Kendal Town Council Report

Page 1 of 48 KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL

Notice of Meeting

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Monday 23rd May 2016 at 7.30 p.m. in The Mayor’s Parlour, Kendal Town Hall

Committee Membership (11 Members) Sylvia Emmott (Chair) Austen Robinson (Vice Chair) Tom Clare Stephen Coleman Clare Feeney-Johnson Chris Hogg (Mayor) Lynne Oldham Jon Robinson John Veevers Giles Archibald Geoff Cook

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES

2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting. Information on how to make the application is available on the Council’s Website - www/kendaltowncouncil.gov.uk/Statutory Information/General/ Guidance on Public Participation at Kendal Town Council Meetings or by contacting the Town Clerk on 01539 793490.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive declarations by Members and/or co-optees of interests in respect of items on this Agenda [In accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, Members are required to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) or Other Registrable interests (ORIs) which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. Members are reminded that it is a criminal offence not to declare a DPI, either in the Register or at the meeting. In the interests of clarity and transparency, Members may wish to declare any DPI which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any ORI.]

4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING AND MATTERS ARISING (not otherwise on the agenda). Minutes of meeting held on 18th April 2016 (see attached)

5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

(a) Urgent Items (b) Future Agenda Items

6. ACTION PLAN FOR KENDAL PROGRESS UPDATE

7. REPORT ON PROJECT PROGRESS (see attached – to follow)

8. APPROVAL FOR KTC FUNDING OF KENDAL FUTURES BOARD PROJECTS (see attached)

9. THE WORK OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP IN SLDC – CLLR G ARCHIBALD (Ref Management Committee Minute 1102/15/16) Page 2 of 48 KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL

10. KTC PROJECT MANAGER’S WORK PROGRAMME (see attached) (Ref Management Committee Minute 1104/15/16)

11. SUMMER EDITION KTC NEWSLETTER – CLLR T CLARE

12. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION – DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SLDC AND IMPACT ON KTC WARDS (see attached x3)

13. FLOODING DECEMBER 2015 - SPENDING IDEAS RELATING TO RESPONSE TO THE FLOODING

14. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC To consider whether members of the press and public should be excluded from the next item, which contains exempt information as described in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

Part II (Excluded Items)

In accordance with Section 100(B)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, the following report is excluded from inspection by members of the press and public as it contains exempt information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, as follows:

- Information relating to any individual [Paragraph 1]

15. PART II STAFFING

16. READMISSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

Liz Richardson Town Clerk

By e-mail/post to: Members of the Committee All other Councillors (agenda only, for information)

Please note that only Committee Members will receive the minutes and attachments, but that other Councillors may request a copy of any agenda papers. Any Councillor who is not a Committee Member may still attend the meeting, as an observer.

------

Members of the Press and Public are welcome to attend the meeting.

Page 3 of 48 KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL

Management Committee

Monday 18th April 2016 at 7.30 pm in The Mayor’s Parlour, Town Hall, Kendal

PRESENT Councillors Sylvia Emmott (Chair), Tom Clare, Stephen Coleman, Clare Feeney-Johnson, Chris Hogg, Lynne Oldham, Jon Robinson, John Veevers, Giles Archibald and Geoff Cook

APOLOGIES Councillor Austen Robinson

OFFICERS Liz Richardson (Town Clerk), Nicky King (Council Secretary), Helen Moriarty (Project Manager)

1091/15/16 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

None.

1092/15/16 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made at this point.

1093/15/16 ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Chair suggested that the order of business of the agenda be amended to bring forward item 5 (presentation from Lawrence Conway, Chief Executive SLDC) and this was agreed.

1094/15/16 PRESENTATION FROM LAWRENCE CONWAY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, SLDC - KENDAL AND ITS ROLE IN SOUTH LAKELAND’S FUTURE

Lawrence Conway, Chief Executive, SLDC began by thanking Dan Hudson and the Development Strategy and Housing team for their strategic planning work. He explained that he had asked the team to look at Kendal’s place in the strategic form of South Lakeland as well as Kendal in its own right.

He advised that SLDC was one of the first council’s to adopt a Core Strategy. There had been almost 1,000 new homes built, with sites allocated for a further 2,500 by 2026. Local companies had ridden the economic downturn well with Mardix, Gilkes, Lakeland Limited and Croppers reporting high growth rates. There were good foundations for moving forward.

