Final Recommendations on the New Electoral Arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council

Final recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council

Electoral review

October 2012

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2012

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and final recommendations 5

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 8 General analysis 9 Electoral arrangements 11 Corby Borough 11 Daventry District 12 East Northamptonshire District 13 Kettering Borough 14 Northampton Borough 15 South Northamptonshire District 18 Borough of Wellingborough 19 Conclusions 21 Parish electoral arrangements 21

3 What happens next? 23

4 Mapping 25

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 27

B Table B1: Final recommendations for Northamptonshire 30 County Council

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body that conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of Northamptonshire County Council to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Commission commenced the review in October 2011.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 25 October 2011 Consultation on council size 24 January 2012 Submission of proposals of division arrangements to the LGBCE 2 April 2012 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 19 June 2012 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them 13 August 2012 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations

We proposed a council size of 57, comprising 57 single-member divisions. Our draft recommendations were based on a combination of the Council’s proposals and the evidence we received from stakeholders across the county. Our proposals provide good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and transport links in the county.

Submissions received

Following publication of our draft recommendations, we received 99 submissions including county-wide comments from the Council. The remaining submissions proposed alternative arrangements in Daventry, East Northamptonshire, Kettering, Northampton, South Northamptonshire and Wellingborough. Some respondents opposed the draft recommendations in these areas and proposed alternative division patterns. However, the draft recommendations were broadly supported in some areas.

All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and final recommendations

Electorate figures

Northamptonshire County Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2017, a date five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations. This is prescribed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 5% over this period. The majority of growth in the electorate is focused in the borough of Corby. More modest growth is forecast for every district and borough in the county.

Following publication of our draft recommendations, we did not receive any comments on the electorate figures. We are therefore content that the forecasts are the most accurate available at this time and have used these figures as the basis of our final recommendations.

General analysis

Having considered the submissions received, we have generally confirmed our draft recommendations as final. However, we have proposed modifications to our proposed divisions in Daventry, Kettering, Northampton and Wellingborough.

Following submissions received in relation to Northampton borough, we gave serious consideration to an alternative division pattern in the south and west of the town.

Under our final recommendations only two electoral divisions will have a variance of more than 10% from the average for the county by 2017. Having taken into account the evidence we received during consultation, we believe that our proposals will ensure good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and providing for effective and convenient local government.

What happens next?

We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament and will be implemented subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements which will come into force at the next elections for Northamptonshire County Council, in 2013.

We are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the review through expressing their views and advice. The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk

1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body that conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review Northamptonshire County Council’s electoral arrangements, to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 We invited Northamptonshire County Council to submit proposals first on council size and then on division arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review informed our Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council, which were published on 19 June 2012. We reconsidered the draft recommendations in light of the further evidence received and decided whether or not to make any modifications.

What is an electoral review?

3 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

4 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why are we conducting a review in Northamptonshire?

5 We decided to conduct this review because, based on the December 2010 electorate figures, 41% of divisions in the county have 10% more or fewer electors per councillor than the county average. One division, Danesholme, also has 53% more electors per councillor than the county average.

How will the recommendations affect you?

6 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the County Council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division and, in some instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your division name may change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. If you live in a parish, the name or boundaries of that parish will not change.

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

7 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

2 Analysis and final recommendations

8 We have now finalised our recommendations for the electoral arrangements in Northamptonshire.

9 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:

 secure effective and convenient local government  provide for equality of representation  have regard to the boundaries of district and borough wards in drawing boundaries for county divisions  ensure that proposed county divisions do not cross external district and borough boundaries  reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular o the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable o the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

10 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the date of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the divisions we put forward at the end of the review.

11 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five-year period.

12 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Northamptonshire County Council or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

13 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5

recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

14 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority division arrangements. However, the district council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

Submissions received

15 Prior to, and during, the initial stage of the review, we visited Northamptonshire County Council and met with members and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. Following publication of the draft recommendations, we received 99 submissions. All submissions may be inspected both at our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

16 We take the evidence received during consultation very seriously. The submissions received were carefully considered before we formulated our final recommendations. Officers from the Commission have been assisted by officers at Northamptonshire County Council who provided relevant information throughout the review.

Electorate figures

17 As part of this review, Northamptonshire County Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2017, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 5% over the period from 2011 to 2017.

18 The majority of growth in the electorate is focused in the district of Corby. There is expected to be reasonably modest growth in electorate elsewhere in the county.

19 During the consultation on our draft recommendations, South Northamptonshire Council commented that the electorate forecast was too low for the Brackley area. However, we consulted with officers at the County Council on this matter who saw no cause to revise the electorate forecast, and we are content to use these figures as the basis of our final recommendations.

Council size

20 Northamptonshire County Council currently has 73 councillors elected from 73 single-member divisions and operates a Leader and Cabinet model. At the outset of the review, Northamptonshire County Council proposed a council size of 57. The Labour Group on the County Council proposed a council size of 67.

21 In support of a council size of 57, the County Council outlined governance functions of the Council in the context of its political management structure. It provided details of the composition and frequency of meetings for its committees including Audit, Development Control and Standards. It also covered the role of

members as community champions and their responsibilities regarding governance on the Council.

