Local residents submissions to the District Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 8 submissions from County and District Councillors.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Lawrence, Arion

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 01 July 2013 09:07 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary Review for Council

From: MICHAEL JORDAN [mailto: Sent: 30 June 2013 17:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review for Selby District Council

Dear Sir/Madam

As a cllr at Sherburn in Elmet on Selby District Council I welcome the review of the district. Whilst my initial feeling was that we should strive for single member wards I can understand this may not always be practical. Splitting a village/town is always going to bring up issues at the crossover point. The main frustration residents seem to have is the fact it is a 2 teir system and I go on record of saying that it should be a unitary council, alas not in my control! We are all supposed to save money and Selby District is now getting too small to be effective, I hope the partnership work with North can alleviate some of the issues. I accept your recommendation and thank you for your work.

Cllr Mike Jordan

1

RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES FOR SELBY DISTRICT PARTICULARLY AS THEY AFFECT THE TOWN OF SELBY

My interpretation of your role is that you should do all in your power to ensure robust representation of communities by their elected representatives and to ensure some levelling out around numerical representation within local government. Your interpretation of “communities” must follow natural boundaries and historical foundations albeit these will be subject to some change as populations flow and ebb.

Selby District is one of the fastest growing areas in terms of population in the North of and certainly within . This may be due to a number of factors but it is often led politically because of the many areas of outstanding beauty and national parks which exist within North Yorkshire and around its edges. For you to take no account of the effect of this planned and agreed expansion beggars belief and will merely mean that this issue will need to be revisited at some time in the not too distant future. This may keep your organisation gainfully employed but does nothing for those who live in the area and particularly those who attempt to achieve a more inclusive democratic process particularly within the Town of Selby which has not traditionally been an area of high turnout in local or national elections.

Selby District itself has taken time to establish itself as a larger community and there continue to be considerable differences in the rural and more urban areas both in terms of built environment and levels of population.

Your attempt to bring in areas of Barlby which is clearly and obviously divided from Selby Town by a large and fast flowing tidal river has no historical or current basis; these two areas were in different Ridings of Yorkshire and both sides of the river still recognise that. Whilst no one would wish to see us reject change for changes sake your proposed changes not only split the Town in two (East and West) but also split the village of Barlby in two something which definitely does not support either community.

Selby Town in its modern form has grown up around the two large former local authority housing estates built around Flaxley Road in the north and Abbots Road in the south. As these former local authority houses have been sold off we have tried locally to develop a wider focus for these two areas of the Town and pushed and gain recognition for the North and South Wards of Selby and many services are now delivered around these boundaries. As I understand it these “wards” will still exist for the purposes of the Town Council elections but you intend to confuse residents even further by then asking them to vote in two new District Wards called “East” and “West”. Selby Town does not split naturally into east and west and to attempt to make the numbers work by pulling in bits from other Wards highlights that this is mainly a numbers game and not about developing and cementing communities.

This confusion will make it harder and harder for those of us who support local government to explain to residents not just when but how they should participate in the democratic process no matter which party they wish to vote for. On an election day for District and Town Councils within your suggestions residents may be voting in North Ward for Town and East Ward for District and then have to come to terms with being part of Selby/Barlby for County Council elections. Those who are currently part of Selby South will vote in that ward for Town and Selby West for District (apart from those who you have mysteriously moved into a new fantasy ward called “St. James”). How does any of this support local democracy and encourage people to participate as citizens – I have been a member of local government for more than 20 years and I struggle to understand it.

Additional development which is already within the development framework and some of which is underway (Staynor Hall Estate) will see the town develop further and its population rise. It is essential that we continue to develop upon our already agreed and known boundaries and wards so we can then encourage new residents into the existing communities and local authority wards to encourage them to both understand and become part of their new communities. Selby District already suffers from being a “dormitory” area as more and more of the population work outside the District so anything which we can do to encourage a feeling of belonging to the local community where you live is extremely important.

I believe that the premise from which you started is fundamentally flawed and stems largely from the wish of the Leader of the ruling Conservative Group to want single member wards and to reduce the number of Councillors. This may not be a bad thing in its own right but how it is done is extremely important. I know from conversations with the Leader that he feels that many of his own Councillors really do not have much involvement with residents and do not do a lot of work between meetings. This is not the case for those of us who represent the poorer more deprived areas of the Town, I am not complaining about this – it is part of the strange world of local government and is inevitable given the vast difference between the average resident of one of our villages and those who live within the local authority housing areas which are largely within Selby Town and Sherburn-in-Elmet. However your organisation seems to apply no weighting to areas of higher deprivation in terms of numbers of voters per councillor – you just take the current population and divide it by the number of proposed councillors and then draw lines on the map. This shows it is ultimately a numbers game and not about robust and fair representation of communities and residents. I believe you are too far removed from local government to understand the different roles and demands on some councillors depending on the area they represent.

