New electoral arrangements for Reading Draft Recommendations February 2020 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Reading? 2 Our proposals for Reading 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations 7 Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights 8 Abbey, Battle, Kentwood and Thames 10 Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst 13 Coley and Katesgrove 15 Church, Park, Redlands and Whitley 17 Conclusions 23 Summary of electoral arrangements 23 Have your say 25 Equalities 29 Appendices 31 Appendix A 31 Draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council 31 Appendix B 33 Outline map 33 Appendix C 34 Submissions received 34 Appendix D 35 Glossary and abbreviations 35

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Reading?

7 We are conducting a review of Reading Borough Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in Reading. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Reading are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Reading

9 Reading should be represented by 48 councillors, two more than there are now.

10 Reading should have 16 wards, the same number as present.

11 The boundaries of all wards, except Park, should change.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

2

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 4 February 2020 to 13 April 2020. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 13 April 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 25 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Reading. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

20 August 2019 Number of councillors decided 27 August 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 4 November 2019 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 4 February 2020 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 13 April 2020 forming final recommendations 1 September 2020 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2019 2025 Electorate of Reading 113,590 121,002 Number of councillors 46 48 Average number of electors per 2,469 2,521 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Reading will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 7% by 2025.

25 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

Number of councillors

26 Reading Borough Council currently has 46 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that increasing this number by two will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 48 councillors.

28 As Reading Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.

29 We received no submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on ward patterns. Therefore, we have based our draft recommendations on a 48-member council.

Ward boundaries consultation

30 We received 19 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included one borough-wide proposal from the Council, which developed its proposals through a cross-party working group. This was approved at a full Council meeting on 4 November 2019. The remainder of the submissions largely provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

31 One submission was signed by 24 electors from Church ward and contained two partial warding schemes. We gave this submission careful consideration but concluded that the proposal was descriptive in nature and lacked the evidence to support some of its proposals. In particular, we noted that the schemes often mentioned moving electors from certain wards into others without specifying exactly where this should take place. It was therefore difficult to accommodate these suggestions. The submission also reasoned that parliamentary constituency boundaries should be taken into account and used this as an explanation for some of its proposals. However, parliamentary constituencies are not a point of consideration for the Commission as they do not form part of our statutory criteria for assessing ward boundaries. Where possible, and where evidence was provided, we have sought to take account of the points raised in the submission. This submission also received support from the Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association.

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).

6

32 Some of the submissions made comments regarding the possibility of amending the external borough boundary. We have been unable to have regard to this issue in our draft recommendations as amendments to authority boundaries are not considered as part of an electoral review.

33 The borough-wide scheme provided for a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards for Reading. We carefully considered this scheme and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

34 Our draft recommendations are therefore based on the borough-wide scheme. However, we have also taken account of more localised evidence, which provided information regarding community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

35 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Reading helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

Draft recommendations 36 Our draft recommendations are for 16 three-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

37 The tables and maps on pages 8–21 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Reading. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

38 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 31 and on the large map accompanying this report.

39 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7

Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Caversham 3 0% Emmer Green 3 3% The Heights 3 0%

Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights 40 We have based our draft recommendations for north Reading on the Council’s proposals for the three-member wards of Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights. These proposals received support from the Bell Tower Community Association. The proposed ward of The Heights was also supported by two local residents who suggested combining Mapledurham and Caversham Heights. One of these residents reasoned that the two areas had similar community groups and should therefore be combined in the same ward.

41 One of the local residents also suggested moving the boundary between The Heights and Emmer Green wards to Kidmore Road but did not provide any evidence for this. Moving the boundary here would not achieve good electoral equality as a three-councillor ward. As the Council elects by thirds, we are minded to recommend a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards and will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence that an alternative pattern will better

8

reflect our statutory criteria. We do not believe that to be the case in relation to this suggestion, and so we will not be recommending this boundary.

42 A local resident stated that they lived in Mapledurham but objected to being represented by only one councillor. However, they did not elaborate further or provide alternative warding arrangements for the area. In any event, our draft recommendations will provide for three-member wards across Reading, including the Mapledurham area.

43 On balance, we consider that the Council’s proposals for this area offer strong and clearly identifiable ward boundaries, whilst also reflecting the identity of local communities. Under our draft recommendations, Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights will all have good electoral equality by 2025.

