New Electoral Arrangements for South Derbyshire District Council

Draft recommendations

New electoral arrangements for South Derbyshire District Council May 2010 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: 08703 810153 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Electoral Commission 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

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 5

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 9 North west 9 North east and central 13 Swadlincote town and rural south 15 Conclusions 18 Parish electoral arrangements 19

3 What happens next? 21

4 Mapping 23

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 25

B Code of practice on written consultation 29

C Table C1: Draft recommendations for South Derbyshire 31 District Council

D Additional legislation we have considered 33

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which 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 South Derbyshire to ensure that the authority has appropriate electoral arrangements that reflect its functions and political management structure.

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Boundary Committee for England commenced the review in 2009. However, on 1 April 2010, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee and is now conducting the review. It therefore falls to us to complete the work of the Boundary Committee.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage Stage starts Description One 27 October 2009 Submission of proposals to the Boundary Committee on council size and warding arrangements for the authority and its analysis and deliberation Two 19 January 2010 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of draft recommendations. Three 25 May 2010 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them Four 20 July 2010 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Submissions received

The Boundary Committee received 26 representations including district-wide schemes from South Derbyshire District Council (‘the Council’) and the South Derbyshire Conservative Association which were identical. We also received district- wide proposals from the Labour Group on the council (‘the Labour Group’) and Mark Todd MP (South Derbyshire) that were almost identical. The Committee also received localised evidence of community identity from parish councils and local residents in the district. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

South Derbyshire District Council submitted electorate forecasts for December 2013, a period five years on from the December 2008 electoral roll which is the basis for this review. These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 9% over this period. Although we have some concern that this level of growth

1 appears somewhat high, we note that during the period 2004–2008 the electorate in South Derbyshire increased by approximately 6%. Given the number of projected development areas in the north of the district, we are satisfied that the Council’s projections are the most accurate electorate figures that can be provided at this time.

Council size

The District currently has a council size of 36 members. The Boundary Committee received proposals for council sizes ranging from 36 to 39 members. The District Council and the local Conservative Association proposed a scheme based on 39 members, while the Labour Group and Mark Todd MP proposed similar schemes based on 36 members. We are of the view that the Council’s submission did not contain sufficient evidence to warrant an increase in the current number of 36 councillors. We therefore recommend a council size of 36 members as the basis of this review.

General analysis

Having considered the submissions received during Stage One, we have developed proposals which are based broadly on those of the Labour Group and Mark Todd MP. Given our decision on council size, we were unable to take account of much of the Council’s warding proposals. However, we have had regard to their scheme where it is compatible with a 36-member council. Where we have moved away from the Labour Group’s proposals, we have sought to reflect communication links, geographic factors and evidence of community identity received during Stage One.

What happens next?

There will now be a consultation period, during which we encourage comment on the draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for South Derbyshire District Council contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 19 July 2010. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

We would particularly welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. Express your views by writing directly to us at:

Review Officer South Derbyshire Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk.

1 Introduction

1 The Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee for England to conduct an electoral review of South Derbyshire District Council on 11 March 2009. The review commenced on 27 October 2009. The Boundary Committee wrote to South Derbyshire District Council as well as other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals on the council size and warding arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review have informed our draft recommendations.

2 On 1 April 2010, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee. The Commission is now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for South Derbyshire District Council in autumn 2010.

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.

5 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 South Derbyshire?

6 In March 2009, the Electoral Commission directed the review because, based on the December 2008 electorate figures, 35% of wards had variances of over 10% from the average. Most notably, the existing Woodville ward had 41% more electors per councillors than the borough average

7 As discussed in paragraphs 1–2, the Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee to conduct an electoral review. However, following the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) assuming the functions of the Boundary Committee, the Commission is now conducting the review. It therefore falls to us to complete the work of the Boundary Committee.

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

How will the recommendations affect you?

8 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 instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your ward 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.

9 It is therefore important that you let us have your comments and views on the draft recommendations. We encourage comments from everyone in the community, regardless of whether you agree with the draft recommendations or not. The draft recommendations are evidence based and we would therefore like to stress the importance of providing evidence in any comments on our recommendations, rather than relying on assertion. We will be accepting comments and views until 19 July 2010. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in autumn 2010. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 21 and more information can be found on our website, www.lgbce.org.uk.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

10 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) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL (Vice Chair) Jane Earl Joan Jones CBE Professor Colin Mellors

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

11 Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for South Derbyshire District Council we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed ward boundaries, ward names, and parish or town council electoral arrangements. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

12 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for South Derbyshire 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 • reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular – the desirability of arriving at boundaries that easily identifiable – the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

13 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. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward at the end of the review.

14 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.

15 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of South Derbyshire District Council or the external boundaries or names of parish or town councils, 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.