Once you set the number of Councillors or agreed to accept the Leader’s view that 31 rather than 41 was the target you then appear to have set about making the numbers work by working from the outside boundaries of the District inwards. This then left you with a difficult task for the Town which has led to the dog’s breakfast which you are now proposing.

Your starting point should have been the Town. It is where the bulk of the population live and work. It is the largest centre of population in the District and ultimately will be the powerhouse of the area. Its success will reflect on and considerably affect the success of the District. It is the centre of transport, education, social services, highways and all the other services which affect residents’ lives on a daily basis. Selby District itself obviously has three tiers of government and many of these larger services are organised remotely via North Yorkshire County Council but they are delivered and planned by local input within the Town across Selby District. If Selby Town is to survive the current downturn in economic development then it must maintain its current boundaries and develop a greater sense of community which will help increase smaller local shops and business start-ups selling and trading in goods which that community needs and which that community can start to support and grow. Our town centre like many others is not particularly vibrant at the moment although there are many local people who work extremely hard to change that. By maintaining the current electoral wards within the Town those people can continue to encourage people to look to the Town for its shopping and entertainment rather than go outside to the neighbouring cities.

The recognised deprivation within pockets of Selby Town is additionally recognised by the recent award of Big Local Lottery status which will see £1,000,000 come into the centre of the town and the two former local authority housing estates over the next 10 years to make a real change for those communities. The fact that Selby North and South Wards continue to have higher levels of multiple deprivation is not something which any of us want to see in the future but it is a fact. Over the next 10 years many local organisations look forward to working with the local communities to slowly remove some of the issues which lead to those higher levels: unemployment, poor health etc. This work will take time and the 10 years allowed by Big Local support this view. In addition to the Big Local funding other local voluntary sector organisations are able to bid to the various Lottery Funds to support additional work within these communities (Citizens Advice Bureau, Age Concern, DIAL etc). However the creation of these new larger “artificial” Wards will not help those agencies deal with that deprivation but merely bury it in the more affluent surrounding wards. None of us wants people to stay poor for any longer than necessary but we must all help those residents find their own way out of poverty not just create even more “hidden deprivation” than already exists in some of our rural areas.

Selby District Council has for many years now and under different representation cuts its costs to the bone and been a leader in looking at more creative ways of developing services. Its existing 41 Councillors work to ensure fair representation for its communities within tight budgets and, based on national comparison, relatively low levels of financial reward for that work. To try and spread that workload at both the strategic and operational level even thinner will not enhance the process or make it easier for residents to get the best response from its local representatives. As all levels of government move towards less and less human contact for its services then the most vulnerable will inevitably suffer as they struggle to survive on less money and with more and more services only being available via electronic means. Many people have neither the knowledge, education nor mental strength to find their way through these processes particularly in hard economic times when many are out of work or struggling with increasing costs and static incomes. It is the role of the local councillor to guide people through these processes but if we need to provide that service for more and more people then inevitably some will fall through our safety net.

The proposed changes will serve no one – they may or may not produce some small savings for what is already a very low spending authority but the service which the community receives will suffer which means that people will suffer.

I do not accept that by stating that I find your proposals wrong and potentially dangerous in terms of representation I must present an alternative – that is what you are paid to do and paid handsomely both in financial and other ways. Not one member of the public has come forward to me in more than 20 years and said “We need less Councillors” – they may have offered many other criticisms many of which were justified but on the whole they want us to do what we are supposed to do - deliver good services at a reasonable cost and help them with individual problems and issues when appropriate.

If you must decrease the number of Councillors then we already have 30 County Council wards at a County level and this would seem to be the logical place to start. I know you state you work upwards from the small parish wards but I think my arguments set out above show that this is not what you are currently proposing particularly within the Town boundaries.

I know that other proposals were put forward to include small parts of Brayton into the current Selby West Ward which makes far greater sense than moving across a river. That small change would change the boundary which currently runs between houses which are next door to each other.

I appreciate that by pursuing the +/- 10% of a number revisiting these proposals to ensure that the boundaries of Selby Town remain much the same since it is the largest community within Selby District will mean that further changes may roll out to the rural areas. However, the communities are clearly defined in rural areas by the village boundaries which are largely set within the current development framework and therefore easier to plan in the longer term.

The current development at Staynor Hall will increase the number of houses in Selby Town by 1200+ by the time it is completed. There is a further large development of 500+ houses planned for Selby North Ward although this number may be subject to change due to flood concerns. However it will clearly be a large development with a minimum of 200-300 properties. Additional developments are planned along the river and on other brownfield sites within the town all of which will affect numbers considerably for the future.

The huge site at Olympia Park Barlby will also have a considerable effect on the numbers of houses within Barlby as well as offering new employment opportunities for the Town and District. The fact that this will not take place before 2018 is no excuse to ignore these known changes; Barlby will more than double in size if the planned development goes ahead and that community will also need to develop as one not split in half because it suits the numbers at this time.

