. In my tenure as ward councillor I have more frequently encountered overlap with issues in other neighbouring wards (Most notably Petersfield, but also Newnham and Market) than with Queen Edith’s. This is largely because the train line and guided busway present a natural break between the two areas, with the the only public road link between the proposed halves of the division being Long Road1, a route with no current or proposed facilities which are likely to lead to it becoming a local centre, I have seen no evidence of significant use of cross-border community facilities or joint work between Residents’ Associations, save that RAs on both sides of the border are opposed to the merger.
Proposed new boundary The difficulty faced by the Boundary Commission has been to find a boundary that does not divide communities. However, substantial continuing growth in Trumpington is likely to lead to the area gaining far more voters than the source data presented by the Boundary Commission suggests. For example, the polling district MC is projected to increase from 1,414 (2014) to 1,760 voters by 2020, whereas the most recent electoral register data already lists 2,510 voters in the MC polling
1 Addenbrooke’s Road is not open to through traffic. district. This discrepancy alone addresses most of the imbalance in number of electors, even without accounting for future growth and would allow theTrumpington/Queen Edith’s border to remain largely untouched. If fine tuning is required, it would make the most sense to move the Petersfield border back marginally towards the existing boundaries around the Brooklands Avenue area, as Petersfield has a positive variance in the proposed boundaries, or transfer a small number of properties from Queen Edith’s to Trumpington along the sole shared transport link between the two divisions - Long Road.