Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 5

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 7

Submissions received 8 Electorate figures 8 Council size 8 Electoral fairness 9 General analysis 9 Electoral arrangements 10 Newark 10 Collingham, Farndon and the east area 12 Sutton-on-Trent and the Trentside villages 13 Southwell 14 Rainworth, Ollerton and the west area 15 Conclusions 17 Parish electoral arrangements 17

3 What happens next? 21

4 Mapping 23

Appendices

A Table A1: Draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood 24 District Council

B Glossary and abbreviations 26

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) 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 Newark & Sherwood District Council (‘the 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 May 2012.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 26 February 2013 Consultation on council size begins

28 May 2013 Submission of proposals for warding arrangements to the LGBCE 6 August 2013 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 15 October 2013 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them 7 January 2014 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Submissions received

During the preliminary stage of this review we received one submission on council size, from Newark & Sherwood District Council. The Council proposed a council size of 38, a reduction of eight. During consultation on council size we received 11 submissions. These submissions proposed council sizes ranging from 37 to 46. During consultation on proposed ward boundaries we received one district-wide submission, from the Council, and 33 additional representations. These were from 17 parish and town councils, 13 local residents, two political groups and one district councillors. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

Newark & Sherwood District Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2019, a date five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2014. 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 9.2% over this period.

1

We are content that these forecasts are the most accurate available at this time and have used these figures as the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

Newark & Sherwood District Council currently has a council size of 46. The Council originally proposed a council size of 38. They argued that a council size of 38 would support its change in governance arrangements from a Strong Leader System to the Committee System and ensure members could undertake an effective representational role.

During consultation on council size we received 11 submissions. These proposed a range in council sizes of between 37 and 46. We received no substantive evidence to contradict the rationale presented by the Council and no clear evidence was provided to support any other council size. Therefore, we invited representations on warding arrangements based on a council size of 38.

During the consultation on warding arrangements, the District Council proposed a warding pattern based on a council size of 39. We noted that a council size of 39 would provide a better allocation of members across the district and provide for a pattern of wards which would achieve a better balance between the statutory criteria. We are of the view that a council size of 39 would not impact adversely on the governance arrangements of the Council and we have therefore based our draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood on a council size of 39 members.

General analysis

While the Council’s proposed pattern of wards generally used clearly identifiable boundaries they would not result in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the district. We have therefore made a large number of modifications to the Council’s proposals to improve electoral equality, to reflect community identities and to provide for more easily identifiable boundaries.

Our draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood are for a mixed pattern of eight single-member, five two-member and seven three-member wards. We consider our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while providing an accurate reflection of community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

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 Newark & Sherwood 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 6 January 2014. Any submissions received after this date may not be taken into account.

2

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 (Newark & Sherwood) 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

You can also view our draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

3

4

1 Introduction

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

2 We wrote to the Council as well as other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals on council size. We then held two periods of consultation, first on council size, and then on warding patterns for the Council. The submissions received during these consultations have informed our draft recommendations.

3 We are now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish our final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for Newark & Sherwood District Council in spring 2014.

What is an electoral review?

4 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.

5 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 Newark & Sherwood?

6 We decided to conduct this review because, based on the December 2012 electorate figures, 36% of wards in the district currently have variances of +/-10%. One ward, Farndon, has an electoral variance of 18%.

How will the recommendations affect you?

7 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 council wards you vote in. Your ward name may also change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. The names or boundaries of parishes will not change as a result of our recommendations.

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

5

8 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 6 January 2014. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in spring 2014. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 19 and more information can be found on our website, www.lgbce.org.uk

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

9 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

6

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

10 Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Newark & Sherwood District Council we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed ward boundaries and ward names. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

11 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Newark & Sherwood 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 are easily identifiable – the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

12 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 wards we put forward at the end of the review.

13 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.

14 Additionally, in circumstances where we propose to divide a parish between district wards we are required to divide it into parish wards so that each parish ward is wholly contained within a single district ward. We cannot make amendments to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

15 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Newark & Sherwood District 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.

