Councillor Submissions to the Doncaster District Council Electoral Review

Councillor submissions to the Doncaster District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 11 submissions.

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.

Porter, Johanna

From: Paul Bissett Sent: 08 August 2014 20:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: boundary review Edenthorpe

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Councillor Paul Bissett. Ward of Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun.

Sir, I live in the village of Edenthorpe, have been a Parish Councillor for Edenthorpe am currently a Parish Councillor for Kirk Sandall with Barnby Dun and have just been elected to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council.I object to the proposal to divide the Ward along the A18 making part in Armthorpe and the other remaining in Kirk Sandall, Barnby Dun. The village has a strong community identity and shares common community goals along with Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun, with church events, schools, social clubs and cultural events. Edenthorpe is mentioned in the Doomsday Book with the most historic building, The Manor House dating from o1606,als Edenthorpe Hall, now a local school, this was built in 1770. With the proposed division these buildings would then be in Armthorpe Ward. Edenthorpe is separated from Armthorpe by large areas of agricultural land and the A630 a link from the motorway into Doncaster centre. Whereas Edenthorpe’s boundary abuts Kirk Sandall and Kirk Sandall adjoins Barnby Dun. There are no direct links to Armthorpe either culturally, socially or public service amenities. Edenthorpe has 2 supermarkets and a range of local shops that are well serviced and provide everything that is needed. Edenthorpe as a whole, was part of the Armthorpe ward, pre 2004 boundary change, before that time it received no or very little support from the then Armthorpe ward Councillors and when any grants or benefits were available were never included, as it was seen to be an affluent area compared to Armthorpe, which always used the image of being a mining community and took the benefits as such. Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun were part of the Stainforth Ward pre 2004 these were treated much the same as Edenthorpe, since that boundary change in 2004 the villages have forged strong connections and links with much improvements made to all, through the efforts of all communities. If any boundary change were to be chosen it should be with Clay Lane estate as this community shares local schools and shops and geographically makes more sense with the main Wheatly Hall road making a very good boundary linking into the A630. If the main reason is to reduce Councillors then firstly check the most recent census figures as this could be vastly different from the electoral register. If after all the deliberations you still decide that the only way is to reduce the Councillors do that, but do not split a vibrant community. Sincerely Paul Bissett (Councillor for Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun)

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Sent: 20 June 2014 15:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Doncaster Boundary review Attachments: DONCASTER PROPOSED WARDS.xlsx; NEW BOUNDARY SUBMISSION.docx

I am Councillor Monty Cuthbert, I previously submitted the proposals on behalf of the Doncaster Liberal Democrat Group of Councillors. The group no longer exists, Cllr Eric Tatton‐Kelly retired and Paul Coddington and myself are non‐party Independent Councillors in Bessacarr & Cantley Ward. The first submission I presented was based on population and was withdrawn, my second submission had under and over percentage problems this is my third submission and I believe it to be within the bounds that you are stating. Please see attached a report on why I wish to change your recommendations and an Excel sheet giving the facts and figures of the Wards I propose Thank you Monty Cuthbert

1 I presented one of the initial three proposed plans, mine was on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Members. I would like to improve on my presentation while at the same time informing you about the elements of your suggestions I am unhappy with. Firstly being a Ward Councillor that has always taken my role very seriously I totally dislike the thought of one member Wards. Looking at the work I have if I took time off for holidays or sickness without having anyone to stand in for me, I think the pressure would prolong my time off. So Skellow, Stainforth & Tickhill have been incorporated with others. Having said that and being brought up in Edenthorpe until I was 10, I detest the idea of splitting Edenthorpe almost as much as being adjoined to Armthorpe. There is a direct footpath but no direct highway between the two communities So in this case I recommend Armthorpe is joined by Old Cantley and Branton which are directly highway attached. 1/. Making ARMTHORPE 11232 FA to FF BRANTON 1697 KD (Finningley Ward) OLD CANTLEY 182 KH (Finningley Ward) TOTAL 13111 = 3 Councillors