9

Abbey, Battle, Kentwood and Thames

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Abbey 3 -3% Battle 3 2% Kentwood 3 -8% Thames 3 -6%

Kentwood 44 The Council’s proposed Kentwood ward is broadly similar to the current Kentwood ward, with one minor amendment to the south-eastern boundary to exclude one dwelling. This proposal received support from the Bell Tower Community Association. A submission signed by 24 Church residents reasoned that Scours Lane should be kept in Kentwood ward because it can only be reached via this ward. This is in line with the Council’s proposal.

45 A local resident proposed that Winslet Place, which is located in the existing Kentwood ward, should be transferred to either Battle or Norcot wards, with the former being the preferred option. It was argued that this specific area had more in common with areas to the east and that this would better reflect the pattern of travel of local residents. During our visit to the borough, we noted that this area seems better placed in the adjacent Battle ward, as it is separated from the housing in Kentwood by two major roads and a roundabout.

46 Subject to placing the housing between Oxford Road and Portman Road into Battle ward, we are basing our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals for this ward. Our proposed Kentwood ward will have good electoral equality by 2025.

10

Abbey, Battle and Thames 47 We have broadly based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposed Battle ward, with some minor amendments to better reflect community identities and create more identifiable boundaries. As outlined in paragraph 46, we have included the housing between Oxford Road and Portman Road in Battle ward as we consider this area more likely to share community identities with adjoining housing in Battle ward. The Bell Tower Community Association and the 24 signatories of Church ward argued that the Little John’s Farm area to the west of Cow Lane should be placed in Battle ward and not Thames ward, as proposed by the Council. They reasoned that the farm is only directly accessible via Battle ward. On visiting the area, we also noted that the entrance point to the farm was via roads in Battle ward and have adopted this change as part of our draft recommendations.

48 We also visited the housing to the east of the railway line between Oxford Road and George Street, which the Council placed in its proposed Battle ward. The Council scheme placed the housing to the south of this, which sits between the railway line, Oxford Road, Prospect Street and Tilehurst Road in the adjacent Abbey ward, reasoning that the railway line acts as a strong boundary. We agree with the view that the railway line acts as a clear and identifiable boundary, and noted that whilst the railway line had an access point, that the housing between the railway line and George Street would have more affinity with the adjacent ward, rather than Battle ward. Furthermore, the Council’s proposed boundary of George Street is only accessible via Great Knollys Street, which is in the adjacent Abbey ward. Therefore, we propose that this housing be placed in Abbey ward, and the railway line be used as the eastern ward boundary for our proposed Battle ward.

49 We have based our recommendations for Abbey ward on the Council’s proposal, with two minor amendments. The Council’s proposal for this ward was supported by the Bell Tower Community Association. We received a resident submission for Abbey ward, which stated that Abbey ward should be defined by Vastern Road and Tesco on Napier Way. The reasoning given was that this would take into account the different needs of those in traditional housing compared with those in flat dwellings. Whilst we considered this submission, we noted a lack of evidence or clarity on the other boundaries proposed for the ward which made it difficult to accommodate. Furthermore, the areas highlighted appear to be largely placed in the Council’s proposed Thames ward. We are therefore of the view that the residents’ comments have been broadly addressed in the Council’s scheme.

50 Our first proposed amendment to the ward, where we propose moving the area of housing between the railway line and George Street into Abbey ward, is discussed above. Our second proposed change is to south-eastern boundary of the ward. At present, this boundary takes in the area south of Queen’s Road, between Eldon Road and London Road. On visiting the area, we noted that Queen’s Road appeared to form a clearer and more identifiable boundary than that proposed by the Council.

11

Whilst the Council stated that it had considered this option and subsequently chose not to adopt it, limited evidence was provided in justification, except to state that such a change was not necessary to achieve better electoral equality. This proposed change will be discussed further in the next section of this report, in the context of our proposed Redlands ward (paragraph 69).

51 Our recommendations for Thames ward largely follow the Council’s proposal except for the ward boundary amendment discussed in paragraph 47, which moves the proposed western boundary to Cow Lane. We received one submission from the Bell Tower Community Association which stated that the area around Orts Road to the south of the River Kennet should be placed in the adjacent Park ward due to the lack of accessibility and strong boundaries formed by the river and railway line. Whilst we acknowledge that the river does act as a clear and identifiable boundary, we note that accommodating this proposal would result in an electoral variance of -20% for Thames ward by 2025. Furthermore, the Council contended in its own submission that this area is made up of the Orts Estate which has its own school and looks onto the town centre, therefore suggesting that it has more affinity with communities in the proposed Thames ward. On this basis, we have not recommended this alternative proposal.

