Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No(408
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No(408 c LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. k. 0 0 LOCAL GOVEKNlfliNT 30UHDARY-COMMISSION -FOR EHGLA1U) CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB MEMBERS Lady .Bowden - Mr J T Brockbank DL Mr R R Thornton CBE DL Mr D P Harrison Profecsor G E Cherry To, the Rt Hon William Whitelaw GH TIC HP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY OF AVON 1. The last Ci-der under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to electoral arrangements for districts in the County of Avon was made on 4 March 1980. AH required by Section 63 and Schedule 9 of the Act we hnve now reviev/ed the electoral arrangements for that county, using the procedures we had set out in our Report No 6. 2. We informed the Avon County Council in a consultation letter dated 25 March I960 thot we proposed to conduct the review, and sent copiera of the letter to the district councils, parish councils and parish meetings in the county, to the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies concerned, to the headquarters of the main political parties and to the editors both of local newspapers circulating in the county and of the local government press. Notices in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies, 3.1, On 16 May 1980 the County Council submitted to us a draft scheme in which they suggested ?6 electoral divisions for the county, each returning one member in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. k.\ We considered this scheme together with the views expressed by local interests. On 1? August 1980 we issued draft proposals which we sent to all those who had received our consultation letter, or commented on the County Council's draft scheme. Notices were inserted in the local press announcing that the draft proposals had been issued and could be inspected at theC ounty Council's offices. 5. After giving careful consideration to the Avon County Labour Party's alternative .scheme for .the county as a whole (apart from Bristol) and other comments we had received, we decided to incorporate the County Council's draft scheme in our draft proposals subject to the following modifications: (a) City of Bath We adopted Avon County Labour Party*s suggested rearrangement of the city wards in five of the County Council's proposed divisions for the City. In accordance with the terms of the Act we chose names for the divisions rather than the numbered divisions suggested. (b) Uorthavon District We adopted Patchway Parish Council's suggestion that the Stoke Gifford North district ward should be transferred from the Patchway division to the Filton division, (c) Woodspring District We adopted the North Somerset Division of the Liberal Party's suggestion that the parish of Portbury should be transferred from the Portishead division to the Gordano Valley division. 6. We received comments in response to our draft proposals from the Avon.County Council^ four district councils, 8 parisk councils, thirteen political paxty 6rganisati6ns, threeotfaar organisations and two private individuals. A full list of those who wrote to us is given at Appendix 1 to this report. 7. The County Council felt that our draft proposals, were, satisfactory, subject to the amendment of two minor errors in the descriptions of boundaries affecting four divisions in the City of Bath'. 8. The Avon County Labour Party expressed disappointment that their schemes for Kingswood, Northavon, Wansdyke and Woodspring Districts hnd not been adopted and wished for evidence in favour of then to bo given at a local meeting. They stated that their members felt very strongly that many of the suggestions of the County Council were based more upon grounds of political advantage than on the interests of the local community. They also argued that, since the new wards for the City of Bristol did not come into effect until 1983, introduction of new arrangements for the county in May 19&1 would cause further confusion for many of the electors in the City of Bristol, particularly should by-elections for the City Council occur between May 1981 and Hay 1983* They therefore believed the proper .time for introduction of new County Council divisions would be in May 1983. Similar representations were received from the Bristol City Council, Kingswood Constit- uency Labour Party, Bristol N*0rth East Labour Party, Kastville Branch of Bristol North East Labour Party and Brislington Branch Labour Party. 9. The other comments we received were as follows:- (a) City of Bath Bath City Council stated that they did not wish to pursue their earlier proposition of 8 electoral divisions. ('Ve had considered this previously but had felt unable to incorporate it in our draft proposals as it would have led to the City of Bath being over-represented as compared with other districts.) The City Council were however strongly opposed to the names of our proposed divisions and drew our attention, as the County Council hnd done, to two minor errors in the descriptions of the Oldfield/i^outhdown and Abbey/Lansdown division boundaries. (b) Kingswood District Kingswood Central Branch of the Labour Party and one private individual objected to our draft proposals for the whole of the district. Hanham and District Branch of the Labour Party and another private individual objected to our proposed Bitton division. Siston Branch Labour Party widhed to revert to the Avon County Labour Party's suggestions.for the Siston, Downend and Rodway divisions. Cadbury Heath and Longwell Green Branch of Kingswood Constituency Labour Party objected to our proposed Siston and Longwell Green divisions and the Chairman of Downend and Mangotsfield Residents'Association submitted alternative proposals for the Downend and Rodway divisions. (c) Northavon District Horthavon District Council had no objections to our draft proposals. Stoke Gifford PHrish Council submitted alternative surgestions for the Filton and Winterbourne divisions as did Filton Local LatourParty who also objected to our proposed Patchway division. Iron Acton Parish Council and Frampton Cotterell Parish Council both objected to our proposed Ladderi Brook division and the latter parish council submitted alternative sxggeetLons for the Winterbourne division. (d) Wansdyke District Dunkerton Parish Council submitted alternative suggestions for the Raustock division. (e) WoodsprinK District The Woodspring District Council and Weston-super-Mare Civio Society both objected i to the choice of names for our proposed divisions in Ueston-super-Mare. Easton- i in-Gordano Parish Council had no objections to our proposed Gordano Valley division. Council, . The -veston-super-Mare Constituency Labour Party, Yattpn Parish Council, Kenn Paris*/ Clevedon Co-operative Party and Yatton Labour Party all objected to our proposed Yatton and Yeo M0or division, as did the Association of Clevedon Residents and Ratepayers who also objected to our proposed Clevedon division. Nailsea Town Council were in agreement with our proposed Nailsea division. i 10. In considering the representations made to us in favour of holding a public meeting and deferring any changes until 1983* we examined with care the consequences of holding the 1981 elections under the present arrangements as compared with those that would result from implementing our draft proposals. On the basis of the 1980 electorate the position is as follows:- (i) With the present County Council of 73, Woodspring and Northavon Districts would be under-represented by.2 members and 1 member respectively and Kingswood District marginally so by 1 member. The City of Bristol and Wansdyke District would be over-represented by 2. members and 1 member respectively. With our proposed 76 member council all 'districts would be correctly represented apart from a very slight over-representation of the City of Bristol by 1 member to secure compat- ibility with the, new city district wards. (ii) In the City of Bristol 9 of the existing single member divisions would have electorates more than 2O,1'- above or below the average, ranging from 3*950 to 13,101; the six ?-member divisions would range from 13t6^5 to 2(7,728. Under our proposals all divisions would be within ,?0f:' of the average and only 5 outside 10?'). (iii) In ,the remainder of the county 13 existing divisions would be outside 2C# of the average, ranging from 6,^11 to l6,*tG2. Under our proposals there would be only 2 such divisions. 11. It was clear therefore'that to hold the 1981 elections under the existing arrangements would lead to very considerable inequalities in the representation of both districts and divisions. These inequalities would be almost entirely eliminated if our proposals were implemented for 19'3l *;nd a similar standard of representation would be achieved in the 1985 elections on the basis of the electorate forecasts we had been given. It Is not for us to determine the dates on which new electoral arrangements should be implemented, but we have thought it right to. put • forward our proposals immediately so. that new arrangements could, if you thought fit, be implemented in time for the 1981 elections; this would not be possible if a public meeting were to be held. Although a local meeting might have enabled some relatively minor improvements to be made we were satisfied that we hai sufficient information to make final proposals that would be in the interests of effective and convenient