22 The County Council considered the impact that a reduction in council size would have. With a reduction of 16 members, workload for councillors would increase. The County Council considered that the number of electors per councillor would not be too high, and noted that some existing divisions have a similar number of electors to what the average number would be under a council of 57 members. The flexibility of the Council’s scrutiny arrangements, the County Council stated, would mean that reduced membership of the Council would not have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Council’s scrutiny function. Additionally, a council size of 57 would represent an overall cost saving per year of around £150,000.

23 The County Council was of the view that it would be able to work effectively and efficiently with a council size of 57. It was also confident that a council size of 57 would maintain the representational role of members.

24 The Labour Group favoured a smaller reduction, to 67 members, predominantly because it felt a reduction to 57 would leave people inadequately represented.

25 The Labour Group expressed concern that the Council’s scrutiny function may be diminished, and that some councillors in rural areas may have divisions which are difficult to cover efficiently, and could be unmanageably large.

26 The Labour Group argued that its preferred council size of 67 would mean that the electorate would still have access to their councillor, and allow the Council to work in a ‘variety of management styles’, rather than just ‘streamlining’ the present setup.

27 Having considered both proposals for council size, we were satisfied by the evidence provided by the County Council in relation to the management and committee structures and their respective workloads.

28 We considered the County Council’s submission clearly outlined how a council size of 57 would operate in the context of the Council’s political management structure. It also outlined how a council size of 57 would provide the optimum number of members for effective and convenient local government. Conversely we did not consider there to be a clear rationale for the 67-member council proposed by the Labour Group.

29 We then undertook a consultation on council size. In response to this consultation we received 26 submissions. The County Council expressed its support for a council size of 57 members.

30 The County Council’s submission clearly outlined how a council size of 57 would operate in the context of the Council’s political management structure. It also outlined how a council size of 57 would provide the optimum number of members for effective and convenient local government.

31 The Labour Group expressed concern that the Council’s scrutiny function may be diminished, and that some councillors in rural areas may have divisions which are difficult to cover efficiently, and could be unmanageably large in geographic terms.

32 It argued that its preferred council size of 67 would mean that the electorate would still have access to their councillor, and allow the Council to work in a ‘variety of management styles’, rather than just ‘streamlining’ the present setup. The Group considered that a council size of 57 members would put the effectiveness of the Council’s scrutiny function at risk.

33 We also received submissions from South Northamptonshire District Council, a county councillor, two local political parties, two residents’ associations, 13 parish councils, and four local residents. The preferences for council size varied between retaining the existing 73 members, down to 57 members. In general, there was support from most respondents for a reduction in council size.

34 After considering the evidence we received, we opted to proceed to the next stage to elicit views on the best pattern of divisions under a council size of 57.

35 In response to the information gathering stage we received some submissions which opposed the reduction in council size, expressing concern about the potential reduction of access they would have to their county councillor under a reduced council size. We were satisfied, however, that county councillors will continue to be able to provide good representation to all of their constituents, even if, on average, councillors would represent more electors than at present. We were therefore minded to adopt a council size of 57 as part of our draft recommendations.

36 During consultation on the draft recommendations, Byfield Parish Council expressed concern that a large reduction in council size may discourage some people from putting themselves forward for election. We received no further comment on council size. Consequently, we are basing our final recommendations on a council size of 57 members.

Electoral fairness

37 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations should provide for electoral fairness whilst ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

38 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The county average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the county (521,794 in 2011 and 550,252 by December 2017) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 57 under our final recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our final recommendations is 9,154 in 2011 and 9,654 by 2017.

39 Under our final recommendations, only two divisions would have more or fewer than 10% of electors per councillor than the county average by 2017. Overall, we are

satisfied that we have achieved very good levels of electoral fairness under our final recommendations for Northamptonshire.

General analysis

40 Prior to formulating our draft recommendations, we received 44 submissions on division patterns for Northamptonshire. The County Council submitted the only county-wide scheme and proposed a uniform pattern of single-member divisions. The Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council supported the County Council’s proposals for Corby, but provided alternative division patterns for Northampton and South Northamptonshire. The Northampton Labour Party also provided a pattern of divisions for Northampton, which was supported by the Labour Group on Northampton Borough Council.

41 Kettering Borough Council proposed an alternative pattern of divisions to the County Council in the borough. We also received localised comments from five district or borough councillors, and one county councillor. We received submissions from 12 parish or town councils, and 19 local residents.

42 Our draft recommendations were based on a council size of 57 providing 57 single-member divisions. Our final recommendations continue to be based on a council size of 57 members. The allocation of councillors across the districts is as follows:

 Borough of Wellingborough – six members  Corby Borough – five members  Daventry District – seven members  East Northamptonshire District – seven members  Kettering Borough – eight members  Northampton Borough – 17 members  South Northamptonshire District – seven members

43 Following publication of our draft recommendations, 99 submissions were received including a county-wide submission from the County Council. The County Council largely endorsed the draft recommendations but it proposed alternative divisions in the districts of Kettering and Wellingborough.

44 We received a well-argued submission from Northampton Liberal Democrat party which proposed some alternative divisions in Northampton town. We gave this submission careful consideration. The proposed divisions would have significantly altered the draft recommendations for much of the town, and we felt that the party’s proposed divisions would worsen electoral equality compared with the draft recommendations. We made only one change to the draft recommendations based on the submission which was to the boundary between Billing & Rectory Farm and Talavera divisions.