2/. Another awkward sized mining town. In addition to below there is a 1000+ homes development about to begin between Bessacarr and Rossington, currently on ground held in Finningley ward. By making ROSSINGTON 10106 JA to JF BESSACARR 2569 KG (Finningley Ward) BESSACARR 446 KI (Finningley Ward) TOTAL 13121 = 3 Councillors

3/. Tickhill Ward has been listed as a 1 Councillor Ward Make TICKHILL 6721 IA to IF with IH WOODFIELD 1684 AG (Balby Ward) TOTAL 8405 = 2 Councillors

4/. Tidying up the pieces Make FINNINGLEY 5109 KA, KC, KE, KF AUSTERFIELD 466 II (Tickhill Ward) BAWTRY 2818 IJ (Tickhill Ward) TOTAL 8393 = 2 Councillors

5/. It was said that I got my Hexthorpe / Balby 12.7 over target. Making HEXTHORPE 6206 BB, BD to BF BALBY 2120 AA, AB TOTAL 8326 = 2 Councillors

6/. I have also used AG – Woodfield from Balby Ward to Tickhill Making BALBY 7716 AC to AF TOTAL 7716 = 2 Councillors

7/. Bessacarr & Cantley Ward including Lakeside has always been a silly residential street split with Finningley. I live in a cul-de-sac with one side in Finningley Ward and my side in B&C Ward. Total size wise it is an ideal 4 Councillor Ward, this not allowed I reluctantly made two Wards of two Councillors. I say reluctantly because Bessacarr has been strong Conservative and Cantley strong Labour, over the past two decades we as Liberal Democrats have pulled both communities nearer together. I wouldn’t like to see battle lines drawn again. As previously shown two of the three pieces of B&C Ward that were in Finningley I have transferred to Rossington. I propose to drop Lakeside because this ever growing housing development being in Bessacarr Ward is putting major pressures on the wards deficiency in community and social facilities creating a high danger to children. Lakeside Leisure Park is in Hyde Park Ward (BG) and as such that Ward has the space to provide for this up and coming community. Or shall we say, if not, new developments shouldn’t be carried out. The only link between this estate and Bessacarr is a footpath or a very indirect highly congested road route which parents add to by bringing kids to school by car. Parents who walk their kids to school from Lakeside also have to cross congested road route. Very unsatisfactory. Recently First introduced a bus service from Bessacarr, through Lakeside to town. The service has proved to be unreliable for various reasons, the main one being congestion and routing. First propose to withdraw the service in September and run a circular bus service to Lakeside via Hyde Park. My proposal is :- BESSACARR & CANTLEY WARD 11176 EA to EF CANTLEY 2392 KB (Finningley) TOTAL 13568 = 3 Councillors

8/. Giving Lakeside to Hyde Park Makes HYDE PARK 3714 BC, BG to BI INTAKE 8932 CB to CG LAKESIDE 508 EG (Bessacarr) TOTAL 13154 = 3 Councillors