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

7

Submissions received

16 Prior to, and during, the initial stage of the review, we visited Newark & Sherwood District Council and met with members and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance.

17 We received one preliminary submission on council size from the Council and 11 submissions during consultation on council size. During consultation on ward boundaries we received 34 submissions, including a district-wide scheme from the Council. These were from 16 parish and town councils, 13 local residents, two political groups and one district councillor. 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

Electorate figures

18 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2019, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2014. This is prescribed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). These forecasts were broken down to polling district levels and projected an increase in the electorate of 9.2% to 2019. The forecasts provided by the Council took into account a number of housing developments planned for the district over the next six years.

19 Having considered the information provided by the Council, we are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time and these figures form the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

20 Newark & Sherwood District Council currently has 46 councillors elected from 25 wards, comprising eight single-member, thirteen two-member and four three- member wards. During preliminary discussions on council size, the Council proposed a council size of 38, a reduction of eight members. The submission from the Council had considered its governance and management structure, scrutiny of the council, work on outside bodies, members’ representational role and the Council’s other statutory functions. Having considered the evidence we decided to consult on a council size of 38.

21 We received 11 submissions during the consultation on council size. These were from five parish councils and six local residents. The Council did not submit a second representation. The submissions proposed a range in council sizes from 37 to 46.

22 We carefully considered the information provided during the consultation period. Although the submissions received provided mixed support for a council size of 38, we did not receive strong evidence for any other council size, nor was any evidence submitted to contradict the rationale presented by the Council. We were therefore minded to adopt a council size of 38 as the basis of this electoral review and invited proposals for warding arrangements based on this number of councillors.

8

23 We explained to all interested parties from the outset that the council size figure adopted at this stage of the review provided context for local stakeholders to submit their views on the wider electoral arrangements. We also explained that this council size figure could be slightly adjusted in order to provide for warding patterns that create a better balance between the statutory criteria.

24 The Council’s proposed warding pattern was for 39 members, and provided for a mixed pattern of single-, two- and three-member wards. We investigated whether a warding pattern based on 39 members rather than 38 better met our criteria. We considered that a warding pattern based on 39 members resulted in a better allocation of councillors east and west of the River Trent and would provide for a scheme which would better meet our statutory criteria.

25 We are of the view that a council size of 39 members would not impact adversely on governance arrangements, member workload or councillors’ representational role. Therefore, our draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood District Council are based on a council size of 39.

Electoral fairness

26 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 will provide for electoral fairness, reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

27 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 (86,382 in 2013 and 94,358 by 2019) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 39 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 2,215 in 2013 and 2,419 by 2019.

28 Under our draft recommendations, one of our proposed wards will have electoral variances of more than 10% from the average for the district by 2019. The outlier is Edwinstowe & Clipstone, which will have a variance of 11% by 2019. We are satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness for Newark & Sherwood.

General analysis

29 During consultation on warding patterns, we received 34 submissions, including a district-wide proposal from the Council. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the district.

30 The scheme submitted by the Council provided a mixed warding arrangement of one-, two- and three-member wards.

31 Having carefully considered the proposals received, we were of the view that while the Council’s proposed pattern of wards generally used clearly identifiable boundaries, they did not result in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the

9 district. Had we accepted all of the Council’s proposed boundaries, the district would have triggered one of our intervention criteria and been very close to triggering both intervention criteria. The Council proposed one ward with a variance greater than 30% and its proposals would have resulted in 29% of wards having a variance of greater than +/- 10%. We have therefore made a large number of modifications to the Council’s proposals in order to improve electoral equality and to reflect community identities.

32 Our draft recommendations are for eight single-member, five two-member and seven three-member wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

33 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table A1 (on pages 24–5) and on the large map accompanying this report.

34 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations. We also welcome comments on the ward names we have proposed as part of the draft recommendations.