With regards to education, Lawrence Conway said that Kendal College continued to grow, but with other colleges in the county looking to combine/form alliances they faced major decisions with regard to their future direction.

Referring to the Kendal Masterplan, Lawrence Conway advised that consultants had now been appointed to progress the project. The Masterplan would look at infrastructure development and management of the town centre. Areas that would need particular

Page 4 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

consideration in terms of future development included bus and train stations, County Hall, South Lakeland House and the Town Hall. Finalisation of the Masterplan was planned by the end of the year. The Kendal Strategic Transport Infrastructure Study (supported by SLDC and KTC) would address key highway issues including access for HGV’s, congestion and the cost effectiveness of major infrastructure including the relief road.

It was explained that the next Local Plan would cover 2021-2036 and it was likely that fewer but larger allocations would be looked at in the future. Lawrence Conway commented that it was almost a footprint for where Kendal was heading post 2026.

In conclusion Lawrence Conway said that SLDC’s focus would be on the strategic enabling major development. CIL monies received would be KTC’s opportunity to influence how that money was spent. A more pro-active role was envisaged for KTC with more say and involvement in the decisions made. Issues for SLDC would include consideration of who/where else these matters were being discussed, the devolution deal and double devolution. Business rates and sectors of business growth for future funding would also need to be looked at.

Following the presentation, Members were invited to put forward questions.

Councillor Coleman asked what the timescale was for the Masterplan. Lawrence Conway replied that it should be available by the end of the financial year.

Councillor C Hogg raised concern regarding the Local Enterprise Partnership. Councillor Feeney-Johnson commented that it was important to be on board. It was emphasised that education must not be forgotten when looking at the overall picture. Lawrence Conway advised that health matters now rested in Lancashire in terms of NHS plans and SLDC were very much aware of the need to stay in the loop. He advised that there were much larger discussions to be had in this respect.

Councillor Clare commented that the Kendal Strategic Transport Infrastructure Study would set the future footprint of Kendal. He said that there was a need to be mindful that there were alternative relief road routes.

Councillor Veevers referred to a point made by Lawrence Conway regarding a lack of business rates and that efforts had been concentrated on encouraging tourism. He remarked that more efforts were needed to attract new business. Lawrence Conway replied that growth was based on the Local Plan and land allocations coming to fruition which wouldn’t happen overnight. He said that there was nothing wrong in attracting tourism, but it was important to diversify the economy.

Page 5 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

Councillor J Robinson asked how the Kendal Strategic Transport Infrastructure Study would fit with the Masterplan timescale. Lawrence Conway advised that Dan Hudson and the team were aware that the two had to be aligned.

The Chair thanked Lawrence Conway for attending the meeting.

1095/15/16 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21ST MARCH 2016

The Chairman presented the minutes of the meeting held on 21st March 2016, which had been approved by full Council on 4th April 2016.

Councillor Coleman proposed that the minutes be accepted as a correct record. This was seconded by Councillor A Robinson and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21st March 2016 be accepted as a correct record.

MATTERS ARISING (Not on Agenda)

1096/15/16 Branches at Wattsfield Road (Minute 1022/15/16)

Councillor Emmott had reported the branches at Wattsfield Road to SLDC and confirmed that these had now been removed.

1097/15/16 Future of the Town Hall (Minute 1024/15/16)

Councillor Cook commented that the future of the Town Hall had not arisen during the presentation by Lawrence Conway. After a general discussion it was agreed that the Committee should participate in the preparation of the Masterplan, review the first draft once it was available and then hold further discussions with SLDC regarding the Town Hall. Councillor Feeney-Johnson said that at this stage the main importance was to flag up the need to be a part of the discussions and preparation of the Masterplan.

1098/15/16 Remembrance Sunday Format (Minute 1025/15/16)

The Town Clerk advised that she had spoken to the member of the public who had made representations regarding the Remembrance Sunday format. She had fed back Councillors’ view that the current format should continue, but that a different format would be considered when Remembrance Day next fell on Remembrance Sunday in 2018. It had been agreed that a meeting to discuss was not required.

1099/15/16 Photograph of KTC Council Chamber (Minute 1026/15/16)

It had been resolved at the last meeting that the Town Clerk obtain a price for the print and framing of the KTC Council Chamber. This was confirmed as £77 for 24 x 16 inch or £104 for 30 x 20 inch. Councillor Veevers proposed that the larger size be purchased. This was seconded by Councillor Coleman and carried unanimously.

Page 6 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

RESOLVED That the Town Clerk purchase the 30 x 20 inch print and frame for the photograph of the KTC Council Chamber at a cost of £104.

1100/15/16 Staffing Matters – Project Manager

The Town Clerk advised the Committee that the Project Manager was now working one extra day per week until September. This was to assist with projects which had fallen behind due to the absence of the Assistant to the Town Clerk.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

1101/15/16 (a) Urgent Items

Councillor Hogg described his wish to plant a tree on Kendal Green to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death this year. He explained that a tree had been planted on the Green in the past and had played a big part in earlier anniversary celebrations in which school children had got involved and a plaque had been positioned on the tree. Unfortunately the tree had become diseased and had been removed by SLDC. Councillor Hogg wanted to plant a tree approximately 2 metres high and have a plaque at a maximum cost of £500. Councillor Oldham expressed her support for the project. Councillor Cook proposed that funding for the tree and a plaque be sought from the Kendal in Bloom Committee budget. This was seconded by Councillor Clare and carried with 1 abstention.

RECOMMENDATION That funding for a replacement tree and plaque on Kendal Green to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the death of Shakespeare be supported from the Kendal in Bloom Committee budget (up to a maximum cost of £500).

1102/15/16 (b) Future Agenda Items

1. Councillor Archibald to update the Committee on the work of the SLDC Economic Development Group. Agreed provisionally May. 2. CIL governance – June meeting. 3. Councillor Clare requested that the relationship between the Kendal in Bloom and Environment and Highways Committees be discussed at a future meeting.

RESOLVED That the following items be added to the agenda of a future meeting: (1) update on the work of the SLDC Economic Development Group (provisionally May) (2) CIL governance (June) and (3) relationship between the Kendal in Bloom and Environment and Highways Committees.

1103/15/16 ACTION PLAN FOR KENDAL PROGRESS UPDATE

Councillor Emmott confirmed that the telephone kiosks in the Market Place had now been removed by BT. She also advised that it had been agreed at a CCC Highways and Transportation meeting that £30k be allocated from the LED lighting budget towards lighting in the Market Place.

Page 7 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

Councillor Archibald highlighted the following points:

• The Bus Group had held a further meeting and were looking at various ideas. Kendal BID and the Federation of Small Businesses were also looking into an alternative solution and would be discussing this with taxi and bus providers. An idea to link Oxenholme and Kendal train stations with a bus route was also being investigated. • Changes had been made to the route through the Westmorland Shopping Centre to the bus station. • There would be a friends meeting later in the month to move works ahead at Nobles Rest.

Councillor Clare referred to a point which was raised at the last Environment & Highways Committee meeting regarding the life expectancy of the Westmorland Shopping Centre car park. He pointed out that it was important not to lose sight of this fact.

Councillor Cook said that the bus users group had raised concern about the walkway improvements in the Westmorland Shopping Centre to the bus station. Feedback on the improvements had been requested via Twitter, however there are a lot of bus users that do not use Twitter.

Councillor C Hogg announced that £75k LEP funding following the recent flooding would potentially be allocated to the District. This was to be spent on economic uses to demonstrate that Kendal was open for business. He informed Members that three applications had been put forward from Kendal:

1. Food Festival - £17.5k 2. Brewery Arts Centre – (a) folk festival in September (b) extension of Torchlight to a two day event - £7k each. 3. Kendal Mountain Festival – outdoor cinema event in Keswick.

1104/15/16 REPORT ON PROJECT PROGRESS

The Town Clerk presented her report on project progress for April 2016 and this was noted by Members.

Main areas of work highlighted were the Annual Town Assembly, organising additional staffing resources, overseeing the repainting of railings, dealing with tenders for Christmas lights, improvement works at Shap Road, dealing with traffic complaints received and organisation of a meeting with various authorities to discuss flooding related questions.

The Project Manager advised that Phase 1 of the inventory of signage project was complete and 35 redundant signage posts had been removed.

Page 8 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

Councillor Archibald asked whether the Project Manager’s time was fully committed. The Town Clerk said she would be reviewing her workload in May.

1105/15/16 NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ROUTE UPDATE

Councillor Clare explained to Members that the Northern Development Route was seen as part of a wider review of the highways infrastructure. The preparation of a brief was underway and awaited with approximate costings. He explained that it was anticipated KTC would be asked to contribute £10k towards the project and suggested that a decision should not be made until the re-wording of the brief had been received from CCC Highways.

Councillor Cook remarked that the Northern Development Route had moved on and requested that the project be referred to as the Kendal Strategic Transport Infrastructure study in future.

The Town Clerk advised that the project had been discussed at a recent meeting of the Environment & Highways Committee. The Committee would be recommending that Council support the project at a cost of around £10k when the request for contribution of funds was received.

Councillor C Hogg observed that Government would fund economic development projects, therefore it was important that the Kendal Strategic Transport Infrastructure study ticked those boxes.

Councillor Clare proposed that, subject to the revised wording of the brief being acceptable, the Committee agree to contribute £10k to the study at May Council. This was seconded by Councillor C Hogg and carried unanimously. Councillor Clare to chase CCC Highways for the re-worded brief.

RECOMMENDATION That subject to the revised wording of the brief being acceptable, the Committee recommend a contribution of £10k to the Kendal Strategic Transport Infrastructure study.

1106/15/16 FLOODING DECEMBER 2015 - SPENDING IDEAS RELATING TO RESPONSE TO THE FLOODING

Members were asked whether they had any further ideas for spending relating to response to the flooding. The following suggestions were put forward:

Councillor C Hogg advised that Police Yard would be opening shortly following recent improvement works. He pointed out that there were other yards in need of improvement and asked whether these would be suitable projects. Councillor Feeney-Johnson thought that the purpose of the monies was to improve areas affected by the flooding and felt that there were other projects that should be looked at. Councillor Cook, however, expressed his opinion that the funds were not to be spent solely on flooded areas, but on projects which would uplift the town in general. Councillor Archibald confirmed that

Page 9 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

improving the yards in Kendal was an item on the Action Plan and could be a potential future project for the Project Manager.

Councillor Clare brought up the fact that the Environment & Highways Committee had a three month meeting cycle which made consideration of urgent items such as this difficult and suggested that this be more frequent. Councillor Emmott suggested that each committee discussed their meeting cycle at their next meeting and adjusted accordingly. Councillor Cook pointed out that consideration would have to be given to resource requirements if committees decided to meet more frequently. Councillor Veevers suggested that rather than making meeting cycles more frequent, extraordinary meetings be called as and when required.

1107/15/16 ITEMS FOR THE NEWSLETTER

Councillor Clare advised that copy for the next issue needed to be submitted by the end of May.

Councillor C Hogg announced that Kendal had achieved Organ Donor Town status and there was to be an unveiling of a plaque on 9th May. He asked that space be included in the newsletter for this along with the plan to plant a tree on Kendal Green to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death.

Councillor Cook requested space for an article on Britain in Bloom.

The Project Manager suggested an article on the removal of redundant signage posts.

Councillor Clare commented that the next issue was already quite full and a larger (6 page) edition might be required at an increased cost.

RESOLVED That the Town Clerk report back to the next meeting with the newsletter budget and costs for a 6 page edition.

1108/15/16 STAFF CHILDCARE VOUCHER SCHEME PROPOSAL

The Town Clerk referred to a paper prepared by the Treasurer on the possible implementation of a childcare voucher scheme. The paper summarised the basic details of childcare vouchers for consideration by the Committee and asked Members to consider whether Council should introduce such a scheme. The Town Clerk advised that it was a national scheme which would require some additional administration by the Treasurer. It was highlighted that we would not be shopping around for a supplier, but use one working with another Local Authority. Councillor Emmott suggested contacting SLDC.

Members considered the paper and Councillor Coleman proposed that a recommendation be made to Council to introduce the scheme. This was seconded by Councillor C Hogg and carried unanimously.

RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommended that Council introduce a childcare voucher scheme.

Page 10 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

1109/15/16 FINANCE STATEMENT

The Town Clerk briefed Members on the Budgetary Control Statement for the 2016/17 budget. This was a pro-forma for discussion purposes and had been introduced as part of the desire for accountability of all areas of the budget. Members considered the statement and agreed that this be received quarterly in future (unless a large issue arose). Members requested that the Town Treasurer be thanked for his work on the statement.

RESOLVED That a Budgetary Control Statement be received by the Committee quarterly in future (unless a large issue should arise).

1110/15/16 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

It was proposed by Councillor Veevers and seconded by Councillor Coleman to move to Part II, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED That the press and public be excluded for the following items of business.

Part II In accordance with Section 100(B)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, the following reports were excluded from inspection by members of the public as they contain exempt information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, as follows:-

Information relating to any individual [Paragraph 1]

STAFFING MATTERS [Paragraph 1]

1111/15/16 Town Handyperson

The Town Clerk advised that the Town Handyperson’s probation period was coming to an end. She advised that she was satisfied with his work and asked that his contract be made permanent. This was proposed by Councillor Veevers, seconded by Councillor Coleman and carried unanimously.

The Town Clerk added that the Town Handyperson would be taking on additional management duties in the future. Councillor Veevers suggested that consideration be given to appointing an apprentice to assist the Town Handyperson in this case. It was agreed that the Town Clerk would investigate apprenticeship schemes and speak to SLDC’s HR department in this respect.

Councillor Archibald commented that it would be good to feedback to the interview panel regarding the successful selection of the Town Handyperson position.

RECOMMENDATION That the Town Handyperson’s appointment be made permanent.

Page 11 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

RESOLVED That the Committee consider appointing an apprentice to assist the Town Handyperson when he takes on additional management duties in the future. The Town Clerk to investigate apprenticeship schemes and speak to SLDC’s HR Department in this respect.

1112/15/16 Memorial Bench Dedicated to Councillor McCreesh

Councillor Archibald described to Members a project he had been involved with to clear an area of ground in Fellside with lovely views of Kendal. This area was now ready for planting and it had been suggested by the Fellside Forum that a bench be installed with a plaque dedicating it to Councillor McCreesh in recognition of his work for this Ward. It had been suggested that the bench be funded by the Fellside Forum and KTC.

It was noted that Council policy was to support a person’s wish to purchase a memorial bench by taking on the maintenance of the bench but the person concerned would have to fund the purchase, any plaque and installation. Members discussed the idea in detail and it was agreed KTC could support the purchase of a bench but without a plaque. Alternatively Fellside Forum could purchase the bench and plaque and KTC would take on its maintenance in line with Council policy.

Councillor Archibald to feed back the Committee’s comments to the Fellside Forum.

RESOLVED That Councillor Archibald feed back the Committee’s views on the installation of a memorial bench dedicated to Councillor McCreesh.

1113/15/16 READMISSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

It was proposed by Councillor Veevers to re-admit the press and public. This was seconded by Councillor Coleman and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the press and public be re-admitted for the remainder of the meeting (none were present).

The meeting closed at 10.07pm.

Page 12 of 48 18.04.2016 Management Committee

Summary of Information, Resolutions and Recommendations to Council Min Subject Information/Resolution/Recommendation to Council 1099 Photograph of KTC Council RES That the Town Clerk purchase the 30 x Chamber 20 inch print and frame for the photograph of the KTC Council Chamber at a cost of £104. 1101 Any Other Business – Urgent REC That funding for a replacement tree and Items plaque on Kendal Green to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the death of Shakespeare be supported from the Kendal in Bloom Committee budget (up to a maximum cost of £500). 1102 Any Other Business – Future RES That the following items be added to the Agenda Items agenda of a future meeting: (1) update on the work of the SLDC Economic Development Group (provisionally May) (2) CIL governance (June) and (3) relationship between the Kendal in Bloom and Environment and Highways Committees. 1105 Northern Development Route REC That subject to the revised wording of Update the brief being acceptable, the Committee recommend a contribution of £10k to the Kendal Strategic Transport Infrastructure study. 1107 Items for the Newsletter RES That the Town Clerk report back to the next meeting with the newsletter budget and costs for a 6 page edition. 1108 Staff Childcare Voucher REC That the Committee recommended that Scheme Proposal Council introduce a childcare voucher scheme. 1109 Finance Statement RES That a Budgetary Control Statement be received by the Committee quarterly in future (unless a large issue should arise). 1111 Staffing Matters – Town REC That the Town Handyperson’s Handyperson appointment be made permanent.

RES That the Committee consider appointing an apprentice to assist the Town Handyperson when he takes on additional management duties in the future. The Town Clerk to investigate apprenticeship schemes and speak to SLDC’s HR Department in this respect. 1112 Staffing Matters - Memorial RES That Councillor Archibald feed back the Bench Dedicated to Committee’s views on the installation of Councillor McCreesh a memorial bench dedicated to Councillor McCreesh.

Page 13 of 48 Kendal Town Council Project funding requests April 2016

Evening economy research - £2,000 (SLDC contribution £4,000) Commissioning some research to identify why Kendal has/or is perceived to have a poor evening economy. This research will be held with town centre users and non users and will identify Kendal’s evening economy strengths and weaknesses and what prevents people going out more. Is it a poor offer, lack of transport, safety concerns, cost etc? If the budget is sufficient, some further research could be conducted with businesses. Fits to: • Action 2 – A Vibrant and Successful Market Town E - Focus on making the evening like a continental town experience

Town centre footfall counts - £1,000 (SLDC contribution £3,000) Footfall refers to the number of people walking up and down a particular location for any reason which may include shopping, walking, going to work or school, visiting the cinema or restaurants, meeting friends, accessing public services or simply passing through. Footfall is often linked to the level of attractiveness of a location and its ability to satisfy customer and visitor needs and expectations. It will be useful to take regular footfall counts in the town centre to monitor activity and create benchmarks from which the impact of festivals, the market or unusual events (like the recent flooding) have on the town centre, as well as monitor the impact of future improvements to an area (such as Market Place). This may involve outsourcing the work to an external company who use electronic, wall-mounted counting devices or we could be trained to do the counts manually and manage the data ourselves. (Additional funding may be needed to continue this work in the longer term.) Fits to: • Action 2 – A vibrant and successful market town

Sense of Place leaflet design, print and distribution - £2,000 (SLDC £1,000) Group Travel Guide design, print and distribution - £1,500 (+ £2,000 from 15-16) These visitor facing leaflets will be redesigned this year based around the new Kendal branding and their content refreshed. Working with the KTC Project Manager, these leaflets will also become part of a wider suite of visitor facing leaflets which will promote the town. The same look and feel will be established for the series and using the same designer and printer will create economies of scale. While I’ll work with Helen on the project, the funding should remain with Kendal Town Council. Fits to: • Action 1 – Best Arts and Culture Centre in Rural North West C - Integrated advertising of events and attractions iii – Sense of Place leaflet iv – Trail and cultural promotion leaflets Page 14 of 48

Digital and social media marketing campaign to support/promote the new Kendal website - £2,000 The new Kendal website will need to be marketed and promoted to ensure that it receives good levels of visitor traffic, appears high in the Google search rankings and does its job of promoting Kendal, particularly in the first 6 – 12 months. If budget allows, offline activities could include press releases, newsletter articles, postcards, posters and window stickers. Online activities could include specialist areas such as search engine optimisation, remarketing campaigns, Google Adword or Facebook advertising campaigns, email marketing, social media promotion and links to other websites. Some of this activity could be outsourced to a professional PR/marketing company and/or a professional digital marketing specialist dependent on available budget. Fits to: • Action 1 – Best Arts and Culture Centre in Rural North West C – Integrated advertising of events and attractions ii – Website and apps containing Kendal information

Photography for branding/website work - £1,500 The new Kendal website will be inspirational and aspirational in look and feel to encourage local people and visitors to spend more and money time in Kendal and visit more often. The right photography will be vital to create the desired look and feel and some additional images may need to be commissioned to fill any gaps or update existing stock. If this budget isn’t required, because our existing stocks are adequate, a later request will be made to reallocate this funding to another project. Fits to: • Action 1 – Best Arts and Culture Centre in Rural North West C – Integrated advertising of events and attractions ii – Website and apps containing Kendal information

Page 15 of 48

Kendal Town Council Action Plan - Projects & Tasks

2016 Action Plan Projects (15hrs per week) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017

Kendal Promotion Leaflet Series

Organise content Develop Tender Develop partnership appraoch Appoint designers Sign off Launch

Signage Removal Project

Identify redundant signs Gather premissions Deliver phase 1 Develop phase 2 - replace rusty taffic signage Deliver phase 2

Kendal Destination Website

Attend Task & Finish Meetings (ongoing) Report to Mgmt Comm (ongoing) Support contract process Support edits and proofs Maintenance input tbc TBC

LIP Funding Project Management

Organise tender briefs, permissions and maintenance arrangements Install new paths Install new signage Install new interpretation Castle Howe & Kendal Castle - Interpretation Link Project Page 16 of 48

Develop brief Secure match funding Deliver project Enhancement of Market Place Stalls Develop brief post Market Place improvement project (exact date tbc) TBC Investigate options for uniformed stalls TBC Deliver improved market Place TBC Improve parking and traffic signage Develop brief and share with partners Establish possible improvement priorities Deliver project? TBC Improve visitor arrival points - Kendal Bus and Train Station

Improve visitor wayfinding from key arrival points

Reassess the needs post website and leaflet launch Develop Brief Secure permissions TBC Secure contractor TBC Deliver Project TBC

2016 Additional KTC Projects (7hrs per wk)

Britain in Bloom Support 20mph appoint consultant and manage tbc Update and improve KTC Website Page 17 of 48 KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL REPORT

To: Management Committee 23rd May 2016

From: The Town Clerk Agenda Item No. 12

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has published draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for South Lakeland District Council. Today is the start of a 10 week public consultation on the Commission's draft recommendations on new ward boundaries across South Lakeland. The consultation closes on 18 July 2016. View the draft recommendations You can view the Commission's draft recommendations at where you can find interactive maps, a report and guidance on how to have your say. The Commission has not finalised its conclusions and now invites representations on the draft recommendations. An interactive map of the Commission's recommendations for South Lakeland, a summary outlining the Commission's draft recommendations, electorate figures and guidance on how to propose new wards is available on the consultation area at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/6168. Further information about the review is published on our website at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/north- west/cumbria/south-lakeland. Have your say We encourage everyone who has a view on the draft recommendations to contact us whether you support them or whether you wish to propose alternative arrangements. Before finalising the recommendations, the Commission will consider every representation received during consultation whether it is submitted by an individual, a local group or an organisation. We will weigh each submission against the criteria the Commission must follow when drawing up electoral arrangements: • To deliver electoral equality where each district councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the district.

• That the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.

• That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. It is important that you take account of the criteria if you are suggesting an alternative pattern of divisions. You can find additional guidance and information about previous electoral reviews on our website to help you or your organisation make a submission.

Page 18 of 48 Get in touch The Commission welcomes comments on the recommendations report by 18 July 2016. Representations should be made: • Through our interactive consultation portal where you can explore the maps of the recommendations, draw your own boundaries and supply comments at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/6168.

• By email to: [email protected].

• Or in writing to: Review Officer (South Lakeland) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP

The Commission aims to publish every response it receives during phases of consultation. If you do not want all or any part of your response or name to be made public, you must state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary. All responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law (in particular under the Freedom of Information Act 2000). This is the last opportunity to influence the Commission's recommendations before they are finalised. We therefore encourage local people to get in touch with us and have their say. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely,

Mark Cooper Review Officer [email protected] 0330 500 1272

Page 19 of 48

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for South Lakeland District Council

Electoral review

May 2016

Page 20 of 48

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2016

Page 21 of 48

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 5

Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Warding patterns 6 Draft recommendations 7 Kendal and eastern parishes 9 Ulverston, Windermere and western parishes 13 Conclusions 16 Parish electoral arrangements 16

3 Have your say 18

Appendices

A Table A1: Draft recommendations for South Lakeland 20 District Council

B Submissions received 22

C Glossary and abbreviations 24

Page 22 of 48

Page 23 of 48

Summary

Who we are

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament. We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

Electoral review

An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

 How many councillors are needed  How many wards or electoral divisions should there be, where are their boundaries and what should they be called  How many councillors should represent each ward or division

Why South Lakeland?

We are conducting an electoral review of South Lakeland District Council as the Council currently has high levels of electoral inequality where some councillors represent many more or many fewer voters than others. This means that the value of each vote in district council elections varies depending on where you live in South Lakeland. Overall, 33% of wards currently have a variance of more than 10% from the average for the district. Broughton ward currently has 16% more electors than the average for South Lakeland.