9/. Other Ward changes are contained in the Excel attachment DONCASTER WARD PROPOSALS electorate No of Cllrs per cllr % ELECTORAL AREA 1 Adwick-le-street, Carcroft & Skellow 8339 2 4170 -2% OA,OC to OE,PJ 2 Armthorpe, Old Cantley & Branton 13111 3 4370 3% FA to FF, KD,KH 3 Balby 7716 2 3858 -8% AC to AF 4 Barnby Dun, Stainforth, Sykehouse 8814 2 4407 4% RA to RE, RG,RI,UA Fishlake & Braithwaite 5 Bentley & Arksey, Toll Bar 8557 2 4279 1% NA to NE, NG 6 Bessacarr & Cantley 13568 3 4523 7% EA to EF, KB 7 Conisbrough & Denaby 12523 3 4174 -2% GA to GK, HD,HF 8 Cusworth, Scawsby, Bentley & Marr 8129 2 4065 -4% MB,ME,MF,MG,NF,TG,TJ 9 Edlington, Warmsworth & Clifton 9047 2 4524 7% HA to HC HE,HG, IG 10 Finningley, Auckley, Blaxton 8393 2 4197 -1% KA, KC, KE, KF, II, IJ Austerfield & Bawtry 11 Hatfield, Lindholme, Dunsville 12048 3 4016 -5% LA to LE , QG, QH, QJ, Dunscroft, Hatfield Woodhouse 12 Hexthorpe & Balby 8326 2 4163 -2% AA, AB, BB, BD to BF 13 Mexborough & Adwick-on-Dearne 12014 3 4005 -6% SA to SH , TA 14 Norton, Askern, Fenwick, Campsall 8723 2 4362 3% PA to PI , RF, RH, TE, TF Sutton, Owston, Burghwallis, Skellbrooke 15 Rossington, Bessacarr & Old Rossington 13121 3 4374 3% JA to JF, KG, KI 16 Tickhill, Braithwell, Stainton, 8405 2 4203 -1% IA to IF, IH, AG Loversall & Woodfield 17 Intake, Hyde Park, Lakeside 13154 3 4385 3% CB to CG, BC,BG,BH,BI,EG 18 Woodlands, Highfields, Clayton, Pickburn 11808 3 3936 7% MA,MC,MD,OB, Hooton Pagnell, Scawthorpe OF to OG, TC,TD,TI 19 Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall, Clay Lane 8727 2 4364 3% UB to UD DE 20 Thorne & Moorends 13230 3 4410 4% QA to QF, RJ, RK 21 Wheatley, Wheatley Hills, Hyde Park 12720 3 4240 0% BA,CA,DA to DD,DF to DH 22 Sprotborough, High Melton, Cadeby 8367 2 4184 -1% TB, TH,TK toTQ

TOTAL 228840 54 Porter, Johanna

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 28 July 2014 08:40 To: Porter, Johanna Subject: FW: Proposed Edenthorpe ward boundary change

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Hi Jo,

Please see sub below for Doncaster.

Regards, Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ann Devy Sent: 25 July 2014 16:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Edenthorpe ward boundary change

To whom it may concern,

I would like to complain 're the above along with almost all the residents of Edenthorpe. We all love our village and feel this is quite ludicrous to split us in half. We are as one a very strong community.

There is no link whatsoever with Armthorpe, there isn't even a bus route from Edenthorpe to Armthorpe.

We have everything we need here, please, please leave us alone.

Hoping you will do what rd best for us.

Ann Devy parish councillor

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Doncaster District

Personal Details:

Name: Fred Gee

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I write as the councillor for Edenthorpe Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun. I wish to strongly object to the division of our close community. Having lived in Armthorpe for 23 years and then in Edenthorpe for 44 years I consider myself to have an excellent knowledge of both villages. The two villages are very different. Armthorpe is totally self contained village having its own sports centre, shops, doctor’s surgery, church, library, sports teams and football pitches. Nothing is shared with Edenthorpe. The people of Edenthorpe have their own facilities: a community centre and sports centre with playing fields, these being the product of hard work by the residents. Edenthorpe is well connected to the villages of Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun, we share sports facilities, schools, libraries, a doctors surgery, shops, a scout group and many other functions. Our bus route connects our three villages. The main division between the Edenthorpe and Armthorpe villages is the A630, a very fast stretch of unrestricted road. The only connection between the villages is an under the road tunnel which is sometimes used as a toilet. From Edenthorpe, car users have to leave the village along the A18 then along Hatfield lane to gain access to Armthorpe. As there is no direct bus route between the villages, disabled residents and those unable to walk very far need to travel to Doncaster by bus before taking another bus to the other village. The parish council of Armthorpe area is a strong, long established group which in my opinion will always put the interests of Armthorpe first. In your boundary change report you point out the desirability of not breaking local ties; dividing Edenthorpe would certainly break local ties. In section 11 of your report you reflect on the identities and interests of local communities in particular the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable. The A630 link road which is shortly to become a dual carriage way, the field and woodland surely meet this criteria. Both the cross party group in Doncaster and the three MPs have all asked for our village to remain as one ward with Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun. If it is necessary for there to be more residents per councillor then it would be more acceptable to include Clay Lane in our ward. Clay Lane shares our schools and other facilities; the adjacent park and very busy Wheatley Hall Road provide a clear boundary from Wheatley. I understand that a number of members of our village have been working on reducing electors per councillor; wouldn’t it be more sensible to use the last census as opposed to registered voters? It gives a far better indication of the number of people I have to support as a councillor; those who do not register to vote still turn to me as their councillor. In the short time that I have been councillor for this ward I have worked almost entirely without the support of the other two councillors due to one councillor ill and the other resigning. So far I have not found the workload unmanageable; in fact a larger ward with more residents would not be a problem. I hope your committee can understand the distress that a potential split of our village poses, we truly hope that you will be able to leave our village intact so that we can continue to work together as one tightly knit community. Yours faithfully, Fred Gee Councillor for Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnaby Dunn