Electoral arrangements

35 This section of the report details the submissions we have received, our consideration of them, and our draft recommendations for each area of Newark & Sherwood. The following areas are considered in turn:

• Newark (pages 10–12) • Collingham, Farndon and the east area (page 12) • Sutton-on-Trent and the Trentside villages (pages 13–14) • Southwell (page 14) • Rainworth, Ollerton and the west area (pages 15–16)

36 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table A1 on pages 22–3 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Newark

37 Newark is a market town to the east of the district. The town consists of one parish. A separate parish, Balderton, lies to the south-east of the town and has grown to merge with the outskirts of Newark. A number of developments are planned to the south of the town.

38 The Council’s proposals for this area comprised a mixed warding pattern of one-, two- and three-member wards. To the north of the town the Council proposed a two-member Bridge ward, which would have 9% fewer electors than the district average by 2019. We have largely adopted this ward as part of our draft recommendations, subject to a small modification to the southern boundary. Rather than the boundary following Beacon Hill Road we propose the boundary follows the county electoral division boundary. This modification includes the roads north of Barnby Gate and west of Cross Street in Bridge ward. This modification results in our proposed Bridge ward having 2% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

10

39 The Council proposed a two-member Castle ward for the west of the town and a two-member Devon ward for the south. While these wards would have good levels of electoral equality, with 3% fewer and equal to the average number of electors by 2019 respectively, the boundaries appeared arbitrary, particularly in the Cleveland Square area. Consequently, we propose a number of modifications to the Council’s proposed Castle and Devon wards. These changes would improve electoral equality, and keeping the Hawtonville estate together will reflect communication links in the area and local communities.

40 Our proposed Devon ward includes several streets that the Council included in its proposed Castle ward. We have included all the roads between Hawton Road and Devon Park in order to maintain the community links in that area. We have also amended the northern boundary to run along Albert Street and London Road. This provides a more easily identifiable boundary than that suggested by the Council and provides for better levels of electoral equality. As a result of these changes we have amended the allocation of members between the Castle and Devon wards. Our proposals are for a one-member Castle and a three-member Devon ward. These wards would have 1% more and 1% fewer electors than the district average by 2019, respectively.

41 The Council proposed a three-member Beacon ward for the east of the town. We have largely adopted this ward as part of our draft recommendations, subject to two minor modifications to the northern and western boundaries. At the western edge of the ward we have used the backs of houses on Lime Grove as a boundary, rather than the middle of the road. We consider this boundary better reflects the community in the area. To the north our boundary would follow the electoral division boundary rather than the boundary with Bridge ward proposed by the Council (see paragraph 38).

42 We observed that to the far east of Beacon ward a development has been built across the town boundary and that of Coddington parish. As a means of addressing this defaced3 boundary, we propose that the houses currently included in Coddington parish and bound by the A1 should be included in our Beacon ward. This results in a parish ward for Coddington with 95 electors. We normally consider that a parish ward of fewer than 100 electors is unviable. However, we consider that in this case the A1 presents a strong barrier and reflects the community in this part of the district.

43 As a result of these modifications, our proposed Beacon ward would have 5% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

Balderton 44 Balderton is a parish south-east of Newark, adjoining the town. It is currently represented by two two-member wards.

45 The Council’s proposals for this area were for two wards very similar to those at present. Rather than use the district boundary as the eastern boundary for both wards, the Council proposed the eastern boundary follow the A1. Under the Council’s proposals these wards would have 8% fewer and 10% fewer electors than the district average by 2019, respectively. As well has having high levels of electoral inequality,

3 A boundary becomes defaced when the ground detail the boundary was previously following is destroyed. 11 using the A1 as a boundary would also require creating a parish ward for the eastern part of Balderton parish with only nine electors. We consider a parish ward of this size would be unviable.

46 In order to provide for a pattern of wards that does not create an unviable parish ward and which provides for improved levels of electoral equality we propose a number of modifications to the Council’s proposals. We propose including the parishes of Coddington and Barnby-in-the-Willows in a Balderton North ward. We propose this ward be named Balderton North & Coddington.