16 We are also aware of the impact South Derbyshire’s relative geographic position has on our review. There are several large settlements close to the district, including Burton-on-Trent, Derby, Nottingham, and Birmingham, and it is bordered by four counties. We recognise this has the potential to limit our flexibility in considering revised electoral arrangements. The district is also potentially subject to the

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

pressures of further development from Derby to its north, which will see a significant increase in housing stock in the coming years. It is therefore important to highlight the fact that the district’s population spread is influenced by some external factors, and we have, as far as is possible, taken these factors in to account when considering the best way to ensure proper representation for all those living in the district.

Submissions received

17 Prior to and during the initial stage of the review, members and officers of the Boundary Committee visited South Derbyshire District Council and met with members, officers and parish and town councils. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. The Committee received 26 submissions during Stage One, all of which may be inspected at both our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Electorate figures

18 As part of this review, South Derbyshire District Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2013, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 9% over the five-year period from 2008 to 2013.

19 We had some concerns about whether a rate of 9% growth would be realised. However, during the five-year period 2003–2008, the electorate of South Derbyshire increased by approximately 6% and we note that the district is one of the fastest growing in England. We also note that there appears to be some recent uncertainty in respect of one planned development in the north of the district, which accounts for a sizable portion of the projected increase. However, in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, we are satisfied with the methodology provided by the Council and are therefore content to accept its electorate projections as the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

20 The Local Government Commission for England (LGCE) completed a Periodic Electoral Review in 1998 which recommended a council size of 36 members elected from 17 district wards. The District of South Derbyshire (Electoral Changes) Order 1999 implemented the LGCE’s recommendations.

21 At the beginning of the electoral review, the Boundary Committee received proposals for two different council sizes, of 36 and 39 elected members. The Council proposed a council size of 39 members, as did the South Derbyshire Conservative Association. The Labour Group proposed a 36-member council, as did Mark Todd MP.

22 We considered that the Council’s proposal did not provide sufficient evidence to justify an increase in council size from 36 to 39 members. The proposal mainly focused on the projected increase in electorate in the district, and argued that this increase would necessitate a commensurate increase in councillor representation.

As indicated in our, and the Boundary Committee’s, guidance on electoral reviews, we do not accept that increases in electorate should automatically result in an increase in council size.

23 In light of this, members of the Boundary Committee met with the Council and offered them the opportunity to submit more evidence in support of their proposed increase in members, specifically in the context of the council’s political management and decision-making structure, and the representational role of councillors.

24 In response, the Council stated that it wanted to both minimise ‘the cost of councillors to the public purse’ and to ensure that there were sufficient members to carry out the duties of the council. The Council approached the issue of council size from a mainly arithmetic basis, with the considerations mainly focussed on councillor to elector ratios.

25 The Council noted that a total of 161 places are required for the 22 committees and other groups which service the Council. Furthermore, 21 of the District’s 36 members also represent the Council on 83 outside bodies. The submission stated that the authority ‘believes that there is very little scope to increase Member workloads without deterring potential candidates’. The Council also provided the Boundary Committee with details of the council sizes and councillor:elector ratios of the other eight Derbyshire districts, arguing that when compared with South Derbyshire, there was ‘strong justification’ for its proposed council size.

26 We have carefully considered all the evidence received from the Council and those others who submitted proposals on council size. We are not persuaded that we have received a sufficiently robust rationale to increase to the number of elected members to 39. In particular, as mentioned previously, we do not consider that simply an increase in the councillor:elector ratio for an authority would warrant an increase in council size. Additionally, our guidance, and that used by the Boundary Committee, makes quite clear that changes to an authority’s council size should not be made simply to make it more consistent with that of a neighbouring authority. In our view, the council size on an authority must be considered on merits. The matter should be considered both in the context of a council’s political management and committee structure, as well as having regard for the representational role of elected members.

27 Having regard to the representations received from the Labour Group and Mark Todd MP, we are satisfied that retaining the existing council size would not detrimentally affect the authority in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities. We therefore propose to retain the existing council size of 36 members and this is the basis of our draft recommendations.

Electoral fairness

28 As discussed in the introduction to this report, the prime aim of an electoral review is to achieve electoral fairness within a local authority.

29 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 the Commission’s recommendations should

provide for electoral fairness whilst ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

30 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The district average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the district (70,214 in December 2008 and 76,653 by December 2013) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 36 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 1,950 in 2008 and 2,129 by 2013.

31 Under the draft recommendations all of our proposed 15 wards will have electoral variances of less than 10% from the average for the district by 2013. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our draft recommendations for South Derbyshire.

General analysis

32 During Stage One, four full district-wide schemes were received. These were from the Council, the Labour Group, Mark Todd MP and the South Derbyshire Conservative Association. A local resident provided general suggestions for some parts of the district.

33 The Council’s scheme and that of the Conservative Association were identical. We have therefore grouped these proposals together and refer to them as the Council’s proposals. The Labour Group’s scheme and that of Mark Todd MP were almost identical. Again, where these proposals coincide, we have referred to them as the Labour Group’s proposals.