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3659 05/08/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3659 05/08/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

4th August 2014

Dear Sir or Madam,

The two villages are very different. Armthorpe is totally self contained village having its own sports centre, shops, doctor’s surgery, church, library, sports teams and football pitches. Nothing is shared with Edenthorpe.

The people of Edenthorpe have their own facilities: a community centre and sports centre with playing fields, these being the product of hard work by the residents. Edenthorpe is well connected to the villages of Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun, we share sports facilities, schools, libraries, a doctors surgery, shops, a scout group and many other functions. Our bus route connects our three villages.

The main division between the Edenthorpe and Armthorpe villages is the A630, a very fast stretch of unrestricted road. The only connection between the villages is an under the road tunnel which is sometimes used as a toilet. From Edenthorpe, car users have to leave the village along the A18 then along Hatfield lane to gain access to Armthorpe. As there is no direct bus route between the villages, disabled residents and those unable to walk very far need to travel to Doncaster by bus before taking another bus to the other village.

The parish council of Armthorpe area is a strong, long established group which in my opinion will always put the interests of Armthorpe first. In your boundary change report you point out the desirability of not breaking local ties; dividing Edenthorpe would certainly break local ties.

In section 11 of your report you reflect on the identities and interests of local communities in particular the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable. The A630 link road which is shortly to become a dual carriage way, the field and woodland surely meet this criteria.

Both the cross party group in Doncaster and the three MPs have all asked for our village to remain as one ward with Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun. If it is necessary for there to be more residents per councillor then it would be more acceptable to include Clay Lane in our ward. Clay Lane shares our schools and other facilities; the adjacent park and very busy Wheatley Hall Road provide a clear boundary from Wheatley.

I understand that a number of members of our village have been working on reducing electors per councillor; wouldn’t it be more sensible to use the last census as opposed to registered voters? It gives a far better indication of the number of people I have to support as a councillor; those who do not register to vote still turn to me as their councillor.

In the short time that I have been councillor for this ward I have worked almost entirely without the support of the other two councillors due to one councillor ill and the other resigning. So far I have not found the workload unmanageable; in fact a larger ward with more residents would not be a problem.

I hope your committee can understand the distress that a potential split of our village poses, we truly hope that you will be able to leave our village intact so that we can continue to work together as one tightly knit community.

Yours faithfully,

Fred Gee Councillor for Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnaby Dunn

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 June 2014 09:31 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Proposed boundry changes to edenthorpe kirk sandall and barnby dun ward

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 12 June 2014 10:07 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed boundry changes to edenthorpe kirk sandall and barnby dun ward