45 We also received submissions regarding our proposed divisions in Wellingborough, particularly regarding our Irchester and Finedon divisions. Several parishes and local residents supported our proposed Irchester division.

46 The County Council reiterated its earlier proposed divisions in the rural part of the borough. Wellingborough Borough Council endorsed the County Council’s submission. The County Council also proposed changes to the divisions in Wellingborough town. We did not consider that the evidence received regarding the rural area warranted a departure from our draft recommendations. However, we have made some modifications to the boundaries in the urban area, which were put forward by the County Council. These changes provide for stronger boundaries and better reflect community identities.

47 In Kettering Borough, a number of respondents opposed our proposed Desborough division on the grounds that rural parishes in the division could be ignored at the expense of Desborough town. Cransley Parish Council and Burton Latimer Town Council proposed including the parishes of Thorpe Malsor and Cransley in our Rothwell & Mawsley division – this was also proposed by the County Council. The County Council reiterated its proposed division arrangements in Kettering town. Kettering Borough Council provided some further evidence for its proposed divisions in the town. We are making one change to the divisions in the town, which is to include the whole of Barton Seagrave parish in our Wicksteed division.

48 In Daventry District we received several submissions regarding the Lang Farm area, on the edge of Daventry, which we had included in our proposed Braunston & Crick division. Several respondents highlighted this area’s links with Daventry town, rather than the rural area to the north. We were persuaded, therefore, to modify our draft recommendations in this area.

49 We received submissions from East Northamptonshire Council and Rushden Town Council which suggested modifications to our proposed parish ward boundaries in Rushden town and considered the name of our proposed Higham Ferrers division should also be changed. We also received a submission from Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Parish Council proposing the inclusion of Newton Bromswold parish in Higham Ferrers division rather than Rushden South division. However, the proposals to amend the parish wards would be incompatible with our policy on parish ward arrangements. We did not consider there was sufficient evidence to amend the draft recommendations in the areas mentioned above.

50 In South Northamptonshire and Corby we are confirming our draft recommendations as final. We received some submissions in relation to our draft recommendations in South Northamptonshire but we were not persuaded to make any changes to the divisions we proposed in the district. We received only one submission on our proposals for Corby, in addition to the county-wide submissions mentioned in paragraph 40 and we are not proposing any changes to the draft recommendations in the borough.

51 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table B1 (on pages 30–35) and Map 1.

Electoral arrangements

52 This section of the report details the submissions received, our consideration of them, and our final recommendations for each area of Northamptonshire. The following areas are considered in turn:

 Corby Borough – page 11  Daventry District – page 12  East Northamptonshire District – pages 13–14  Kettering Borough – pages 14–15  Northampton Borough – pages 15–17  South Northamptonshire District – pages 18–19  Borough of Wellingborough – pages 19–20

53 Details of the final recommendations are set out in Table B1 on pages 30–35 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Corby Borough

54 Corby Borough is in the north of the county, and consists of the town of Corby which is surrounded by rural parishes. It is the least populous borough in the county. Corby currently comprises six single-member divisions, four of which would have electoral variances of more than 10% from the county average by 2017. Under a council size of 57 members the borough is allocated five members, one fewer than at present.

55 In formulating our draft recommendation for the borough, we broadly adopted the County Council’s proposals, subject to a minor modification in the north of the town, and a minor modification between the proposed Corby West and Lloyds divisions. The draft recommendations proposed that Corby be represented by five single-member divisions with none of the proposed divisions having an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

56 Following the publication of draft recommendations, only one submission was received for Corby in addition to the county-wide comments discussed in paragraph 40. All the representations we received covering Corby support our draft recommendations for the borough.

57 We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Corby as final. Under our final recommendations no division in the borough would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

58 Table B1 (on pages 30–35) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Corby. The final recommendations for Corby are shown on Map 1 and Map 2 accompanying this report.

Daventry District

59 Daventry is located in the west of the county, and contains the towns of Daventry and Long Buckby, as well as a large rural area with a number of small villages and settlements.

60 Daventry currently comprises eight single-member divisions, three of which would have electoral variances of more than 10% from the county average by 2017. Under a council size of 57 members the district is allocated seven members, one fewer than at present.

61 In formulating our draft recommendation for the district, we broadly adopted the County Council’s proposals, subject to some modifications to some divisions in the rural area to better reflect co–terminosity with the newly implemented district wards. The draft recommendations proposed that Daventry be represented by seven single- member divisions with only one of the proposed divisions having an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017 – Braunston & Crick with 11% fewer electors per councillor than the county average by 2017.

62 Following the publication of draft recommendations, eight submissions were received for Daventry in addition to the county-wide comments discussed in paragraph 40.

63 The County Council supported our proposals for the district, and Councillor Shephard (Moulton) and Boughton Parish Council supported our proposed Moulton division. Chris Heaton-Harris MP (Daventry), district Councillors Hills and Howard (both Hill ward), county Councillor Long (Daventry West), Daventry Conservatives and a local resident all submitted views opposing the inclusion of the Lang Farm area in the proposed Braunston & Crick division.