52 Under our draft recommendations, Abbey, Battle and Thames wards will all have good electoral equality by 2025 and, in our view, reflect community identities.

12

Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Norcot 3 4% Southcote 3 3% Tilehurst 3 -2%

Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst 53 We have based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposed Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst wards. These are largely based on the current warding arrangements and this proposal received support from the Bell Tower Community Association. The changes to the current warding arrangements included extending the Tilehurst ward boundary slightly further south into the current Norcot ward, as well as extending the southern boundary of the proposed Norcot ward to take in housing south of Cockney Hill. The proposal also shortened the eastern boundary of the proposed Norcot ward. The boundary now runs to the rear of properties on Wantage Road instead of running along it. The north-eastern boundary of Southcote

13

ward was also extended further out, along the railway line instead of Parkside Road. On visiting the area, we noted that this appears to be a stronger and more identifiable boundary.

54 We consider that the Council’s proposals for this area offer strong and clearly identifiable boundaries, whilst also reflecting the identity and interests of the local community. Under our draft recommendations, Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst wards will all have good electoral equality by 2025.

14

Coley and Katesgrove

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Coley 3 -7% Katesgrove 3 3%

Coley and Katesgrove 55 We have based our draft recommendations for this area on the Council’s proposals, which proposed the three-member wards of Minster and Katesgrove. These were broadly similar to the current warding arrangements, with an extension of Minster to the north, and an adjustment to the boundary between the two wards so that the boundary follows the A33 rather than the River Kennet. This proposal was supported by the Bell Tower Community Association.

15

56 A submission from Church ward residents contended that there was no need to move the boundary between Katesgrove and Minster wards from the River Kennet as it provided a strong feature on which to base a ward boundary. On visiting the area, we noted that whilst the River Kennet acts as a strong boundary, we were minded to agree with the Council in moving the boundary to the A33. We observed that the A33 acted as a stronger and more identifiable boundary. The road has very few crossing points along the stretch between the two wards. We were also of the view that the housing along Temple Place would have more community affinity with Katesgrove than the adjacent ward.

57 The Reading Liberal Democrats and a local resident argued that Minster ward should be renamed. They stated that those within the ward view the name of Minster as a ‘historic anomaly’. The resident stated that the ward should be renamed Coley whilst the Liberal Democrats suggested either Berkeley or Coley.

58 We have therefore decided to base our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals, subject to Minster ward being renamed Coley. This name change is in line with the evidence received which suggested that this was more identifiable name to the local community. Under our draft recommendations, Coley and Katesgrove wards will have good electoral equality by 2025. We would be interested in hearing from local views in relation to our proposed draft recommendations for this area. In particular, we would like to know opinions on the proposed ward name change, as well as our proposed warding arrangements for the Temple Place area.

16

Church, Park, Redlands and Whitley

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Church 3 7% Park 3 -8% Redlands 3 0% Whitley 3 10%

Park 59 We are recommending that the current ward boundaries for Park ward remain the same. The Council proposed a slight change to the current warding arrangements, by extending the western boundary to De Beauvoir Road rather than keeping the boundary on Eastern Avenue. Its proposal was supported by the Bell Tower Community Association. We also received a submission from Councillor

17

White who opposed this change, arguing that the ward should retain its current boundaries as it is currently within an acceptable range for electoral equality. Councillor White did suggest some possible alternatives which would involve moving some of Redlands ward to the west of Eastern Avenue, should it be considered necessary to improve electoral equality. The Councillor reasoned these alternatives would line up the catchment areas of some of the local schools.