47 In order to improve electoral equality we also propose changing the boundary between the two Balderton wards. We propose a Balderton South ward instead of Balderton West. This ward would use Hawton Lane and Main Street as the boundary and include the houses in the area of Baines Avenue and Masefield Crescent.

48 We considered whether to include a small area of the southern part of Balderton in our Farndon & Fernwood ward rather than in Balderton South. The county electoral division boundary runs along Staple Lane, while the parish boundary is along the B6236. However, in order to keep the community of Balderton together, we propose using the parish boundary rather than the division boundary as the southern edge of our ward.

49 Our draft recommendations for this part of the district are for two-member Balderton North & Coddington and Balderton South wards. These wards would have 7% more and 4% more electors than the district average by 2019, respectively.

Collingham, Farndon and the east area

50 In the north of this area the Council proposed a single-member Trent East ward and a single-member Collingham ward. The Council’s proposals had used clear boundaries and had good levels of electoral equality. However, we are unable to adopt these wards in full as creating a single-member Collingham ward along the Council’s boundary would result in a parish ward to the east of Collingham with only 80 electors. This is too small an electorate to provide an effective parish ward.

51 We are therefore proposing a two-member Collingham ward, which combines the Council’s proposed Trent East and Collingham wards. This ward would have 7% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

52 In the south-east of the district the Council proposed a single-member Farndon ward and a two-member Fernwood & Hawton ward. These wards would have unacceptably high levels of electoral inequality with 14% more and 30% more electors than the district average by 2019, respectively.

53 Our proposed three-member Farndon & Fernwood ward covers the south- eastern corner of the district. It is bordered by the River Trent to the west, Newark to the north, and the district boundary to the south and east. While the ward would have 30% fewer electors than average based on the current electorate figures, it is due to have 6% more electors than the district average by 2019. This is as a result of extensive planned developments in the parishes of Hawton and Fernwood.

Sutton-on-Trent and the Trentside villages 12

Sutton-on-Trent 54 Sutton-on-Trent is a village eight miles north of Newark. Currently, Sutton-on- Trent is represented by a single-member ward that also covers the parishes of Weston, Grassthorpe, Carlton-on-Trent and Norwell.

55 The Council proposed a single-member Trent North ward with different northern and southern boundaries to the current ward. To the north the ward would include the parish of Grassthorpe but not Weston, and to the south the ward would include the parishes of Cromwell and North Muskham but not Norwell. We had some concern with these proposals. While the ward would have good electoral equality, with 3% fewer electors than the district average by 2019, such a warding pattern would split the long-established connection between the parishes of North and South Muskham. Our proposals for Muskham are detailed below in paragraphs 58–63.

56 Weston Parish Council and District Councillor Rose expressed their opposition to the Council’s proposed Trent North ward. They did not support the proposal not to include Weston parish in this ward. They indicated that residents of Weston use a number of facilities in Sutton-on-Trent. This argument was supported by Sutton-on- Trent Parish Council, who stated that Weston, Grassthorpe and Carlton-on-Trent all have natural links to the village, while the larger parish of Norwell does not.

57 Having considered the evidence received, we are persuaded by the merits of a different warding pattern for this area than that proposed by the District Council. We therefore propose a single-member Sutton-on-Trent ward which would include the parishes of Sutton-on-Trent, Weston, Grassthorpe, Carlton-on-Trent, Egmanton, Weston, Ompton, Laxton & Moorhouse, Ossington, Kneesall, Kersall, and Maplebeck. Our proposed Sutton-on-Trent ward would have 8% more electors than the district average by 2019.

Muskham and Trentside 58 We received a large number of submissions covering the Muskham area. The submissions suggested that the parishes of North and South Muskham should remain in a ward together, along with the parishes of Bathley and Cromwell. Some respondents suggested that the parishes of Kelham, Averham and Staythorpe should also be included in a ward covering this part of the district, while others stated that they considered these villages to have little link to the Muskham area, and would be better placed in a ward to the south.