64 They argued that the residents of Lang Farm considered themselves part of the urban area of Daventry town, rather than as rural residents, so including them in a rural division was not appropriate. The County Council also proposed this arrangement to us earlier in the review. We were persuaded by the evidence provided and have decided to adopt the proposed modification as part of our final recommendations. It will mean that part of Daventry town, which is in the more rural- focused Braunston division under the present arrangements, will remain in the rural Braunston & Crick division under our final recommendations.

65 We received no further comment on our draft recommendations in Daventry District and therefore confirm our remaining draft recommendations for the district as final. Under our final recommendations no division would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

66 Table B1 (on pages 30–35) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Daventry. The final recommendations for Daventry are shown on Map 1 and Map 5 accompanying this report.

East Northamptonshire District

67 East Northamptonshire District is on the eastern edge of the county, and its largest settlement is Rushden. It is a largely rural district, with many sparsely populated parishes. The district is entirely parished.

68 East Northamptonshire currently comprises nine single-member divisions, three of which would have electoral variances of more than 10% from the county average by 2017. Under a council size of 57 members the district is allocated seven members, two fewer than at present.

69 In formulating our draft recommendation for the district, we broadly adopted the County Council’s proposals, subject to a number of modifications to improve electoral equality and to better reflect community identities. The draft recommendations proposed that East Northamptonshire be represented by seven single-member divisions with only one of the proposed divisions, Raunds, having an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

70 Following the publication of the draft recommendations, we received five submissions covering East Northamptonshire in addition to the county-wide comments discussed in paragraph 40. The County Council and Stanwick Parish Council supported the draft recommendations. We received a representation from Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Parish Council which proposed that Newton Bromswold parish be included in our Higham Ferrers division rather than Rushden South as it is under our draft recommendations. The parish argued that there is no ‘natural link’ between Newton Bromswold and Rushden under the current district council arrangements. We did not consider, however, that there was sufficient evidence or support to make this modification to the draft recommendations. We therefore confirm our division of Rushden South as final.

71 East Northamptonshire Council, Rushden Town Council, and the Wellingborough Conservative Association proposed changes to the draft recommendations in the Rushden area. They all suggested changing the name of the proposed Higham Ferrers division to ‘Tollbar’ on the grounds that this division name would be ‘neutral’ and reflect the area better. We did not receive any submissions from any local residents putting forward this view. In our view, the division name of Higham Ferrers reflects that the division is predominantly made up of Higham Ferrers parish and reflects the local community. We are not persuaded to amend this division name, and therefore, confirm our division of Higham Ferrers as final.

72 Rushden Town Council and East Northamptonshire Council also suggested amending the proposed parish wards for Rushden. However, their proposal would have created parish wards that crossed the district ward boundaries, which is not something the Commission would propose. We therefore, do not propose alternative parish warding arrangements for Rushden.

73 Therefore, we confirm as final our draft recommendations for the district. Under our final recommendations only one division would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

74 Table B1 (on pages 30–35) provides details of the electoral variances for all of

our proposed divisions in East Northamptonshire. The final recommendations for East Northamptonshire are shown on Map 1 and Map 4b.

Kettering Borough

75 Kettering Borough consists of the town of Kettering and a number of smaller settlements in the rural area surrounding it. The largest of these settlements are Burton Latimer, Desborough and Rothwell.

76 Kettering currently has 10 single-member divisions, seven of which would have electoral variances of more than 10% from the county average by 2017. Under a council size of 57, the borough is allocated eight county councillors, two fewer than at present. The borough is partially parished.

77 In formulating our draft recommendation for the borough, we broadly adopted Kettering Borough Council’s proposed divisions for the Kettering town area, and proposed different divisions from the County Council in the rural area. The draft recommendations proposed that Kettering be represented by eight single-member divisions with none of the proposed divisions having an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

78 Following the publication of our draft recommendations, we received 19 submissions covering the borough in addition to the county-wide comments discussed in paragraph 40. The County Council proposed some changes to the draft recommendations, while Kettering Borough Council proposed a minor change to the boundary between the proposed Burton & Broughton and Wicksteed divisions. Several submissions commented on Desborough and the rural parishes to the north.

79 Several parish councils opposed our proposed Desborough division on the grounds that the rural parishes would be in a division dominated by Desborough town. Ashley Parish Council, Desborough Town Council, Stoke Albany Parish Council, and Wilbarston Parish Council all opposed the draft recommendations and supported the County Council’s proposed divisions for the borough. The parishes, and some local residents, felt that given that the majority of the division’s electorate would live in Desborough, the needs of the rural area may be overlooked. Many of these respondents favoured the County Council’s proposals for the area, however its proposed division also included Desborough in a division with the parishes of Brampton Ash, Braybrooke and Dingley.

80 Given the geographic position of Braybrooke on the edge of the district (and the county, at its northern boundary) and the spread of electors in the area, the only viable solution which meets our statutory criteria is to include Braybrooke in a division with Desborough. We are therefore confirming as final our proposed Desborough division.