34 The Council proposed 15 wards, a reduction of two from the current electoral arrangements, and a mixture of two- and three-member wards. These proposals would provide for good electoral equality with no wards having an electoral variance of greater than 10% in 2013. However, we considered that they did not adequately address the issue of community identities and interests. As stated above, we also considered there was insufficient justification for the proposed increase in council size.

35 The Labour Group’s submission, and that from Mark Todd MP, provided limited evidence of community identity, and proposed retaining the existing council size of 36 members. They both suggested a 16-ward scheme (a reduction of one ward), with two single-member wards in their proposals.

36 There were few similarities between the two sets of proposals as they were based on different council sizes. The schemes were, for the most part, based on whole parishes, with most of the exceptions to this being the parished area around Swadlincote town.

37 The remainder of the submissions received were localised comments with some respondents providing evidence of community identities and interests to support the arguments made. Some parish councils submitted further representations towards the end of the consultation period opposing the Council’s proposals for the north west of the district. We have taken all these submissions in to account.

38 All the submissions received by the Boundary Committee can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

39 We have broadly based our recommendations on the Labour Group’s proposal. Given our decision to retain the existing council size of 36 members, it has proved difficult to accommodate any part of the Council’s proposals as they were based on a council size of 39 members. Notwithstanding this, we have had regard to the District Council’s proposals where possible, for example in the north of the district, and have departed from the Labour Group’s scheme in some areas in the interests of improving electoral equality and, in our view, better reflecting community identities. Where we have divided whole parishes between wards we have done this to provide clearly identifiable ward boundaries, which seek to reflect communities.

40 Our proposals are for a pattern of one single-member ward, seven two-member wards and seven three-member wards. We consider our proposals ensure good electoral equality while, in our view, reflecting community identities and interests.

41 During Stage Three we welcome comments on these draft recommendations, particularly in relation to those areas where we did not receive representations other than the district-wide schemes received during Stage One.

Electoral arrangements

42 This section of the report details the submissions received, the consideration on them, and our draft recommendations for each area of South Derbyshire. The following areas are considered in turn:

• North west (pages 9–13) • North east and central (pages 13–15) • Swadlincote town and rural south (pages 15–18)

43 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 31–32, and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

North west

44 The north western part of South Derbyshire consists of largely rural parishes with some scattered urban settlements. Derby City lies to the north of the district.

45 During Stage One, in addition to district-wide proposals discussed above, the Boundary Committee received 11 submissions in relation to this area from six parish councils, and two district councillors. Three of the parish councils submitted additional views after having been informed of the District Council’s proposals for their area.

46 The Council’s proposals provided for good electoral equality. However, they proved unpopular with some of the parishes in the area and, in light of representations received, we do not consider that they accurately reflect community identities and interests. The Council proposed using whole parishes as building blocks for their proposed wards, as did the Labour Group.

47 As mentioned earlier, we have developed proposals which are broadly based on the district-wide scheme of the Labour Group. The Labour Group’s proposed wards in this area would provide for good electoral equality. However, we have proposed a minor modification which would provide clearer ward boundaries that better reflect communities in this area.

Hatton area 48 The Council proposed warding Hatton parish with 12 other parishes to its north, east and west in a three-member ward. Its justification for this ward was that the rural parishes in this area look to the villages of Hatton, Hilton and Etwall for services, such as schools and leisure facilities.

49 The Labour Group proposed a single-member ward for Hatton parish, which would include Hatton North parish ward. Their justification was that Hatton is a ‘quite self-contained’ community which looks more to areas outside the district for its services, and shares little affinity with neighbouring villages in South Derbyshire. Mark Todd MP proposed a single-member Hatton ward, with the addition of Hoon parish.

50 Hatton Parish Council expressed its preference for a single-member ward, stating that Hatton has ‘a large manufacturing factory (Nestle UK) an industrial estate… a railway station; a large transport café; four public houses….a successful post office; numerous and varied retail outlets; and two churches’. It also said that the village has little in common with the ‘small, scattered, very rural, farming communities’ which lie to its north.

51 We noted that there was little consensus between the district-wide schemes received at Stage One for Hatton. In respect of the Council’s proposal, we consider that a geographically large ward for this area would not reflect perceived community identities and interests.

52 In respect of Mark Todd MP’s proposal, we consider that Hatton would be a viable single-member ward on its own and, while adding Hoon to the ward would improve the electoral variance, we consider that Hoon has more in common with the rural parishes in the Hilton ward, to the north and west of Hatton.

53 We have noted the views of parish councils in this area and consider they have provided reasonably strong evidence to justify a single-member ward for the urban part of Hatton town. Furthermore, we consider that the more rural areas adjoining Hatton do not share community identities with the town.