This is both the wrong time and wrong place for these boundary changes. Our geography is too dynamic at the moment and will be for the next 10 years by which time most of our available land will have been used and there will be a much clearer picture on the ground and in the minds of existing and new residents about where they see both Selby Town and Selby District over the following 20 years.

Councillor Melanie Davis (Town and District Councillor) On behalf of Selby Town Council. 8th September 2013 -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dyson Sent: 07 September 2013 19:09 To: Reviews@ Subject: Selby local government boundary review

Dear Sir

I wish to comment on the draft ward proposals for Selby District Council as published.

I am a Councillor on Selby District Council and Selby Town Council and am currently the Chairman of Selby District Council.

I have lived in Selby Town Centre all my life and have extensive knowledge of issues affecting Selby Town.

1. In my opinion the proposals for Selby Town wards are a 'Hotch potch' probably brought about by working out boundaries from the outer boundaries to the centre of the District, in other words what is left in the centre (Selby Town) has been shoehorned to fit the requirement of reduced councillor numbers.

2. A change to three Councillor wards in two new East and West wards is unnecessary and undesirable. If the Ward Boundaries for Selby Town were to remain the same as at present (i.e. two Councillor per three wards West North and South) and it would have the following advantages: a) be coterminous with Selby Town Council Boundaries.

This is an important point, because under current proposals if elections are held on the same day some residents would be asked vote in different wards for each Council and probably have to visit more than one polling station in the town to complete voting. This is a recipe for confusion and voter apathy. While it might not be the role of the Commission to adjust Parish wards there should be a recognition of a current system which is working well and easily understood.

b) Councillors per elector numbers would only be slightly outside the electoral targets. Certainly not enough to justify the changes as proposed

c) Natural boundaries of wards as agreed to be necessary under previous Electoral reform would be retained in contrast to the manipulated proposals of the new draft proposals.

With my local knowledge, I take issue with the Paragraph 80 conclusions.

While physically both side of the river bank may appear the same and be linked by a bridge, for probably historical reasons the two areas ie Barlby Bridge and Centre Selby Town are very different. This is not be apparent to non-Selby visitors touring the areas. Local residents in Barlby Bridge have always had feelings of not being part of the centre of town and traditionally in name and outlook have looked to Barlby village for identity and support. Likewise residents in Selby Town have little identification with issues in Barlby Bridge.; This often happens when there is such a dominant physical boundary such as a river. The bridge only serves a transport link and does not join the two areas together geographically, socially or politically. d) Single Councillor wards are preferable, throughout the District, but in Selby Town there are compelling reasons to have two Councillor wards.

However three Councillor wards as proposed moves further away from the advantages of identified Councillor representation for an area covering reasonably sized wards. Three member wards bring no advantages democratically, indeed may detract from Councillor coordination of workload and problem solving. e) There would be an avoidance of linking together socially deprived areas of Selby Town with more affluent areas e.g. parts of current North Ward with West Ward.

This is important because there would be a loss of ability to obtain grants for less affluent areas because of change of status by joining two very different areas together for political expedience (to the disadvantage of some residents)

Yours faithfully

Councillor Michael Dyson

9/9/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Selby District

Personal Details:

Name: John McCartney

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: North Yorkshire County Councillor

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I strongly object to the proposal to put the village Hensall into a ward with Camblesforth and Carlton. There are NO links between Hensall and Camblesforth and Carlton. Indeed the quickest way to get to Carlton from Hensall entails driving into the East Riding of Yorkshire. Hensall is divided from the rest of the proposed ward by the natural boundary the and there is NO bridge between the two. Hensall Parish Council and all members of the public who have made comments are opposed to the proposal. Hensall will be subsumed by Carlton and Camblesforth and ignored by the councillors elected by the votes of these large villages. Hensall has historically been linked to the other communities sounth of the River Aire and that is where it should remain.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2274 1/1 9/9/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Selby District

Personal Details:

Name: John McCartney

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: North Yorkshire County Councillor

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: I strongly object to the proposal that puts the village of Beal and Kellingley into a ward with Monk Fryston, Hillam and Burton Salmon This is a gerrymandering proposal from the ruling Conservative group on Selby District Council. Beal and Kellingley have no links with these three communities. Beal Parish Council oppose the proposal as do all residents who commented. Kellingley (which includes Kellingley Colliery) lies within half a mile of the West Yorkshire town of Knottingley. Kellingley has very different issues to the other three villages. There are currently proposals for a gas fired power station adjacent to the colliery and for and an incinerator on the colliery site. Will a councillor elected by the voters of Monk Fryston, Hillam and Burton Salmon give a damn about Kellingley? Children from Beal and Kellingley attend Kellington Primary School. Beal and Kellingley should remain with the other villages the lie south of the natural boundary the River Aire.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2273 1/1