81 We received submissions from Cransley Parish Council and Burton Latimer Town Council which proposed including the parishes of Thorpe Malsor and Cransley in the proposed Rothwell & Mawsley division. The County Council also proposed this modification to our draft recommendations. Cransley Parish Council provided details about the links it has with Mawsley parish, while the County Council stated that Cransley parish has stronger links with Loddington parish than the parishes to its

82 To the south of Kettering town we proposed a parish ward with 77 electors in Barton Seagrave parish as part of our draft recommendations. This small parish ward is immediately south of the A14 and was proposed in order to provide for complete internal communication links within the Burton & Broughton division. Kettering Borough Council noted that Barton Seagrave is a relatively new parish (established in 2002). The Borough Council also noted that, in 2005, local residents favoured being part of Barton Seagrave ward (to the north of the A14). We are amending our draft recommendations in this area in retain the whole of Barton Seagrave parish in Wicksteed division, in order to reflect the evidence provided by the Borough Council.

83 Under our final recommendations for Kettering no division would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

84 Table B1 (on pages 30–35) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Kettering. The final recommendations for Kettering are shown on Map 1 and Map 3 accompanying this report.

Northampton Borough

85 Northampton is the largest town in the county, it is partially parished, and was recently the subject of an electoral review by the Commission. Under a council size of 57, Northampton is allocated 17 county councillors, six fewer than at present.

86 Northampton currently comprises 23 single-member divisions, 11 of which would have electoral variances of more than 10% from the county average by 2017.

87 In formulating our draft recommendation for the borough, we broadly adopted the County Council’s proposals in Northampton. The draft recommendations proposed that Northampton be represented by 17 single-member divisions with only one of the proposed divisions (Nene Valley) having an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

88 Following the publication of our draft recommendations, we received 28 submissions covering Northampton in addition to the county-wide comments discussed in paragraph 40. The County Council supported the draft recommendations, while we also received submissions from the Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council, Northampton Liberal Democrat Party, two county councillors, two borough councillors, two local organisations and 20 local residents.

89 The submissions focused mainly on the areas of Kingsthorpe and East Hunsbury, with other areas mentioned by one or two submissions. The Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council reiterated its earlier submission, and particularly opposed the proposed Kingsthorpe North, Kingsthorpe South, Sixfields and Delapre & Rushmere divisions, and the boundaries in the east of the town.

90 In a substantial and well-argued submission, Northampton Liberal Democrat Party proposed alternative arrangements for the proposed Kingsthorpe divisions, as well as the proposed divisions of Headlands, Boothville & Parklands, Talavera, Billing & Rectory Farm, Sixfields, Dallington Spencer, Delapre & Rushmere, East Hunsbury & Shelfleys, and Nene Valley.

91 We carefully considered the party’s submission, and the implications of their proposals for the divisions in the borough in terms of the statutory criteria. We also considered the evidence provided by the County Council in its submission earlier in the review, which formed the basis for our draft recommendations.

92 For the Kingsthorpe area, we proposed Kingsthorpe North and Kingsthorpe South divisions as part of our draft recommendations. These divisions would have 4% more and 2% more electors per councillor than the county average by 2017, respectively. The County Council described the boundaries of the proposed divisions as ‘long standing recognised boundaries’.

93 In response to the consultation on our draft recommendations we received submissions which proposed an east–west split of the Kingsthorpe area. The submission from Northampton Liberal Democrat Party proposed divisions that were mainly based on borough wards and would result in divisions of Kingsthorpe East and Kingsthorpe West with 8% more and 2% fewer electors per councillor than the county average by 2017, respectively.

94 Having considered the alternative proposal for the area we have decided not to modify our proposed Kingsthorpe North and Kingsthorpe South divisions. While we recognise some merit in the Northampton Liberal Democrat Party proposals for the area we consider that the alternative proposals would worsen electoral equality and not reflect the evidence received during earlier stages of the review.

95 Northampton Liberal Democrat Party also proposed a different arrangement for the proposed divisions of Boothville & Parklands and Headlands. The party proposed dividing Boothville ward between the two divisions, while retaining in a single division the wards of Westone and Eastfield. In order to achieve good levels of electoral equality in all divisions across the borough it is necessary to divide borough wards. Our proposed Headlands division uses major roads as its eastern, southern and western boundaries, as well as a local park as its northern boundary. We consider that our proposed divisions would provide strong and identifiable boundaries. Therefore, we are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations in this area.

96 We also received some submissions regarding the Blackthorn area which, under the draft recommendations, is split between the proposed Talavera and Billing & Rectory Farm divisions. A local resident stated that all of the Blackthorn community ought to be in the Billing & Rectory Farm division. Northampton Liberal Democrat Party also proposed an alternative division arrangement for this area that would reflect the other community identity evidence received.

97 The Northampton Liberal Democrat Party proposed that the northern boundary of the Billing & Rectory Farm division should run along the northern part of Blackthorn Road. We consider that this is an identifiable boundary and would reflect the community identity evidence received for the area. Additionally, the party

proposed that the area of Lingswood Park, a street off Lings Way, should be included in the Talavera division. The party considered that this modification would bring all of the Lings community together in one division. These modifications would result in the divisions of Talavera and Billing & Rectory Farm having 6% more and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average by 2017, respectively. We consider that these proposals provide a better balance between the statutory criteria and we are adopting them as part of our final recommendations.