54 We therefore propose a single-member Hatton ward, based on the Labour Group’s proposal, but with one modification – the parish ward of Hatton North would be warded with Hilton instead of Hatton. The boundary of Hatton North parish ward would not provide an easily identifiable district ward boundary. The electorate in this parish ward is not large enough to have an impact on the electoral variance for either Hatton ward, or adjoining areas. Furthermore, we consider that Hatton North is rural in nature being divided from the urban south of the parish by the A511 Uttoxeter Road.

55 We consider that this proposal would reflect community identities and interests in this area, and provide a clear boundary for the single-member Hatton ward. Our proposed ward would have 6% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2013. This ward can be seen in detail on Map 2A accompanying of this report

Hilton area 56 The Council proposed a three-member Hilton ward, with the parishes of Egginton and Marston-on-Dove being warded with Hilton. They noted that Hilton has been proposed as a site of increased development, and that it had grown in size in recent years. They also noted that this ward would be the same as it was prior to the last electoral review in 1998.

57 The Labour Group proposed a three-member ward incorporating the village of Hilton and several parishes to its west, and one to its east. They said that the village would be subject to significant growth in the coming years and therefore warranted an increase in representation.

58 Hilton Parish Council said that it is ‘the fastest growing village’ in the district and that it was approaching the size of a small town. The parish council also said that it had consulted with the adjoining Hatton, Egginton and Etwall parish councils, all of which had ‘made it clear that they wish to maintain their existing ward boundaries and not be merged with Hilton’.

59 Egginton Parish Council expressed its opposition to being warded with Hilton, citing evidence of community links to Etwall parish, including ecclesiastical links and shared social clubs and community groups. Several respondents said that Hilton should have an additional district councillor. This was based on an increase in the electorate in the area rather than on community evidence.

60 We looked at the possibility of dividing this area into smaller district wards, for example a single-member and a two-member ward. There are several parishes in the area that have very small electorates, and the majority of the electorate is based in Hilton parish. However, given the distribution of electors, there is little scope for establishing smaller wards while also maintaining good electoral equality.

61 Based on the evidence received relating to Hilton, we have decided to adopt the Labour Group’s proposal, with the exception of the inclusion of Hatton North parish ward with Hilton district ward, as part of our draft recommendations. This would mean that, along with Hilton parish, the parishes of Barton Blount, Church Broughton, Foston & Scropton, Hoon, Marston-on-Dove and Sutton-on-the-Hill would be in the three-member Hilton ward, which would have 4% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2013.

Etwall area 62 The Council proposed warding Etwall parish in its proposed three-member, North West ward which would include rural and sparsely populated parishes in the north west extremity of the district. They said that Etwall is one of the settlements to which the rural parishes look for services.

63 The Labour Group proposed a two-member Etwall ward based on the small village parishes to the north and south of Etwall parish, and Etwall parish itself. They

said that Etwall was a village to which many of the rural areas looked for services. Their proposed ward would provide good electoral equality, and it would have 4% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2013.

64 Etwall, Egginton and Burnaston parish councils all expressed a desire to be warded together. They provided evidence of community links, such as being part of the same Safer Neighbourhood group, a joint local magazine, as well as cultural and ecclesiastical links between Etwall and Egginton.

65 Etwall Parish Council opposed being warded in the District Council’s North West ward, arguing that it does not have ‘a relationship with the geographically remote villages of the northern parishes’. Etwall and Egginton parishes also share a vicar ‘and enjoy each other’s well dressing and other festivals’.

66 Given the geographical size of the Council’s proposed North West ward we examined the possibility of dividing it into two single-member wards but note that, as with Hilton, the distribution of the electorate makes this very difficult. Much of the electorate reside in the villages in the south of this proposed ward, with sparsely populated rural parishes in the north. We have therefore decided to adopt the Labour Group’s proposal for this area as part of our draft recommendations. The parishes in this ward would be Ash, Bearwardcote, Burnaston, Dalbury Lees, Egginton, Etwall, Osleston & Thurvaston, Radbourne, and Trusley. Our proposed Etwall ward would have 4% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2013. This ward can be seen on Map 1 which accompanies this report.

Willington and Findern area 67 The Council proposed a three-member ward containing the parishes of Willington, Findern and Burnaston, while the Labour Group proposed a two-member ward containing Willington and Findern parishes. While not providing substantive community identity evidence, the Labour Group’s proposed district would have good electoral equality.

68 Findern Parish Council said that the two parishes of Findern and Willington have strong community ties with Findern residents regularly going to Willington to use its services, such as shops, a post office and medical facilities. They are also linked by a road, and a bus service, which connects both villages to Repton to the south and Derby to the north. Despite the A50 dual carriageway running between the parishes, there is a direct road link between the two communities which crosses the dual carriageway.

69 We consider that the Council’s proposals for this area would leave a significant barrier between Burnaston parish and the rest of the ward. The A38 road forms the western boundary of Findern parish and there is no convenient access across this road between the parishes. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by Burnaston Parish Council suggests that Burnaston looks more to Etwall and Egginton to its west rather than to its east.