Dear Sir /Madam I am writing to you today in my capacity as elected ward councilor for the above ward I feel I must point out to you that in the above ward we manage the ward strategically through a monthly meeting with the area management team plus the police inspector , St leger homes , highway and any other partner relevant to specific issues our concern is that if the ward Is split then this would be difficult to achieve indeed in the report the boundry commission where not in favour of splitting Hatfield and Stainforth wards I believe there is a strong case in this instance to follow the same route. Edenthorpe as always had its own identity as a parish and feels they could be at a disadvantage with part a of the community in armthorpe ward and the risk of potential conflicts of interest when it comes to investment in the villages. I note the remarks that It would mean an increase in council size to accommodate 3 member wards in both Armthorpe and Edenthorpe I believe that that would be acceptable to the electorate of the villagers in question Yours sincerely Councilor Tony Revill ******************************************************************************************** Transmitted by Doncaster Council.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If, you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, disseminate, forward, print or copy all, or part of its contents to any other person and inform me as soon as possible.

Any views or opinions expressed belong solely to the author and do not necessarily represent those of Doncaster Council, Doncaster Council will not accept liability for any defamatory statements made by email communications.

You should be aware that under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000 the contents of this e mail may have to be disclosed in response to a request.

All e-mail communication containing personal/sensitive information received or sent by the Council will be processed in line with the Data Protection Act 1998.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. However no guarantees are offered on the security, content and accuracy of any e-mails and files received. Be aware that this e-mail communication may be intercepted for regulatory, quality control, or crime detection purposes unless otherwise prohibited. *********************************************************************************************

Egan, Helen

From: White, Austen (councillor) Sent: 10 August 2014 21:46 To: Reviews@ Cc: Jones, Alan (Councillor); Beech, Iris (Councillor); White, Austen (councillor) Subject: Boundary Commission Review - Doncaster District Attachments: Proposal for Boundary Changes. Askern Norton Skellow.docx; Alternative Proposal 1.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Commissioner,

Proposed Boundary Changes for Doncaster MBC

Please find attached the proposed amendments to the LGBCE proposals, for your serious consideration, from the elected members from the Askern Spa Ward.

Regards and thanks, Austen.

Alan Jones – Elected Member for Askern Spa Ward. DMBC Iris Beech – Elected Member for Askern Spa Ward. DMBC Austen White – Elected Member for Askern Spa Ward. DMBC

************************************************************************************** ****** Transmitted by Doncaster Council.

You should be aware that under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000 the contents of this e mail may have to be disclosed in response to a request.

All e-mail communication containing personal/sensitive information received or sent by the Council will be processed in line with the Data Protection Act 1998.

1 ************************************************************************************** *******

2 Local Government Boundary Commission Proposed Changes

Please find below the suggested amendments from the elected members of the current Askern Spa Ward.

Our counter proposal is for a 3 Member Ward covering the areas noted as Norton/Askern and Skellow on the current proposals outlined in the LGBCE draft proposals – please refer to Map 1.

This proposal effectively combines the 2 Member Ward – Norton and Askern with the 1 Member Ward – Skellow.

The inclusion of the areas to the East of Askern, that is Moss, Fenwick, Sykehouse, Braithwaite, Kirk Bramwith, Thorpe-in-Balne is welcomed. These areas have previously been part of the Askern Ward is recent times, having been removed by earlier boundary reviews. In fact the areas of Moss, Fenwick, Thorpe-in-Balne and the several hamlets between were taken out of the Ward at the last review in 2004. These areas have social, economic and cultural links with the Askern area and it is acceptable to have them returned to the Ward.

Also in 2004, part of the Skellow area, known locally as 5 Lanes End was added to the Askern Ward. The area was welcome into the Ward and became an integral part, indeed its historical social and cultural links enabled it to be easily integrated.

The current proposals for the Norton/Askern and Skellow Wards are not seen as being a positive move for the whole area.

The 2 Ward areas proposed by the LGBC divides, rather than unite, areas that are traditionally, socially and economically linked together. The village of Sutton lies within the boundaries of the Parish of Norton and is less than one from Askern.

Owston Parish, which includes many smaller villages and hamlets, also has strong socio-economic, geographical and historical ties with Askern.

The removal of the Skellow area, after 10 years appears a negative proposal locally.