98 In the south of the borough our proposed divisions of Sixfields, East Hunsbury & Shelfleys, Delapre & Rushmere and Nene Valley would have variances of 2% more, 1% fewer, 3% fewer and 12% fewer electors per councillor than the county average by 2017, respectively. In response to the consultation, we received representations regarding the divisions of East Hunsbury & Shelfleys and Sixfields. The majority of these submissions argued that Shelfleys should be included in a division with West Hunsbury – which is in the Sixfields division under our draft recommendations. We also received submissions arguing that all of Collingtree parish should be in one division.

99 Northampton Liberal Democrat Party proposed alternative division patterns for the area that would reflect the evidence received. They proposed alternative divisions for Sixfields, East Hunsbury & Collingtree, Delapre & Rushmere and Nene Valley. Its proposals would result in divisions with variances of 10% more, 11% fewer, 9% fewer and 8% fewer electors per councillor than the county average by 2017, respectively. The proposal also required a modification to our proposed Castle division. The party proposed that the area immediately north of the River Nene and bound by Auctioneers Way should be included in the Delapre & Rushmere division. We consider that this boundary would not reflect the strong barrier of the River Nene in the area. The result of not including this area in the party’s proposed Delapre & Rushmere division would result in there being 11% fewer electors per councillor than the county average in this division by 2017.

100 Having considered the evidence received we are concerned that the modifications proposed in the south of the borough would result in the electoral imbalance in Nene Valley being transferred to three divisions to its west, thereby worsening electoral equality overall. Additionally, we note that Collingtree parish is already split by a borough ward boundary and that our proposed division boundary is coterminous with this boundary. Having considered the evidence received we confirm our draft recommendations for the south of the borough as final.

101 We confirm as final our draft recommendations for the borough, with the exception of the Talavera and Billing & Rectory Farm divisions. Under our final recommendations only one division, Nene Valley, would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

102 Table B1 (on pages 30–35) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Kettering. The final recommendations for Northampton are shown on Map 1 and Maps 6, 7 and 8 accompanying this report.

South Northamptonshire District

103 South Northamptonshire District is on the southern edge of the county, and contains the towns of Towcester and Brackley. The other main settlement in the district is Roade. The district is largely rural, and is fully parished.

104 South Northamptonshire currently comprises nine single-member divisions, four of which would have an electoral variance of more than 10% from the county average by 2017. Under a council size of 57 members the district is allocated seven members, two fewer than at present.

105 In formulating our draft recommendation for the district, we broadly adopted the County Council’s proposals in South Northamptonshire, except for a minor amendment between Silverstone and Middleton Cheney divisions. The draft recommendations proposed that South Northamptonshire be represented by seven single-member divisions with none of the proposed divisions having an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

106 Following the publication of the draft recommendations, we received eight submissions covering South Northamptonshire in addition to the county-wide comments discussed in paragraph 40. We received submissions from the Liberal Democrat Group on the County Council, South Northamptonshire Council, two county councillors, Blisworth Parish Council, Deanshanger Parish Council, Quinton Parish Council and a local resident.

107 The Liberal Democrat Group reiterated their earlier proposals. The County Council supported the draft recommendations. County Councillors Walker (Deanshanger) and Melling (Middleton Cheney), and Deanshanger Parish Council supported the proposed divisions for their parts of the district. County Councillor Lofts (Towcester) opposed the proposed Towcester & Roade division, as he considered the towns should not be in the same division.

108 South Northamptonshire Council considered that we had underestimated the projected electorate increase in Brackley town in the coming years. However, the County Council’s forecasts do not include any significant increase in electorate in this area. We saw no reason to amend the electorate forecast figures which we received at the start of the review.

109 The Council also expressed concern with the proposed Towcester & Roade division stating that Towcester ought to have its own division, and that the road link between the towns in the proposed division is poor. We note these concerns. However, we consider that this division achieves a good balance between our statutory criteria. Our proposed Towcester & Roade division was supported by a local resident.

110 We do not believe that we have received sufficient evidence to modify our draft recommendations for the district. We therefore confirm as final our draft recommendations for South Northamptonshire.

111 Under our final recommendations no divisions in the district would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

112 Table B1 (on pages 30–35) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in South Northamptonshire. The final recommendations for South Northamptonshire are shown on Map 1 accompanying this report.

Borough of Wellingborough

113 Wellingborough is located in the centre of the county. The main focus of the borough is the town of Wellingborough; the remainder is semi-rural in nature with a number of small towns and settlements.

114 Wellingborough currently comprises eight single-member divisions, four of which would have electoral variances of more than 10% from the county average by 2017. Under a council size of 57 members the district is allocated six members, two fewer than at present.

115 In formulating our draft recommendation for the district, we proposed divisions that were different from the County Council’s proposals, particularly in the Finedon and Irchester areas, and in the town of Wellingborough itself. The draft recommendations proposed that Wellingborough be represented by six single- member divisions with no divisions having an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

116 Following the publication of the draft recommendations, we received 25 submissions covering Wellingborough in addition to the county-wide comments discussed in paragraph 40. These included submissions from Wellingborough Borough Council, the Chairman of the County Council, four parish councils, three parish councillors, one borough councillor and 15 local residents.