60 On visiting the area, we agreed with Councillor White that the current boundaries do not require the Council’s suggested amendment. De Beauvoir Road is only accessible via one side; to do as the Council proposed would not reflect local road and transport links. Furthermore, we consider the current boundary of Eastern Avenue to be much clearer and more identifiable than De Beauvoir Road. In respect of Councillor White’s alternative suggestions, we contend that Eastern Avenue is again a more identifiable boundary than these alternatives. Furthermore, any extension of the ward to the west of Eastern Avenue has the potential to cut off the small roads in this area from their access point and place them in a separate ward. We consider our proposed Park ward, which maintains the current ward boundaries, to be reflective of community identity and will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Church, Redlands and Whitley 61 We received the largest number of residents’ submissions in relation to this area. It is worth noting that the Council’s proposal for this area differs somewhat to the current warding arrangements and the area is also set to have the largest growth in the borough. The Council’s scheme was supported by the Bell Tower Community Association, but we have not chosen to adopt it in this area. We received one submission from Councillor White who contended that the north of Cressingham Road, which currently sits in Church ward, could be moved to Redlands ward to add the required number of electors for this area. The Councillor reasoned that this a primary school catchment area boundary and that the housing is similar to that found on Northumberland Avenue and the Hexman Road Estate. Councillor White also stated that people in this area use the same library and children’s centre as others in the existing Redlands ward.

62 We also received a submission signed by 24 residents of Church ward. The submission provided detail about what constitutes the current Church community and listed some suggestions for the rest of the borough. The submission stated its dissatisfaction with the Council’s proposal and said the Council’s ‘rationale for redrawing the ward boundaries across the Council area’ failed to ‘retain the character and content of Church ward’. The summary of the submission listed factors which the residents regarded as being key identifiers of the ward. These included shops along Northumberland Avenue and Shinfield Road, key bus services and the community café on Northumberland Avenue. They also contended that, whilst the ward is named after a church which is no longer in the ward, they are still content

18

with this name. The submission was supported by the Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association because it would enable Northcourt Avenue to remain in Church ward. Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association represents the areas of Northcourt Avenue, Wellington Avenue and Stansfield Close. We have carefully considered the evidence provided but consider that the alternative suggestions were not always specific in stating where electors should be moved. Furthermore, they also often lacked sufficient community evidence to justify making these changes. While we have therefore not adopted all of these proposals, we have tried to accommodate them where possible.

63 We received two further submissions from residents in relation to the new developments being built to the south of the borough. One resident proposed that the new developments at Kennet Island and Green Park should have their own ward called Southside. The second submission largely followed this sentiment that the new developments should be placed in a new and separate ward, noting that those residing in the new developments are likely to have different needs from those in Minster, Southcote and Whitley. We examined whether it was possible to create this new ward, but we could not create a ward with good electoral equality which could house the new developments in their entirety, even as a one- or two-councillor ward. Furthermore, as the Council elects by thirds, there is a presumption that it will have a uniform pattern of three-member wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria. We do not believe this to be the case in relation to this suggestion, particularly given the high electoral variances that would result. We have therefore decided to not base our draft recommendations on these proposals.

64 The Council proposed reconfiguring Church ward. The reasoning for doing so was largely premised on the new developments being built to the south of the borough. Due to the location of the new developments in the existing Whitley ward, there are limitations to how the new electors can be accommodated in relation to the surrounding areas. The Council reasoned in its proposal that Whitley ward should have a negative electoral variance by 2025 to allow for more development, which will continue to occur after 2025. Whilst this not a legislative requirement which the Commission considers, we do note the logic behind this reasoning.

65 In light of the evidence received, we have tried to accommodate the points raised by some of the Church ward residents, but stress that we are constrained by the factors listed above, in particular ensuring that the electoral variance for Whitley ward is kept to a minimum. We have considered the points raised by the Church ward residents and have therefore decided to draw the boundary between Church and Whitley wards along Basingstoke Road. The Church ward residents have stated that they would accept being placed with those residing on the east of this road. Furthermore, this reflects the broad thrust of these proposals in terms of community

19

identities. Whilst we considered placing some of the housing on the western side of Basingstoke Road in Katesgrove ward, it was not possible to do so without creating poor electoral equality for this ward. Furthermore, we received no community evidence to support this nor for any other changes to the surrounding Coley and Redlands wards.

66 The current ward boundary between Church and Whitley runs down the end of Northumberland Avenue and we note from the Council submission that this currently divides a community. The Church ward residents stated that they would accept this boundary in order to achieve better electoral equality but did not provide compelling evidence for this. Therefore, we have chosen to run the ward boundary behind the housing on Hartland Road. We consider this keeps the community together, but also ensures good electoral equality. The western boundary of Whitley ward will follow the railway line, which we consider provides a strong and clear boundary. While this produces a relatively high electoral variance of +10% by 2025, we consider this necessary in order to try and reflect the evidence raised by the Church residents.