There is an enormous advantage for the residents of the proposed Skellow Ward, that being that they will always have an alternative Councillor – 2 in fact – to contact should there ever be a need to do so. Having just the 1 Councillor, as the current LGBCE proposal, means this opportunity is unavailable to them.

There is a credible argument to keep the whole of the Northern Area together, reinforcing the traditional and historical associations of the rural/agricultural areas and former mining areas, including Carcroft and Skellow, around the old Market Town of Askern, which is now one of the 6 Principal Towns included in the future planning strategy for Doncaster.

The proposed Ward area has clear and definitive boundaries, all known and recognised by the local population. These are the Old Eabeck, the Skell and Thorpe Marsh Drain linked together on the South, the River Went to the North, the River Don to the East and the A1 trunk road to the West.

Area for the combined Wards: Geographically & Numerically

The area includes the northern part of the Borough bounded by the River Went, and includes a large section of the Lower Don Catchment (from The Skell, through the Old Ea Beck, along the Thorpe Marsh Drain linking to the River Don).

Map 2 gives an overview of the various catchment areas which are managed by the Environment Agency and the Danvm Drainage Commissioners as much of the area proposed has a rural characteristic. Like elsewhere in the Borough parts of the proposed ward has developed an urban characteristic as a result of the development of the South Yorkshire Coalfield.

In terms of electoral equality the three member ward would have 13,089 (4,363 per Councillor) on the mid-2013 numbers and 13,210 (4,403 per Councillor) on the 2019 projected numbers which is approximately +4% above the threshold for electoral equality which meets the tolerances set by the LGBCE for the review.

Name for the proposed Ward: Barnsdale

The most northern area, in the Borough of Doncaster, is well known as an area having strong links to Robin Hood.

There is Robin Hood’s well at the side of the A1, near to Burghwallis; legend has it that the Church of St. Mary Magdalene, in Campsall, is where Robin Hood and Maid Marion were married and the early ballad mentions Barnsdale as being Robin’s base with the words “Robin Hood is Barnsdale stood”.

Barnsdale is still present today with Barnsdale Bar being a currently well- known location landmark. We suggest Barnsdale as the Ward name as it will be recognisable and acceptable to all with no bias to any particular area or village.

§ ¨

¢ ¦

¡ ¢

)

(

7 /

)

;

5 "

" B

5 7

7 4

/ /

)

1 2

L w

K d

V b

[

V b

I J

]

T I

U J

^ |

L V

P P

I J

r J

^ J

d j

V ^

I J

P T

V b

{

O l

[

p z

I J

V n

P v

o L

[

J d

I J

Y l

T I

M R

V b

N `

]

N \

I J

P j

L g ^

[

L J

I J

O U

I J

g L

I J

Y L

O XJ

[

P L

}

I J

XJ K

g b P

J ^V

[

^ O

I J

I s

[

T O

I J

O U

N O

I J

V b L

I U

I J

V b T

[

_ N

^ J

b U J

J J

[

P J

V T

I J

XJ O

H J

XJ X

^ J w

d T

P I J I J

I J I J

b N

H H

O O

p p z

t b Fuller, Heather

From: Wood, Jonathan (councillor) Sent: 10 August 2014 23:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: Response to Doncaster Consultation Proposals Attachments: Response to Boundary Commissions Proposals 10Aug14.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Review Team

Please find attached a letter containing my response to the Commission's initial boundary proposals.

Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me directly.

Sincerely

Jonathan Wood

Conservative Group Leader Doncaster Met Borough Council ************************************************************************************** ****** Transmitted by Doncaster Council.

You should be aware that under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000 the contents of this e mail may have to be disclosed in response to a request.

All e-mail communication containing personal/sensitive information received or sent by the Council will be processed in line with the Data Protection Act 1998.

1 Office of the Conservative Group Leader Member Services Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Civic Office Waterdale Doncaster DN1 3BU

10th August 2014

Reviewing Officer - Doncaster Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Commissioner

Consultation Response – Doncaster Ward Boundary Proposals

I write in response to your initial proposals concerning new ward boundaries within the Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster.