59 Cromwell Parish Meeting suggested that the village should remain part of the Muskham ward. North Muskham Parish Council proposed a ward consisting of North Muskham, South Muskham, Bathley, Cromwell and Norwell. They indicated that these parishes share churches, shops and have a community identity. This view was supported by South Muskham/Little Carlton Parish Council.

60 We investigated a number of different warding patterns for the area, with the aim of reflecting the evidence received on the Muskham area. In light of evidence received, we are proposing a different configuration of wards to that proposed by the Council in this part of the district.

61 Norwell Parish Council proposed a ward consisting of Norwell, Cromwell, Sutton-on-Trent and Carlton-on-Trent. We are not proposing this ward as part of our 13 draft recommendations as it would result in an electoral inequality of -17% by 2019. We propose a single-member Muskham ward, which would include the parishes of North Muskham, South Muskham, Bathley, Norwell and Cromwell. This ward maintains the links between Norwell and Cromwell as well as North and South Muskham. Our proposed Muskham ward would have 6% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

62 Our single-member Trentside ward contains the parishes of Averham, Bleasby, Kelham, Fiskerton cum Morton, Rolleston, Staythorpe and Upton. These parishes are all well-linked by road and, with the exception of Upton, all share the River Trent as their eastern boundary. This ward is based on proposals made by both by Fiskerton cum Morton and Rolleston parish pouncils, who referred to the villages as ‘Trentside’ and it is from their submissions that we have taken the ward’s name.

63 Upton Parish Council wrote that Upton has strong links to Southwell and requested that it be placed in a Southwell ward. The Parish Council did, however, refer to the potential benefits of being included in a ward with other small villages, and detailed links with Rolleston, Morton and Fiskerton. While we recognise that Upton has links with Southwell, in order to improve levels of electoral equality we have included it as part of our Trentside ward. This would result in our Trentside ward having 1% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

Southwell

64 Southwell is a small town located close to the centre of the district. It is currently divided into three single-member wards. The District Council proposed two wards covering Southwell: a single-member Southwell North ward and two-member Southwell South ward. The Southwell South ward would contain the majority of the town, with the Southwell North ward consisting of a small section of the town, as well as the parishes of Halam, Edingley and Upton. In addition to the submission from the Council, we also received a representation from Southwell Town Council which supported retaining three single-member wards. We have decided not to retain the existing wards as these would result in poor levels of electoral equality.

65 On visiting the area, we observed the Council’s proposed boundary between the Southwell North and Southwell South wards. We considered that it was not easily identifiable and appeared to split the town arbitrarily. As a result, we propose a ward that includes the whole of the town in a three-member ward. This ward would also include the parishes of Edingley, Halam, Halloughton, Hockerton, Kirklington and Winkburn. With the exception of Halloughton, these parishes are all north of Southwell and have good road connections to the town and shared community facilities in the area.

66 The Council proposed including the parish of Halloughton in Dover Beck ward, south of Southwell. Halloughton Parish Meetig provided evidence that the village looks more towards Southwell than to the south, stating that residents use health and education facilities in the town. We have therefore included the parish of Halloughton in our Southwell ward.

67 Our draft recommendations are for a three-member Southwell ward, which would have 7% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

14

Rainworth, Ollerton and the west area

Rainworth 68 Rainworth is a town on the western edge of the district. Part of the town is outside the district boundary, in the district of Mansfield. The town is currently represented by a three-member ward that includes the neighbouring parish of Rufford. A large village, Blidworth, lies to the south of the town.

69 The Council proposed a two-member Rainworth North ward for the majority of the town, with the southern part of the town being included in a two-member Blidworth & Rainworth South ward. Under the Council’s proposals these wards would have 9% fewer and 15% fewer electors than the district average by 2019, respectively. The Council’s proposed boundary between the two wards was the backs of houses on the north side of Preston Road. When we visited the area we did not consider this provided for an easily identifiable boundary. We therefore propose a boundary than runs along using Warsop Lane and Southwell Road East/Mansfield Road as this keeps together the community centred on Station Road and Preston Road.