117 The majority of the submissions focused on the area to the south-east of the town, the Irchester and Wollaston area. Most of the responses in this area supported our proposal to include Irchester in a division with Wollaston – the division would be mainly rural, and there was some opposition to including Irchester with Wellingborough town, as the County Council had proposed in its earlier submission. Respondents highlighted the A509 road, which links the rural parishes of Irchester, Wollaston, Strixton and Bozeat, as well as the local bus service linking the villages, and the fact that children go to school at Wollaston school.

118 We received some submissions regarding the parish of Finedon, which we included in a division with part of Wellingborough town. Wellingborough Borough Council supported having Finedon in a rural division because of the links the parish has with the rural parishes near to it. Finedon Parish Council and two parishes near to it also supported Finedon parish being included in a rural division. The County Council reiterated its original proposal to include Finedon parish in a rural division to its west. The Chairman of Finedon Parish Council (also the Chairman of the County Council) supported the County Council’s proposal, arguing that including Finedon in a division with the town would ‘destroy’ the cohesion in the division.

119 Including Finedon in a rural division would require Irchester parish to be included in an urban division to achieve good electoral equality. We consider that we received strong evidence supporting our proposed Irchester division and note the

strong road link that Finedon has with Wellingborough and, indeed, its proximity to the town. We are not proposing to amend our draft recommendations in this part of the borough. We therefore confirm our proposed Irchester division as final.

120 In Wellingborough town, the County Council suggested modifications to the proposed divisions, and its submission was supported by Wellingborough Borough Council. The County Council proposed using Hardwick Road as a boundary between the divisions of Hatton Park and Brickhill & Queensway. We consider that this would be a strong boundary, and have decided to adopt it as part of our final recommendations.

121 The County Council and Borough Council also proposed including the Redhill Grange area in the rural division of Earls Barton. Both stated that the community has its own identity, was rural in nature and that it is applying for parish status. They also stated that children from Redhill Grange go to primary school at Little Harrowden, which is to the north of the area. Having considered the evidence received we have decided to include the Redhill Grange area in our Earls Barton division under our final recommendations.

122 We have made changes to our proposed Brickhill & Queensway, Earls Barton and Hatton Park divisions. Under our final recommendations no divisions in the district would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average by 2017.

123 Table B1 (on pages 30–35) provides details of the electoral variances for all of our proposed divisions in Wellingborough. The final recommendations for Wellingborough are shown on Map 4a accompanying this report.

Conclusions

124 Details of our final recommendations are set out in Table B1 on pages 30–35, and illustrated on the large maps we have produced. The outline map which accompanies this report shows our final recommendations for the whole authority. It also shows a number of boxes for which we have produced more detailed maps. These maps are also available to be viewed on our website.

125 Table 1 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2011 and 2017 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements Final recommendations 2011 2017 Number of councillors 73 57 Number of electoral divisions 73 57 Average number of electors per councillor Number of divisions with a variance more 6 2 than 10% from the average Number of divisions with a variance more 2 0 than 20% from the average

Final recommendation Northamptonshire County Council should comprise 57 councillors serving 57 divisions, as detailed and named in Table B1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

126 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

127 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority division arrangements. However, the district council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

128 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Daventry, Duston, Rushden, and Upton.

129 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Daventry parish.

Final recommendation Daventry Town Council should return 17 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Abbey Central (returning two members), Abbey North (returning one member), Abbey South (returning two members), Ashby Fields (returning two members), Daneholme (returning one member), Drayton (returning five members), and Hill (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5.

130 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Duston parish.

Final recommendation Duston Parish Council should return 12 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Old Duston (returning six members), New Duston East (returning two members), and New Duston West (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 6.

131 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Rushden parish.

Final recommendation Rushden Parish Council should return 21 councillors, as at present, representing eight wards: Rushden Bates (returning three members), Rushden Hayden (returning four members), Rushden Hayden Central (returning one member), Rushden Pemberton (returning five members), Rushden Sartoris East (returning two members), Rushden Sartoris West (returning one member), Rushden Spencer North (returning two members), and Rushden Spencer South (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 4b.

132 As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Upton parish.

Final recommendation Upton Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Upton North (returning eight members), and Upton South (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 6 and 7.

3 What happens next?

133 We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Northamptonshire County Council. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements which will come into force at the next elections for Northamptonshire County Council in 2013.

Equalities

134 This report has been screened for impact on equalities, with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

4 Mapping Final recommendations for Northamptonshire

135 The following maps illustrate our proposed division boundaries for Northamptonshire County Council:

 Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for Northamptonshire County Council.

 Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Corby town.

 Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Kettering town.

 Sheet 4, Map 4a illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Wellingborough town.

 Sheet 4, Map 4b illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Rushden town.

 Sheet 5, Map 5 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in Daventry town.

 Sheet 6, Map 6 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in the centre and west of Northampton town.

 Sheet 7, Map 7 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in the south of Northampton town.

 Sheet 8, Map 8 illustrates the proposed division boundaries in the east of Northampton town.