As you may recall the Conservative Group respectfully submitted an alternate proposal to the “endorsed” Labour Group proposal at a meeting of Full Council.

As outline in Council’s alternative submission we remain gravely concerned about the artificial and forced coalescence of rural and urban communities across the Borough.

Accepting variance within your voter/councillor tolerance ratio, the Conservative Group remains committed to avoid ing the creation of electoral wards where voter numbers override important community links and service delivery mechanisms.

In our original submission, equity of representation was addressed with the suggestion that all wards sho uld have an equal number of Councillors. We still believe this should be the case although whether that is one, tw o, or three is immaterial.

Whilst the creation of equal councillor wards may present its own challenge to the Commission, the importance of equality of representation between different communities can not be underestimated . Although it may be easy to

-1- suggest voters numbers per councillor may be similar across the borough, the scenario where one community has three serving councillors, and another (perhaps its neighbour) only one is simply inequitable. A better attempt to create communities of equal representational influence must be the goal.

To consider anything otherwise condemns the borough to it current inadequacies including a likely requirement for further intervention.

The group is mindful of one example which has been repeated to us many times:

A result for a party in one community might deliver the single councillor in that single councillor ward, however in a larger community all three party candidates from one party will be elected. Voters supporting any second party in the larger ward will be unrepresented even where their total number might significantly exceed that required to elect a single councillor in a single seat ward. Overwhelmed by a simple majority they will have no representation in any of their three councillors, however if they had not been artificially combined they would have a councillor that represented their voice. Equality of ward representation by the same number of councillor across the borough is imperative.

Furthermore, elections in single seat wards will only e ver be a sideline event to polls in larger three seat wards, voter disaffection, disinterest , and the belief that they don’t count being an obvious result.

Any proposal which suggests ward sizes represented by councillors varying in size from one to three will be scattered with examples of inequality. The group would particularly draw your attention to the inequality proposed for the wards of Tickhill, Stainforth and Skellow all with a proposed single councillor representation.

Finally on this point it would be easy to see the dom inance that a larger community will have through voting rights on council committees that are meant to serve all residents based on proportionality. One could easily envisage three councillors from a community sitting on the same committee delivering a planning decision in favour of their community with prejudice against a smaller neighbour with only a single councillor representing it .

In response to your initial proposals we would ask that the C ommission revisit its recommendations to specifically address the concern that wards should be of equal councillor size, and certainly no single councillor wards.

The second element on which we would provide comment is based on the many critical differences in which rural and urban communities access services and resources administered thro ugh local arrangements.

-2- In relation of your proposal to divide rural communities in the northwest of the borough (under current arrangement s called Sprotbrough), we see no community based reason to take the northern half of the ward and place it with Adwick. Your decision to do this seemed to rest on the assertion from Brodsworth and Pickburn Parish Council. This decision would fundamentally divide it from its natural partners in Sprotbrough to its south. The arbitrary nature of dividing scattered rural communities currently combined and placing half of them with Adwick has caused much unrest in those communities. Many residents having complaine d bitterly that the clerk of that parish council overstepped their mark in the comments you received.

The villages of Marr, Hickleton, Brodsworth, Hampole, Skelbrooke, Clayton and their minor hamlets have concrete links with High Mel ton, Barnburgh, Harlington Adwick-upon-Dearne and Sprotbrough village. All of who’s residents see Sprotbrough as the focal village within the rural landscape.

But beyond historical links between these rural places the people of these villages share numerous modern day service s in the same way, very different to any approach in planned industrial settlements buil t up around the coal industry in places like Adwick during the early twentieth century .

Within rural villages access to doctors, community groups, childcare, transport and all manner of modern life revolves around a principle of self engagement and forged relationship with people is similar circumstances. The planned approach favoured by many in mining communities is unwelcome. To force rural villagers into coalescence with Adwick has already caused much concern.

Beyond all else, the A1 motorway also places a formidable physical barrier between Doncaster’s urban expansion (Adwick) and rural communities.