70 We have also proposed to include the parishes of Rufford and Bilsthorpe in the Council’s proposed Rainworth North ward to create a three-member Rainworth North & Bilsthorpe ward. The parishes of Blidworth and Lindhurst have been included with Rainworth South, as in the Council’s proposals, to create a two-member Rainworth South & Blidworth ward. As a result of these modifications our Rainworth North & Bilsthorpe and Rainworth South & Blidworth wards would have 2% fewer and 7% fewer electors than the district average by 2019, respectively.

71 The village of Farnsfield lies east of Rainworth. The Council proposed a single- member ward based entirely on the parish boundaries. The ward has good internal road links and would have equal to the average number of electors for the district by 2019. We consider this ward provides a good balance between the statutory criteria and have decided to adopt it as part of our draft recommendations.

Edwinstowe 72 In the north-west of the district the Council proposed three single-member wards: Edwinstowe North, Edwinstowe South & Cavendish Park, and Clipstone Village. These would have 21% more, 4% more and 14% more electors than the district average by 2019, respectively. As a result of these high levels of electoral inequality we have made a number of changes to the Council’s warding pattern in this area. We propose a three-member Edwinstowe & Clipstone ward, covering all the area of the Council’s three wards with the exception of the parish of Perlethorpe- cum-Budby. This ward would have 11% more electors than the district average by 2019. We consider this level of electoral inequality is justified given the ward’s position on the western edge of the district and the benefit of not splitting the community of Edwinstowe.

Ollerton and Boughton 73 Ollerton and Boughton are a neighbouring town and village to the north of the district that together make up one parish. There is currently a three-member Ollerton and a two-member Boughton ward, which cover the parish and neighbouring rural areas.

15

74 The Council proposed a three-member Ollerton & Boughton ward, covering the whole of the parish. We had a number of concerns with this proposal. We noted that the proposed Ollerton & Boughton ward would have 11% more electors than the district average by 2019. Furthermore, creating a ward consisting solely of the built- up area would result in a neighbouring narrow rural ward running from the northern edge of the district and as far west as Rainworth. This would leave the parish of Wellow without internal road links to either the north or south of the ward.

75 To reflect the road links in the area we propose that the parish of Wellow be included with Ollerton town. Additionally, in order to improve electoral equality in the north-west of the district we propose the parish of Perlethorpe-cum-Budby also be included in a ward with Ollerton. While Perlethorpe-cum-Budby is more rural than Ollerton, the parish has road links to the town and is currently part of the three- member Ollerton ward.

76 We therefore propose a three-member Ollerton ward including both Perlethorpe-cum-Budby and Wellow, which would have 2% more electors than the district average by 2019, and a single-member Boughton ward. This ward would also include the parishes of Walesby and Kirton and would have 1% more electors than the district average by 2019.

Dover Beck 77 The parishes of Oxton, Epperstone and Gonalston together make up the area known as Dover Beck. Our proposed Dover Beck ward is based on that of the Council, with a small modification as we have decided to include the parish of Halloughton in our Southwell ward (detailed in paragraph 66). Under our draft recommendations, our Dover Beck ward would have 2% more electors than the district average by 2019.

78 To the south of Dover Beck lie the parishes of Lowdham and Bulcote. They are currently represented by a two-member Lowdham ward. The Council proposed the existing Lowdham ward. This ward would have 6% fewer electors than the district average by 2019. We have decided to include this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

16

Conclusions

79 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2013 and 2019 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2013 2019

Number of councillors 39 39

Number of electoral wards 20 20

Average number of electors per councillor 2,215 2,419

Number of wards with a variance of more 4 1 than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Newark & Sherwood District Council should comprise 39 councillors serving 20 wards, as detailed and named in Table A1 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

80 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.

81 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Newark & Sherwood 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.

82 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Balderton, Coddington, Ollerton & Boughton, Newark and Rainworth. We would particularly welcome comments on these proposals from both the parish councils concerned and local residents during 17 this consultation stage.