Appendix A

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

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 imbalance 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

Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government

Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Commission for England in April 2010

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

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

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

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Commission for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

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

Appendix B

Table B1: Final recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

1 Corby Rural 1 6,070 6,070 -34% 9,637 9,637 0%

2 Corby West 1 9,763 9,763 7% 10,034 10,034 4%

3 Kingswood 1 9,957 9,957 9% 10,087 10,087 4%

4 Lloyds 1 10,340 10,340 13% 10,655 10,655 10%

5 Oakley 1 8,981 8,981 -2% 10,070 10,070 4%

Daventry District Braunston & 6 1 8,958 8,958 -2% 9,254 9,254 -4% Crick 7 Brixworth 1 8,926 8,926 -2% 9,108 9,108 -6%

8 Daventry East 1 7,966 7,966 -13% 8,987 8,987 -7%

9 Daventry West 1 8,599 8,599 -6% 8,967 8,967 -7%

Table B1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % 10 Long Buckby 1 8,484 8,484 -7% 8,652 8,652 -10%

11 Moulton 1 8,613 8,613 -6% 9,023 9,023 -7%

Woodford & 12 1 8,729 8,729 -5% 8,950 8,950 -7% Weedon

East Northamptonshire District

13 Higham Ferrers 1 9,056 9,056 -1% 9,238 9,238 -4%

14 Irthlingborough 1 9,583 9,583 5% 10,319 10,319 7%

15 Oundle 1 9,280 9,280 1% 9,754 9,754 1%

16 Raunds 1 8,420 8,420 -8% 8,583 8,583 -11%

Rushden 17 1 9,810 9,810 7% 10,507 10,507 9% Pemberton West

18 Rushden South 1 10,069 10,069 10% 10,245 10,245 6%

19 Thrapston 1 10,318 10,318 13% 10,551 10,551 9%

Table B1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Variance Variance Number of Number of Number of Electorate from Electorate from Division name electors per electors per councillors (2011) average (2017) average councillor councillor % % Kettering Borough

Burton & 20 1 7,885 7,885 -14% 8,845 8,845 -8% Broughton

21 Clover Hill 1 8,818 8,818 -4% 8,879 8,879 -8%

22 Desborough 1 9,913 9,913 8% 10,241 10,241 6%

23 Ise 1 8,302 8,302 -9% 9,986 9,986 3%

24 Northall 1 9,641 9,641 5% 9,707 9,707 1%

Rothwell & 25 1 8,893 8,893 -3% 9,489 9,489 -2% Mawsley

26 Wicksteed 1 9,207 9,207 1% 10,299 10,299 7%

27 Windmill 1 8,743 8,743 -4% 9,295 9,295 -4%

Northampton Borough

Abington & 28 1 9,347 9,347 2% 9,489 9,489 -2% Phippsville

Table B1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from average electors per from average name councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % Billing & 29 1 9,904 9,904 8% 10,320 10,320 7% Rectory Farm Boothville & 30 1 9,000 9,000 -2% 9,282 9,282 -4% Parklands

31 Castle 1 9,591 9,591 5% 10,044 10,044 4%

Dallington 32 1 8,516 8,516 -7% 8,648 8,648 -10% Spencer Delapre & 33 1 8,791 8,791 -4% 9,344 9,344 -3% Rushmere

34 Duston East 1 8,747 8,747 -4% 9,497 9,497 -2%

Duston West & 35 1 7,060 7,060 -23% 9,018 9,018 -7% St Crispin East Hunsbury 36 1 9,489 9,489 4% 9,583 9,583 -1% & Shelfleys

37 Headlands 1 9,634 9,634 5% 9,735 9,735 1%

Kingsthorpe 38 1 9,854 9,854 8% 10,034 10,034 4% North

Table B1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from average electors per from average name councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor % Kingsthorpe 39 1 9,680 9,680 6% 9,853 9,853 2% South 40 Nene Valley 1 8,406 8,406 -8% 8,530 8,530 -12%

41 Riverside Park 1 9,944 9,944 9% 10,066 10,066 4%

42 Sixfields 1 9,477 9,477 4% 9,843 9,843 2%

43 St George 1 9,137 9,137 0% 9,326 9,326 -3%

44 Talavera 1 10,098 10,096 10% 10,209 10,209 6%

South Northamptonshire District

45 Brackley 1 10,019 10,019 9% 10,213 10,213 6%

46 Bugbrooke 1 10,069 10,069 10% 10,528 10,528 9%

47 Deanshanger 1 9,333 9,333 2% 9,932 9,932 3%

Hackleton & 48 1 9,826 9,826 7% 10,545 10,545 9% Grange Park Middleton 49 1 8,728 8,728 -5% 9,020 9,020 -7% Cheney

Table B1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Northamptonshire County Council

Towcester & 51 1 10,035 10,035 10% 10,564 10,564 9% Roade

Borough of Wellingborough

Brickhill & 52 1 8,760 8,760 -4% 8,893 8,893 -8% Queensway Croyland & 53 1 8,757 8,757 -4% 9,443 9,443 -2% Swanspool

54 Earls Barton 1 9,702 9,702 6% 10,131 10,131 5%

55 Finedon 1 8,257 8,257 -10% 9,499 9,499 -2%

56 Hatton Park 1 10,041 10,041 10% 10,361 10,361 7%

57 Irchester 1 8,550 8,550 -7% 8,689 8,689 -10%

Totals 57 521,794 – – 550,252 – – Averages – – 9,154 – – 9,654 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Northamptonshire County Council.

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