It is the groups belief that the Sprotbrough Ward could actually be enhanced (and meet the voter/councillor ratio for three councillors) with the addition of the village of Cusworth.

Like its rural counterparts to west, Cusworth is itself a rural community dominated by a stately home housing the Doncaster’s country park museum and “surrounded by landscaped parklands and typifying architecture, landscape history, wildlife, exhibitions, rural events and outdoor activities.”1

Also noteworthy Sprotbrough and Cusworth already have a combined Parish Council which has seen shared local administration for the two communities for many years. The Parish Council maintains recreation facilities shared between both communities and hosts numerous events annually which draw participants from all the surrounding rural villages. 2

The Group’s recommendation to the Commission is that the Sprotbrough Ward remain largely unchanged as it has been for some twenty years with the addition of its absent community partner Cusworth to complete the ward and provide the additional voter numbers to create a “within variance” three member ward .

-3- Our third point of feedback concerns the market town of Bawtry and the commission’s proposal to combine it with Rossington based on the recommendation from the Council’s Labour Group and sitting Labour MP’s.

Although it might appear endorsed as a recommendat ion from Council, the reality is far from something so agreeable or simple. Similar to the act condemning Tickhill to a single councillor representation, combining Bawtry with Rossington silences a clear majority that have been critical of Doncaster’s Members of Parliament for some years.

The Commissions decision to accept their recommendation, and base it on electoral equality through voter numbers should be review with independent input. The advice you have been given is simply incorrect.

The settlement typifies a rural market town linear in nature along the route of the original Great North Road . Its community affinity being toward neighbouring rural settlements in the immediate east – Tickhill - and west - Austerfield, Auckley and Finningley.

Service delivery in its broadest form such as doctors, dentists, healthcare, transport, shopping, libraries, playgroups, church groups, education and in fact almost every facet of life is divided and separate from the former mining community of Rossington.

The difference in these communities is fundamental, and like so many other recommendation contained with Council’s submission manipulated merely to enhance one party’s total dominance in Doncaster political landscape.

Our recommendation is to review the deci sion to place Bawtry with Rossington, and consider Bawtry placed with piers like Tickhill or Finningley. Retaining it with Tickhill and other rural populations would also help to alleviate the creation of a single se at ward in Tickhill.

On behalf of the Conservative Group I would like to express our thanks to the Commission in advance for what will be a thoughtful, considered and sensitive approach to what will always be a difficult exercise when realigning ward.

Doncaster dominance by one party has caused deep divisions in pa st which has resulted in comprehensive failings,3 corrupt practice,4 and intervention. Significant issues for any to consider when looking from afar.

Whilst political outcome can never be within the Commission’s consideration we would urge extreme caution in accepting any recommendations within the Council’s official submission. Co-ordinated by the total dominance and intimidating behaviour of one party, we would be happy to share documentary evidence that this has been at the exclusion of all opposition recommendations and coordinated by Labour councillors with undeclared prejudicial interests.5

-4- Yours sincerely

Jonathan Wood Leader of the Conservative Group

Footnotes/References:

1. Taken from Doncaster Borough Council website Intro to Cusworth Hall - http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Cusworthhall 2. http://www.sc-pc.co.uk/ 3. http://archive.auditcommission.gov.uk/auditcommission/pressoffice/pressreleases/Pages/201004doncas termetropolitanboroughcouncil.aspx.html 4. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/mar/13/uknews http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7606755/Doncaster -council-branded- dysfunctional-as-Government-urged-to-intervene.html 5. Recommendations accepted by the Commission from B rodsworth Parish Council regarding Pickburn and Brodsworth being integrated into Adwick. The Clerk to this Parish Council responsible for the letter is a serving Labour Councillor. Brodsworth Village and Pickburn residents having no knowledge of what was done in their name. The Commission accepted recommendation from a local Member’s of Parliament who’s husband serves as a Doncaster Councillor and benefits directly from that recommendation.