83 As a result of our proposed 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 Balderton parish.

Draft recommendation Balderton Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Balderton North (returning eight members) and Balderton South (returning seven members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

84 As a result of our proposed 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 Coddington parish.

Draft recommendation Coddington Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Coddington East (returning nine members) and Coddington West (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

85 As a result of our proposed 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 Ollerton & Boughton parish.

Draft recommendation Ollerton & Boughton Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Ollerton (returning 13 members) and Boughton (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

86 As a result of our proposed 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 Newark parish.

Draft recommendation Newark Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Beacon (returning six members), Bridge (returning four members), Castle (returning two members) and Devon (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

87 As a result of our proposed 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 Rainworth parish.

Draft recommendation Rainworth Parish Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing 18 two wards: Rainworth North (returning nine members) and Rainworth South (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

19

20

3 What happens next?

88 There will now be a consultation period of 12 weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for Newark & Sherwood District Council contained in this report. We will take into account fully all submissions received by 6 January 2014. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

89 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for Newark & Sherwood and welcome comments from interested parties relating to the proposed ward boundaries, number of councillors and ward names. We would welcome alternative proposals backed up by demonstrable evidence during this stage. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

90 Express your views by writing directly to:

Review Officer Newark & Sherwood Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

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

91 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of Newark & Sherwood 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.

92 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.

93 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.

94 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. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for Newark & Sherwood District Council in 2015. 21

95 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.

22

4 Mapping

Draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood

96 The following maps illustrate our proposed ward boundaries for Newark & Sherwood District Council:

• Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for Newark & Sherwood District Council.

You can also view our draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

23

Appendix A

Table A1: Draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood District Council

Number of Variance from Number of Variance from Number of Electorate Electorate Ward Name electors per average electors per average councillors (2013) (2019) councillor % councillor % Balderton North & 1 2 4,685 2,343 6% 5,179 2,590 7% Coddington 2 Balderton South 2 4,500 2,250 2% 5,043 2,522 4%

3 Beacon 3 5,454 1,818 -18% 6,914 2,301 -5%

4 Bridge 2 4,282 2,141 -3% 4,742 2,371 -2%

5 Boughton 1 2,377 2,377 7% 2,439 2,439 1%

6 Castle 1 2,404 2,404 9% 2,450 2,450 1%

7 Collingham 2 4,361 2,181 -2% 4,484 2,242 -7%

8 Devon 3 7,088 2,363 7% 7,179 2,393 -1%

9 Dover Beck 1 2,380 2,380 7% 2,458 2,458 2% Edwinstowe & 10 3 7,691 2,564 16% 8,080 2,693 11% Clipstone Farndon & 11 3 4,656 1,553 -30% 7,630 2,563 6% Fernwood 12 Farnsfield 1 2,185 2,185 -1% 2,414 2,414 0%

24

Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Newark & Sherwood District Council

Number of Variance from Number of Variance from Number of Electorate Electorate Ward Name electors per average electors per average councillors (2013) (2019) councillor % councillor % 13 Lowdham 1 2,289 2,289 3% 2,266 2,266 -6%

14 Muskham 1 2,401 2,401 8% 2,270 2,270 -6%

15 Ollerton 3 7,127 2,376 7% 7,427 2,476 2% Rainworth North & 16 Bilsthorpe 3 6,861 2,287 3% 7,129 2,376 -2%

Rainworth South & 17 2 4,134 2,067 -7% 4,520 2,260 -7% Blidworth 18 Southwell 3 6,762 2,254 2% 6,736 2,245 -7%

19 Sutton-on-Trent 1 2,461 2,461 11% 2,604 2,604 8%

20 Trentside 1 2,345 2,345 6% 2,394 2,394 -1%

Totals 39 86,382 – – 94,358 – –

Averages – – 2,215 – – 2,419 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Newark & Sherwood 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 25

Appendix B

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

26 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 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 arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

27

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

28

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

29