70 We considered the possibility of two single-member wards. However this would have left a Findern ward with an electoral variance outside our usual tolerance level. We consider that the Labour Group’s proposals reflect local communities, as evidenced by our visit to the local area as well by the submissions received. We have

therefore decided to propose a two-member Willington & Findern ward, which would have 8% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2013. This ward can be seen on Map 1 which accompanies this report.

North east and central

71 The north east of the district comprises the parishes on the eastern edge of Derby City with the county of Leicestershire to its east. The central area is largely rural with a few scattered settlements.

72 During Stage One, in addition to district-wide proposals the Boundary Committee also received five specific comments in relation to this area from parish councils.

73 We have developed proposals for this area which are broadly based on the district-wide scheme of the Labour Group. Their proposals provided for good electoral equality, with all of their proposed wards having electoral variances within 10% of the district average by 2013.

74 The Council’s proposals for the north east and the central areas of the district were broadly similar to the Labour Group’s. However, there are some key areas of difference, such as its proposals for the Repton and Stenson areas. While the Labour Group’s proposals would provide good electoral equality, we have modified them in some areas to better reflect community identities and communication links.

Stenson area 75 During Stage One, the Council proposed warding the parish of Twyford and Stenson with Repton, Bretby and Newton Solney parishes. The District Council also proposed warding the parish of Stenson Fields with its neighbouring parish of Barrow-upon-Trent.

76 In the Stenson area, the Labour Group proposed retaining the existing ward arrangements, with a single-member Stenson ward comprising the parishes of Twyford & Stenson and Stenson Fields. We note in the Council’s electorate projections that there is a significant amount of housing development proposed for this area, scheduled to be completed by 2013. Stenson Fields is almost entirely urban and sits on the edge of Derby, while Twyford & Stenson is a sparsely populated rural parish.

77 We received a submission from Stenson Fields Parish Council which asserted that there is a shared sense of community identity between Stenson Fields and the neighbouring villages of Twyford and Stenson in the parish of the same name. It suggested retaining the link between the two parishes.

78 Barrow-upon-Trent Parish Council said that it felt the parish has more links with the rural communities to its east, including Aston. It also refuted the District Council’s contention that Barrow looks to Derby, and therefore to Stenson Fields, noting that there is ‘no geographic or demographic affinity with that area’.

79 Having considered the Council’s proposals, we are of the view that they would result in a geographically large ward that would stretch from the Swadlincote area to

the edge of Derby city. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by its proposal to place Stenson Fields and Barrow-upon-Trent parishes in the same ward. We do not consider that this would reflect community identities and interests in the area. There are also some significant barriers to movement between the majority of the electorate in Barrow-upon-Trent parish and those living in Stenson Fields, including as the A50 dual carriageway and the Trent & Mersey canal.

80 We consider that Stenson Fields is effectively part of Derby’s urban overspill rather than sharing many links with the rural areas to its south. We are therefore not persuaded that placing these communities in the same ward would reflect community identities and interests.

81 While we note that the Labour Group did not provide significant justification for its proposals, we consider that they would provide a better reflection of community identities in this area when compared with the Council’s proposals. We have therefore decided to adopt the Labour Group’s proposal for a two-member Stenson ward as part of our draft recommendations. This ward would have 8% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2013.

Aston area 82 The Council proposed a three-member Aston ward in the north east corner of the district which would comprise the parishes of Aston-on-Trent, Elvaston, Shardlow and Great Wilne, Swarkestone and Weston-on-Trent.

83 The Labour Group proposed creating a single-member ward for Boulton Moor parish ward of Elvaston parish, which is on the edge of Derby and is effectively part of Derby’s suburban catchment area. The remainder of Elvaston parish would form part of a two-member Aston ward comprising Barrow-upon-Trent parish and the parishes adjacent to Aston.

84 Submissions were received from Aston-upon-Trent Parish Council. It stated that it shares many interests with nearby parishes, such as Weston-on-Trent, Shardlow and Elvaston parishes, including ‘green belt development encroaching from the Derby City boundary area, flooding, road structures, school provision, anti-social behaviour and transport issues’.

85 We note that the Labour Group’s proposal for a single-member ward for Boulton Moor was based on the planned development in the area. However, it would appear that building work has not yet commenced on this development and we are not confident that it will be fully completed so as to ensure a viable district ward with good electoral equality.

86 We therefore propose to adopt the Council’s proposals in this area as part of our draft recommendations, subject to including Barrow-upon-Trent parish in the proposed Aston ward. Under our draft recommendations, the proposed Aston ward would have 2% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2013.

Repton and Melbourne 87 The two district-wide proposals received for Melbourne were similar. The Council proposed a two-member ward coterminous with Melbourne parish noting that

it was a coherent community in its own right. The Labour Group proposed warding the neighbouring Stanton-by-Bridge parish with Melbourne in a two-member ward.