67 We have chosen not to follow the Council’s proposed boundary between Redlands and Church wards, which would follow Cressingham Road. Whilst we note that this was approved by Councillor White, it is not possible to achieve good electoral equality if one were to use this boundary. Furthermore, we note a lack of support from residents for this proposal. The current boundary for Church ward takes in the university buildings which sit along Northcourt Avenue, Elmhurst Road and Upper Redlands Road, which would ensure that those represented by the Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association would be kept within one ward. It is important to stress that it is not possible to keep the existing boundaries and achieve good electoral equality for Church ward. The scale of development in the wider area means that there has be a divide here. Therefore, we have had to consider which boundary would effectively balance our statutory criteria.

68 In respect of the boundary between Redlands and Church wards, we recommend keeping the existing ward boundary where it runs behind Hexham Road. We then propose deviating from this, so that the boundary runs to the rear of housing on Stanhope Road and along Wellington Avenue. We consider Wellington Avenue to be a natural divide between communities as the housing on either side faces in different directions and is separated on both sides by wooden fencing. We did examine the possibility of running the boundary behind the housing on Northcourt Avenue but noted that this option produces a less clear and identifiable ward boundary. Furthermore, there is a new development being built near the university which needs to be considered and we would risk cutting off a private close from its only access point. This proposal also ensures that all university buildings and accommodation in the borough are kept within one ward, which should provide for effective and convenient local government.

20

69 In order to accommodate our proposed changes and ensure good electoral equality for Redlands ward, we propose extending the north-western boundary so that it runs along Queen’s Road. We consider this to be a stronger boundary than the existing one which follows Eldon Road and London Road. As discussed in paragraph 50, we have also deviated from the Council’s proposal for the east of this ward, where we have used Eastern Avenue as the boundary.

70 We consider our proposed Church, Redlands and Whitley wards to reflect community identities given the need to ensure good electoral equality and take account of the significant housing developments that will be constructed over the next five years. Given that we have largely developed our own proposals for this area, we would particularly welcome comments on them during this current consultation.

21

22

Conclusions

71 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Reading, referencing the 2019 and 2025 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2019 2025 Number of councillors 48 48

Number of electoral wards 16 16 Average number of electors per councillor 2,366 2,521 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 3 0 from the average

Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 1 0 from the average

Draft recommendations Reading Borough Council should be made up of 48 councillors serving 16 three- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for the Reading Borough Council. You can also view our draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

23

24

Have your say

72 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

73 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Reading, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

74 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

75 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Reading) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

76 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Reading Borough Council which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.

77 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

25

78 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Reading?

79 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

80 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

81 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

82 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

83 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

84 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which

26

brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Reading Borough Council in 2022.

27

28

Equalities 85 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

29

30

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Abbey 3 5,883 1,961 -17% 7,315 2,438 -3%

2 Battle 3 7,281 2,427 3% 7,709 2,570 2%

3 Caversham 3 7,470 2,490 5% 7,537 2,512 0%

4 Church 3 8,052 2,684 13% 8,079 2,693 7%

5 Coley 3 6,946 2,315 -2% 7,061 2,354 -7%

6 Emmer Green 3 7,652 2,551 8% 7,804 2,601 3%

7 Katesgrove 3 7,066 2,355 0% 7,825 2,608 3%

8 Kentwood 3 6,795 2,265 -4% 6,975 2,325 -8%

9 Norcot 3 7,645 2,548 8% 7,901 2,634 4%

10 Park 3 6,811 2,270 -4% 6,987 2,329 -8%

11 Redlands 3 7,004 2,335 -1% 7,575 2,525 0%

12 Southcote 3 7,642 2,547 8% 7,763 2,588 3%

31

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 13 Thames 3 5,612 1,871 -21% 7,124 2,375 -6%

14 The Heights 3 7,543 2,514 6% 7,586 2,529 0%

15 Tilehurst 3 7,255 2,418 2% 7,411 2,470 -2%

16 Whitley 3 6,933 2,311 -2% 8,350 2,783 10%

Totals 48 113,590 – – 121,002 – –

Averages – – 2,366 – – 2,521 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Reading Borough Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

32

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south- east/berkshire/reading

33

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/berkshire/reading

Local Authority

• Reading Borough Council

Political Groups

• Reading Liberal Democrats

Councillors

• Councillor R. White (Reading Borough Council)

Local Organisations

• Bell Tower Community Association • Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association

Local Residents

• 14 local residents

34

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

35

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

36 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE