Warding of Aylesbury Vale District Council Introduction the Liberal Democr

Aylesbury Vale Liberal Democrat proposals for the Re- warding of Aylesbury Vale District Council Introduction The Liberal Democrat Group has worked closely with the other 4 groups on the Council to seek to achieve consensus on the review of the ward boundaries for our District. With goodwill on all sides and a little bit of compromise a great deal of common ground has been arrived at. Unfortunately, the timescale for submissions to this review mean that we have to submit our evidence before the Council has voted on its final conclusion. Accordingly, any reference to the Council’s position in this submission should be taken to mean the proposals that are being submitted to Full Council. It also means that this submission is rather long because we have had to repeat some of the argument in the report to Council in case particular proposals do not survive that meeting and, therefore, the argument is not made in the Council submission. We would much rather simply say that we agree with the Council’s position where we do but that option is not open to us. Generally we are content with the proposals that are being put to Council except for the Aston Clinton/Wendover area which we will explore in some detail. There are also a few cases where, although we have no issue with the proposed boundaries, we think that the resulting wards could be further divided. The Principles on which we worked. Since no one is proposing that the Council move to election by thirds, three member wards are not desirable unless there is a very clear community interest in not splitting them further or there is no other way of making the maths work. A similar argument applies to two member wards, though to a lesser extent. There are cases, like Winslow, where single member wards would split a community (the Town itself) and still leave wards needing surrounding villages to be added, which is undesirable. Aylesbury Town is more complex but the same approach applies. It has a strong identity but it is made up of many separate communities. We will expand on this in our proposals for the Town but, our principle is that three member wards generally force together different and differing communities with little in common save being Aylesburians. Numbers mean this will have to happen sometimes but its incidence can be reduced by having wards with fewer members. Reducing the number of multi-member wards also improves democratic accountability. If a particular party has a small plurality in a three member ward, then they get all the seats. With three single member seats then the second party in the area could gain one of them, which would mean that the Council would more accurately reflect the popular will. We have sought to minimise changes to existing wards where practical. We have tried to keep to a minimum Wards that cross County Division boundaries. It is not possible to do this entirely because the allowable electorate for our District Wards does not divide equally into the actual electorate of County Divisions. However, it is clearly less confusing for people if they are associated with the same neighbours in District and County where that is practical. Specific Proposals South East of Aylesbury Town This area currently contains the two three member wards - Wendover and Aston Clinton. Wendover itself has some 6,000 electors and is thus two large for a two member ward and too small for three members. It would be possible to ward Wendover Parish but, even if that could be done in a way that reflects communities within Wendover, which we doubt, it would still leave a part of the Parish that would have to be combined with other areas. Traditionally Wendover has been combined with Halton Parish but, unfortunately, this still does not give enough electors for a three member ward. Furthermore, the area as a whole is surrounded by other Districts or the open space that divides it from urban Aylesbury. The fact that there is no obvious answer here is well illustrated by the number of differing options that have been put forward during Council discussions on the matter. We understand that the residents of Wendover and Halton would like to be in the same ward and we accept that there is a significant community of interest between the two Parishes – not least because Wendover is a clear destination for people serving or working at RAF Halton. This argument is weakened by the fact that much of the service accommodation associated with RAF Halton is actually in Wendover Parish anyway. The trouble with keeping Wendover and Halton together (desirable though that is) is that there is, in our view, no sensible way of making up the additional 7-800 electors necessary to fulfil the quota for a three member ward. We are aware of three suggestions for achieving this: * Adding the southern part of Stoke Mandeville Village to Wendover/Halton; * Adding 7-800 electors from Weston Turville to Wendover/Halton; or * Adding Buckland and Drayton Beauchamp to Wendover/Halton together with a small portion of Aston Clinton Parish around Wendover Woods in order to connect the two bits of the proposed Ward together. All have the disadvantage that, in order to keep the association between Wendover and Halton, a third Parish has to be split in an arbitrary way. The boundary between Halton and Wendover is clear on the ground and doesn’t divide streets or estates in a way that creates anomalies. Any division of Stoke Mandeville Village or Weston Turville would be wholly arbitrary and split identifiable communities between Wards. That is best that it is avoided. We accept that the area that would have to be split off Aston Clinton (Chivery) is not strongly linked to the rest of the Parish, though we do wonder whether it would be sensible to create a Parish Ward with a small handful of electors within Aston Clinton. Here, the bigger objection is the splitting of Buckland and Aston Clinton between two wards. While the boundary between Wendover and Halton is very clear, that between Buckland and Aston Clinton is not. It crosses the London Road in significantly different places on each side and splits the cul-de-sac Dean Way so as it would not be possible for folk in one part of it to leave it without passing through a different ward! The second problem is that they all result in two wards that are split between two county divisions (Wendover, Halton and Stoke Mandeville are in one, the other Parishes in another). Clearly, on the numbers, one of the wards has to be split that way but they don’t both have to be and such splits are better avoided where possible. Unfortunately, the only way to overcome these objections is to take Halton out of the Wendover and Stoke Mandeville County Division leaving a ward (which could reasonably still have that name) with an acceptable number of electors. Adding Halton to the existing Aston Clinton Ward would also deliver an acceptable electorate for three members (7,158). That is what we propose should happen. It causes disruption but we hope that we have demonstrated that it is the minimum disruption achievable. Given local sensitivities and the fact that Aston Clinton Parish would no longer be the majority of the ward, there might be a case for changing the ward name to, say, Akeman Street, which is the Roman name for the A41 that passes through it. We also invite the Commission to consider splitting the Akeman Street Ward further. There is a small part of Weston Turville Parish that is immediately adjacent to Aston Clinton but separated from the rest of Weston Turville. This is essentially part of New Road, one side of Aylesbury Road and a close off it (168 electors). If these electors are excluded, the remaining electorate of Weston Turville Parish (2.605) is small enough to be a single member ward. There is, in our view, a significant benefit to a largish Parish, like Weston Turville, having its own dedicated Council representative. The small part of the Parish that would have to remain with the two member Aston Clinton/Akeman Street Ward (4,553 electors) has far more in common with Aston Clinton than with Weston Turville Village, which is a mile or so away. Aylesbury East & Bierton Bierton Village is part of the same County Division as Aston Clinton but is separated from it by open countryside. It is much more sensible to consider it together with the Oldhams Meadow Ward of Bierton Parish and the Oakfield area which it abuts. Bierton Village and Hulcott cannot justify a single member ward (it was created in preparation for development that never happened). However, taken with the new development which is now planned, it would be too big. There is also a much smaller development (Circus Field) adjacent to this proposal but in Aylesbury Parish. The two adjacent sites should be in the same ward. Adding all this to Oakfield Ward gives a number of electors within the Commission’s parameters. Indeed, there is sufficient space to also include the Oldham’s Ward of Bierton Parish. We think that this opportunity to unite Bierton Parish in a single ward should be taken. The rest of Aylesbury East Division is two Polling Districts of the current Bedgrove Ward. This has the correct number of electors for a two member ward and, coincidently, would be the same (save for a couple of roads) as the three-member Bedgrove Ward that existed before the last boundary revision.

Load more