88 The Council proposed a two-member ward based on the Hartshorne and Ticknall areas, which would incorporate several parishes in the centre of the district, and include Hartshorne and Ticknall parishes to the south east of Repton. It also proposed a three-member Repton ward comprising four parishes, running from north to south. Both proposals used whole parishes as building blocks for the wards of Melbourne and Repton.

89 In this area, the Labour Group proposed a large, mainly rural two-member ward covering the width of the central area of the district and comprising eight parishes. The Labour Group said only that the parishes in question were not divided by any natural features and worked together arithmetically.

90 There was only one further submission in relation to this area, from Bretby Parish, which provided details of its links with the neighbouring parishes of Repton and Newton Solney. It noted that Bretby has ‘social, cultural and educational links’ with those two parishes, with Bretby residents frequenting pubs in Repton and Newton Solney.

91 We recognise that the Council’s proposals would provide good electoral equality for wards in this area. However, we are not persuaded to adopt this proposal because it cannot be effectively incorporated within a 36-member warding scheme and would have a consequential effect on our recommendations for adjoining areas. Nor were we persuaded that it would provide a fair reflection of community identities in this part of the district.

92 We have therefore decided to adopt the Labour Group’s proposed Repton ward as part of our draft recommendations. The parishes in this ward would be Bretby, Calke, Foremark, Ingleby, Newton Solney, Repton and Ticknall. The communication links in this part of the district tend to connect the villages on an east to west basis, which is reflected in the Labour Group’s proposals. However, to fully reflect this, we propose that Smisby parish be located in Woodville ward to the south. We consider that Smisby has more community links with the Woodville and Swadlincote area than with the remainder of the proposed Repton ward.

93 Under our draft recommendations the proposed two-member Repton and Melbourne wards would have 7% fewer and 2% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2013.

Swadlincote town and rural south

94 Swadlincote is the largest settlement in South Derbyshire, and is situated towards the south of the district. The area to its south is mainly rural, with a few villages and settlements.

95 During Stage One, in addition to the district-wide schemes, the Boundary Committee received four submissions in relation to this area, two from parish councils and two from members of the public.

96 The Council proposed four three-member wards and a two-member ward for areas surrounding the town and proposed boundary changes to existing wards in one area of the town itself. The Labour Group proposed five three-member wards incorporating some parished areas adjacent to the town and proposed a number of changes to existing ward boundaries.

97 We noted that the Council did not propose any ward boundary changes in the Swadlincote area, and proposed to resolve electoral imbalances through the addition of members, as part of its proposal for a council size of 39 members. Given that our draft recommendations are for a 36-member council size, it is not possible to accommodate that Council’s proposals in this area and ensure good electoral equality. Accordingly, in the absence of any other proposals based on a 36-member council, we have decided to broadly base our draft recommendations on the Labour Group’s proposals, with some minor adjustments to ward boundaries. Our modifications improve electoral equality and provide for wards that, in our view, reflect coherent communities. We have visited this area and are satisfied that our recommendations strike the appropriate balance between our statutory criteria.

Swadlincote town north 98 The Labour Group’s proposal for Midway ward included an area named Lower Midway which is currently in Hartshorne parish. Having visited the area, we note that Lower Midway is essentially an urban extension of Swadlincote and is therefore likely to share greater community identities and interests with the town.

99 The boundary we have proposed to use for this ward, which splits the existing Hartshorne parish, is based on a polling district boundary in Hartshorne parish. Please see the section below on parish electoral arrangements, which explains this further. We have modified this boundary from the polling district boundary slightly in order that it is tied to clear ground detail. However this modification does not affect any electors.

100 In order to achieve good electoral equality in this ward, it is necessary to amend the boundary between Midway ward and the Labour Group’s proposed Newhall & Stanton ward to the west. We therefore propose a boundary which reflects the need to allocate some electors to the neighbouring Newhall & Stanton ward. This boundary would run north from the corner of Birch Avenue and Park Street as far as Edgecote Drive. Our draft recommendations for this area would result in a three-member Midway ward with 4% more electors per councillor than the district average in 2013. This area can be seen in detail on Maps 2B and 3 which accompany this report.

101 For its Newhall & Stanton ward the Labour Group proposed transferring the settlement of Stanton to the rural Linton ward to the south. They said that Stanton has more links to Castle Gresley parish than to the urban area. However, from our visit to the area, we are of the view that Stanton has stronger connections to the urban area and therefore propose that Stanton remain in Newhall & Stanton ward. As mentioned above, our proposals both for Midway ward and the Stanton area therefore require a modification to the proposed boundary between Newhall & Stanton and Midway wards to ensure good electoral equality. Our proposed three- member Newhall & Stanton ward would have equal to the average number electors per councillor than the district average by 2013. This ward can be seen in detail on Map 2B accompanying this report.

Swadlincote town south 102 The Council’s and the Labour Group’s proposals for Church Gresley ward differed significantly in the Castleton Park development area. This area is situated on the southern edge of Swadlincote town and is in the existing Church Gresley ward. The Council proposed to include it within its proposed Linton ward while the Labour Group argued that the development should be warded with Church Gresley.

103 Having visited the area we noted that Castleton Park appeared more closely linked to Swadlincote, and that it is essentially an extension of the town. The development is still growing, and we consider that its community of interest is likely to be with the urban rather than rural area. We also consider that Burton Road, while not actually the ward boundary, provides a logical barrier between the edge of Swadlincote and the rural Linton ward.

104 Castle Gresley Parish Council supported the Council’s proposal for Castleton Park being warded with Linton. However, we consider that Castleton Park has more links with Swadlincote, including access to Swadlincote ward via Swadlincote Road.

105 The Labour Group also suggested some minor boundary changes between Church Gresley and Swadlincote wards. In order to improve the electoral variance in Church Gresley we have chosen to adopt one of the two proposals they put forward. This is an adjustment to the boundary in the north east part of Church Gresley, along Hastings Road, Wilmot Road and Coppice Side which will mean that residents have road links to both Church Gresley and Swadlincote wards.

106 We have therefore chosen to broadly base our draft recommendations on the Labour Group’s proposed three-member Church Gresley ward, with the exception of one suggested boundary change in the Swadlincote area which, in order to improve electoral equality, we have decided not to adopt. This three-member ward would have 10% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2013.

107 No submissions were received from residents or groups in the Swadlincote Woodlands area, and only the Labour Group referred to it. As mentioned earlier, we consider that the Woodlands area looks more to Swadlincote than to Woodville and have therefore decided to adopt the Labour Group’s three-member Swadlincote ward, with a minor adjustment to their proposed boundary with Church Gresley, as part of our draft recommendations. Our modification will, in our view, result in a ward boundary that better reflects local communities and is easily identifiable. This ward would have 1% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2013. This ward can be seen in detail on Maps 2B and 3 accompanying this report.

108 The Labour Group proposed a three-member Woodville ward. They proposed moving Swadlincote Woodlands from this ward in to Swadlincote ward, as described above. They also proposed adding areas from Hartshorne parish to this proposed ward. Their submission did not provide detailed evidence, but they did propose adding the Goseley estate and much of Hartshorne village to the proposed ward, saying that residents of these areas look to Woodville for services.

109 We have decided to base our draft recommendations for this area on the Labour Group’s proposals. We note that Hartshorne and Goseley are effectively part of a continuous ribbon of properties leading to Woodville and Swadlincote, and that

these areas can reasonably be considered an extension or part of the urban area. The boundary we have chosen to adopt for this area adheres to clear ground detail and aims to keep communities together where they are already linked.

110 We propose to depart from the Labour Group’s proposals, in one area. We consider that Smisby parish should be included with Woodville. The Labour Group had suggested that it ought to be warded with Repton. However, we consider that Smisby has little connection with the rest of Repton ward, and is more closely connected to areas outside the district, and to Woodville. We have therefore decided to modify the Labour Group’s proposal in this area as part of our draft recommendations.

111 Under the draft recommendations, our proposed Woodville ward, with the addition of Smisby parish, would have 6% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2013. This ward can be seen in detail on Map 3 which accompanies this report.

Linton and Seales 112 For Linton, to the south of Swadlincote, the Council proposed a three-member ward which would include the Castleton Park development as mentioned above. The Labour Group suggested warding Stanton village and its surrounding area with Linton to create a two-member ward.

113 From what we saw on our tour of the area, we are not persuaded that Castleton Park or Stanton village should be warded with Linton. Castleton Park, we feel, has stronger ties to the Swadlincote urban area than to the rural area. We propose a two- member Linton ward based upon the existing warding arrangements. We consider that this ward reflects community links in the area and would provide good electoral equality. This ward would have 7% fewer electors per councillor than the district average in 2013.

114 Both the Council and the Labour Group proposed retaining the existing two- member Seales ward. Little detail or justification was put forward for this proposal, but both said that the ward formed a logical community of interest for the south of the district. Coton-in-the-Elms Parish Council said that it would prefer to see the current warding arrangement retained.

115 On the basis of the submissions received at Stage One, we therefore propose to retain the existing two-member Seales ward as part of our draft recommendations. This ward would have 2% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2013.

Conclusions

116 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2008 and 2013 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations 2008 2013 Number of councillors 36 36 Number of electoral wards 15 15 Average number of electors per councillor 1,950 2,129 Number of wards with a variance more 6 0 than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance more 0 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation South Derbyshire District Council should comprise 36 councillors serving 15 wards, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

117 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 wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

118 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these were not as a consequence of our proposed district warding arrangements as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, South Derbyshire 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.

119 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parish of Hartshorne.

120 We would particularly welcome comments on these proposals from the parish council concerned and local residents during this consultation stage.

121 The parish of Hartshorne should be divided into two parish wards: Lower Midway (returning nine members) and Hartshorne & Goseley (returning six members). As a result of our proposed electoral ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised

parish electoral arrangements for Hartshorne parish. We welcome comments on these arrangements during this consultation period.

Draft recommendations Hartshorne Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Lower Midway (returning nine members), and Hartshorne & Goseley (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 3.

3 What happens next?

122 There will now be a consultation period of nine weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for South Derbyshire District Council contained in this report. We will take into account fully all submissions received by 19 July 2010. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

123 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for South Derbyshire and welcome comments from interested parties relating to the proposed ward boundaries, number of councillors, ward names, and parish and town council electoral arrangements. We would welcome alternative proposals backed up by demonstrable evidence during Stage Three. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

124 Express your views by writing directly to:

Review Officer South Derbyshire Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

Submissions can also be made by using the consultation section of our website, www.lgbce.org.uk or by emailing [email protected].

125 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 Stage Three representations will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of South Derbyshire District Council and at our offices in Layden House (London) 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.

126 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as 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.

127 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.

128 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. Parliament can either accept or reject our recommendations. If accepted, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the next elections for South Derbyshire District Council in 2011.

4 Mapping Draft recommendations for South Derbyshire

129 The following maps illustrate our proposed ward boundaries for South Derbyshire District Council:

• Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for South Derbyshire District Council.

• Sheet 2, Map 2A illustrates the proposed wards in Hatton parish.

• Sheet 2, Map 2B illustrates the proposed wards in Swadlincote town.

• Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed wards in Hartshorne parish.

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

Boundary Committee The Boundary Committee for England was a committee of the Electoral Commission, responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Boundary Committee’s functions were assumed by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in April 2010

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 Commission An independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. Its aim is integrity and public confidence in the democratic process. It regulates party and election finance and sets standards for well-run elections

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 Committee 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 12 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 arrangements any 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 Committee 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

Code of practice on written consultation

The Cabinet Office’s Code of Practice on Written Consultation (November 2000) (http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/servicefirst/2000/consult/code/_consultation.pdf) requires all government departments and agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, are encouraged to follow the Code.

The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 January 2001, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed.

Table B1: The Boundary Committee for England’s compliance with Code criteria

Criteria Compliance/departure

Timing of consultation should be built into the planning We comply with this process for a policy (including legislation) or service from requirement. the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what We comply with this questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. requirement.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise We comply with this as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at requirement. most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

Documents should be made widely available, with the We comply with this fullest use of electronic means (though not to the requirement. exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered We consult at the start of the responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks review and on our draft should be the standard minimum period for a consultation. recommendations. Our consultation stages are a minimum total of 16 weeks.

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly We comply with this analysed, and the results made widely available, with an requirement. account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, We comply with this designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the requirement. lessons are disseminated.

Appendix C

Table C1: Draft recommendations for South Derbyshire District Council

Variance Variance Number of Number of Number of Electorate from Electorate from Ward name electors per electors per councillors (2008) average (2013) average councillor councillor % % 1 Aston 3 5,110 1,703 -13% 6,286 2,095 -2%

2 Church Gresley 3 4,714 1,571 -19% 5,722 1,907 -10%

3 Etwall 2 4,330 2,165 11% 4,413 2,207 4%

4 Hatton 1 1,986 1,986 2% 1,997 1,997 -6%

5 Hilton 3 6,209 2,070 6% 6,635 2,212 4%

6 Linton 2 3,854 1,927 -1% 3,942 1,971 -7%

7 Melbourne 2 3,938 1,969 1% 4,180 2,090 -2%

8 Midway 3 6,438 2,146 10% 6,625 2,208 4%

Newhall & 9 Stanton 3 6,258 2,086 7% 6,419 2,140 0%

10 Repton 2 3,882 1,941 0% 3,940 1,970 -7%

11 Seales 2 4,096 2,048 5% 4,179 2,090 -2%

12 Stenson 2 3,341 1,671 -14% 4,597 2,299 8%

Table C1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for South Derbyshire District Council

Willington & 14 Findern 2 3,451 1,726 -12% 4,608 2,304 8%

15 Woodville 3 6,592 2,197 13% 6,787 2,262 6% Totals 36 70,214 – – 76,653 – – Averages – – 1,950 – – 2,129 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by South Derbyshire District Council.

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

Appendix D

Additional legislation we have considered

Equal opportunities

In preparing this report we have had regard to the general duty set out in Section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful racial discrimination • promote equality of opportunity • promote good relations between people of different racial groups

National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Broads

We have also had regard to:

• Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as inserted by Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the Park’s purposes. If there is a conflict between those purposes, a relevant authority shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park.

• Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an AONB, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of the AONB.

• Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act (as inserted by Section 97, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the Broads, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes of the Broads.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Tel: 08703 810153 [email protected] www.lgbce.org

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament in April 2010. It is independent of Government and political parties, and is directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for conducting boundary, electoral and structural reviews of local government areas.