City of Leicester Conservative Association in Relation to the Electoral Review of the Leicester City Council Local Authority Area
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fuller, Heather From: Bowden, Tim Sent: 11 November 2013 08:31 To: Evison, Alison; Owen, David Subject: FW: Conservative submission: electoral review of Leicester Attachments: Letter to LGBCE_signed.pdf; ATT00001.txt; Ward Distribution.xls; ATT00002.txt Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Leicester Conservatives Sent: 09 November 2013 12:38 To: Bowden, Tim Cc: Carys Parry; John Foster Subject: Conservative submission: electoral review of Leicester Dear Sir, Please find attached the submission from the City of Leicester Conservative Association in relation to the electoral review of the Leicester City Council Local Authority area. Comprehensive maps eof th submission can be found found via this link: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zXIsNdYCTfUM.kokdbL9YBEqY Yours faithfully, Simon Whelband Chairman City of Leicester Conservative Association 1 By e-mail to [email protected] Review Officer (Leicester) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Dear Sir, ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LEICESTER I refer to your electoral review of Leicester City Council and attach a copy of the proposals for a new pattern of ward arrangements as proposed by the City of Leicester Conservative Association. The proposals attached consist firstly of a spreadsheet, page one of which details the warding arrangements by reference to the electorate as at 2012 and as projected for 2019 and by reference to polling districts as currently constituted. Where the polling districts as currently constituted are proposed to be split between wards, page two details the split by road. Secondly, there is a comprehensive map detailing the proposals. There may be slight inaccuracies in the electorate figures where polling districts have been split. Unfortunately, unlike Labour’s proposals, our proposals have been prepared without the assistance of Council officers. An offer of Council officer assistance came so late in the day that I doubt that it was genuine, more likely an attempt simply to cover their own backs. That said, any variation is likely to be insignificant. Though initially aiming for a Council size of 54, a size considered to be far too large anyway for a Council where there is no councillor input into decision-making except in respect of regulatory functions, the proposed scheme is for a Council size of 53. It is a comprehensive scheme of two and three member wards. Of the 22 proposed wards, only two, Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields and Evington, remain unaltered. The scheme reflects existing communities and natural boundaries insofar as that is possible whilst being mindful of the requisite electorate quotas. Indeed the scheme is an improvement not only on the current scheme as it stands today, but also the current scheme at its inception in 2003. The largest variation from the quota, whether by reference to the 2012 or 2019 electorates, is 7%. In arriving at our proposals, the following matters were in the forefront of our thinking in respect of the new wards: • In the Belgrave area, the Rushey Mead ward, Belgrave ward and Latimer ward have been retained with only minor adjustments to the boundaries to ensure that their respective electorates remain as close as possible to the quota. However, the area as a whole is very much homogeneous and the adjustments do not involve splitting communities. • In the Humberstone area, despite its fairly natural boundaries, Thurncourt is considered to have too small an electorate to be retained. The addition of the Humberstone area outside of the ring road, consisting mainly of the Netherhall estate and an area similar to that of Thurncourt just across Scraptoft Lane, addresses this issue and leaves a two member Humberstone and Hamilton ward consisting of Humberstone village, Humberstone Green and the Hamilton estate. • In the Humberstone Road/Uppingham Road area, a larger Charnwood ward has been created so as to ensure that the fairly homogeneous North Evington area is no longer separated as it is now between Charnwood ward and Coleman ward. • No adjustment is required in Evington ward. • The proposals in the Spinney Hills and Crown Hills area better reflect existing communities than do the current arrangements. The proposed Spinney Hills ward is more naturally based on the Highfields, St. Matthews and St. Marks areas than at present and likewise the proposed Crown Hills ward which draws from the existing Coleman, Spinney Hills and Stoneygate wards. • The new Stoneygate ward is more centred on genuine Stoneygate, including part of the current Knighton ward, and returns the ward to something close to its 1983 to 2003 boundaries which encompassed a more natural community. • The Knighton area is currently split between Knighton ward, Castle ward and Freemen ward. The facilities in the area, accessed by all residents, are centred on Queens Road and Clarendon Park Road which is in the current Castle ward, a ward spanning the whole central area and including all areas which by reference to the electorate quota cannot be readily included elsewhere. The proposal for an East Knighton ward and a West Knighton ward represents both the reintegration of all the whole Knighton area and a return to an East Knighton/West Knighton division last seen in 1983-2003, albeit, because of changes in the size of the electorate, on different boundaries. • The proposals for the Aylestone area better reflect existing communities through the creation of a new, only slightly amended but more homogeneous Aylestone ward and a new Eyres Monsell and Saffron ward which incorporates the whole of the area outside of the ring road and both the Eyres Monsell and Saffron estates. • No adjustment is required in Braunstone Park and Rowley Fields ward. • On the other hand considerable adjustment is required in the Beaumont Leys/Anstey Lane/ Blackbird Road area with the current Beaumont Leys ward being too small to be retained. The area itself consists of quite disparate estates and the only sensible way forward is through the creation of a smaller Beaumont Leys ward with the remainder forming a new ward for which the name Anstey is proposed. The Anstey ward spans an area currently within Beaumont Leys ward, Fosse ward and Abbey ward, but the Anstey Lane/ Buckminster Road/Blackbird Road and Parker Drive areas are very much a homogeneous community. • The transfer of part of Abbey ward to the new Anstey Ward leaves Abbey ward as a two, not a three member ward. • The proposed three member Westcotes and Fosse ward establishes a fairly distinct ward running the length of Fosse Road and includes an area currently within Castle ward which is almost identical. With the establishment of Bede island, the river no longer constitutes a natural division. • With Western Park being below quota, this is remedied by the addition of the Park View area, an area which was in Western Park ward from 1983-2003. The consequential reduction in the size of the New Parks ward is offset by the addition of Newfoundpool area, currently within Fosse ward, so creating a clearer eastern boundary to the ward. • Finally, as I have said, other that the genuine City Centre, the Castle ward consists of sundry areas which have not been accommodated elsewhere. To reduce this “hotchpotch”, a smaller two member Castle ward is proposed. I would be happy to expand upon or further clarify these proposals if required, but in the meantime I commend them to you as a sensible and logical warding scheme which fulfils the criteria before you and which is a substantial improvement on the existing arrangements. Yours faithfully, Simon Whelband Chairman City of Leicester Conservative Association New Wards Number Electorate Variance Electorate Variance Name of ward of cllrs 2012 2012 2019 2019 Polling Distric Whole/Part New Ward 2012 2019 per ward ABA Whole Abbey 1,723 1,735 ABB Whole Abbey 977 1,017 Abbey 2 8,401 -6% 8,454 -7% ABC Whole Abbey 2,127 2,227 Anstey 2 8,756 -2% 9,091 1% ABD Whole Abbey 1,795 1,789 Aylestone 2 8,786 -1% 9,052 0% ABE Part Abbey 1,235 1,250 Beaumont Leys 2 8,796 -1% 8,757 -3% ABF Whole Abbey 544 436 Belgrave 2 8,878 0% 8,978 0% ABE Part Anstey 2,050 2,074 Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields 3 12,445 -7% 12,578 -7% BLG Whole Anstey 1,075 1,112 Castle 2 9,379 5% 8,901 -1% BLH Whole Anstey 936 948 Charnwood 3 13,662 2% 13,219 -2% BLI Whole Anstey 660 677 Crown Hills 3 13,814 3% 13,807 2% FSA Whole Anstey 2,302 2,408 Evington 2 8,871 0% 9,070 1% FSB Whole Anstey 1,733 1,872 East Knighton 2 8,880 0% 9,178 2% AYA Whole Aylestone 1,701 1,728 Eyres Monsell & Saffron 3 13,737 3% 14,023 4% AYB Whole Aylestone 1,810 1,861 Humberstone & Hamilton 2 9,158 3% 8,824 -2% AYC Whole Aylestone 1,461 1,535 Latimer 2 9,084 2% 9,143 1% AYD Whole Aylestone 2,730 2,829 New Parks 3 12,711 -5% 12,956 -4% FMA Part Aylestone 1,084 1,099 Rushey Mead 3 13,638 2% 13,976 3% BLA Whole Beaumont Leys 416 424 Spinney Hills 3 13,793 3% 14,216 5% BLB Whole Beaumont Leys 1,731 1,759 Stoneygate 2 8,925 0% 9,186 2% BLC Whole Beaumont Leys 2,083 2,112 Thurncourt & Netherhall 3 12,591 -7% 12,930 -4% BLD Whole Beaumont Leys 1,283 1,315 Westcotes & Fosse 3 14,048 5% 13,463 0% BLE Whole Beaumont Leys 2,134 1,999 Western Park 2 8,521 -4% 8,889 -1% BLF Whole Beaumont Leys 1,149 1,148 West Knighton 2 9,046 2% 9,593 6% BEA Whole Belgrave 2,683 2,752 Total 53 235,920 238,284 BEB Part Belgrave 1,277 1,262 BEC Whole Belgrave 3,806 3,861 LAA Part Belgrave 1,112 1,103 BFA Whole Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields 1,499 1,490 BFB Whole Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields 1,943 1,941 2012 2019 BFC Whole Braunstone