Our proposals for South Lakeland

South Lakeland District Council currently has 51 councillors. Based on the evidence we received during previous phases of the review, we consider that a maintenance in council size of 51 members will ensure the Council will be able to continue to discharge its roles and responsibilities effectively.

Electoral arrangements

As South Lakeland District Council elects by thirds, the Commission will aim to produce a pattern of three-member wards. Our draft recommendations therefore propose that South Lakeland District Council’s 51 councillors should represent 17 three-member wards across the district. None of our proposed wards would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the average for South Lakeland by 2021.

You have until 18 July to have your say on the recommendations. See page 18 for how to have your say.

Page 24 of 48

Page 25 of 48

1 Introduction

1 This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review South Lakeland District Council’s (‘the Council’s’) electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the district.

What is an electoral review?

2 Our three main considerations in conducting an electoral review are set out in legislation1 and are to:

 Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents  Reflect community identity  Provide for effective and convenient local government

3 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

Consultation

4 We wrote to the Council inviting the submission of proposals on council size. We then held a period of consultation on warding patterns for the district. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 20 October 2015 Council size decision 27 October 2015 Invitation to submit proposals for warding arrangements to LGBCE 12 January 2016 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 10 May 2016 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation 19 July 2016 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations 18 October 2016 Publication of final recommendations

How will the recommendations affect you?

5 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

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3

Page 26 of 48 the area. The names or boundaries of parishes will not change as a result of our recommendations.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

6 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:

Professor Colin Mellors (Chair) Alison Lowton Peter Maddison QPM Sir Tony Redmond Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

Page 27 of 48

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

7 Legislation2 states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors3 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.

8 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.

9 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors as shown on the table below.

2015 2021 Electorate of South 83,221 90,927 Lakeland Number of councillors 51 51 Average number of 1,632 1,783 electors per councillor

10 Under our draft recommendations, none of our proposed wards will have electoral variances of greater than 10% from the average for the district by 2021. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness for South Lakeland.

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

12 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of South Lakeland District Council or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. There is no evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

13 See Appendix B for details of submissions received. All submissions may be inspected at our offices and can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

Page 28 of 48

Electorate figures

14 As prescribed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, the Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2021, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2016. These forecasts were broken down to polling district levels and projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 9% to 2021. The growth will largely be driven by new housing planned for Grange, Kendal and Ulverston.

15 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

16 Prior to consultation, South Lakeland District Council submitted a proposal to retain the existing council size of 51 members. During the preliminary period we received one other proposal with regard to council size. This proposal was from a political group on South Lakeland District Council who proposed that the council size for South Lakeland was reduced from 51 to 45 members.

17 We carefully considered the representations from the council and political group. We considered that the Council’s submission proposing a council of 51 was supported by adequate evidence to justify the maintenance of the existing council size. We are content that the Council has sufficiently demonstrated that the authority can operate efficiently and effectively under this council size and ensure effective representation of local residents.

18 Those respondents who proposed a reduction did not, in our view, adequately justify their preferred number in the context of the size and geographical nature of South Lakeland, or give full consideration to the effective governance and decision- making responsibilities for the authority. We therefore consulted on electoral arrangements for South Lakeland based on a council size of 51 members. We have based our draft recommendations on a council size of 51 elected members.

Warding patterns

19 During consultation on warding patterns, we received 28 submissions, including one district-wide proposal and one partial district proposal. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for the warding arrangements of the district with a particular focus on the three-member wards.

20 Legislation (Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c)) states that the Commission must have regard to the desirability of recommending ward patterns that reflect the electoral cycle of the authority under review. As such, the Commission starts with a presumption that, for example, local authorities that elect by thirds will have a uniform pattern of three-member wards so that every elector has the same opportunity to vote whenever local elections take place.

21 This presumption was made clear to the Council during its initial briefings with 6

Page 29 of 48 the Commission at the commencement of the review. The Council considered whether to change its electoral cycle to whole-council elections once every four years. In this circumstances, there is no presumption about the number of members elected from each ward.

22 However, a resolution was passed by South Lakeland District Council in July 2015 to retain its existing electoral cycle and continue to elect by thirds. This means that the Commission has started this Electoral Review with the presumption that the district will have a uniform pattern of three-member wards. However, if it can be clearly evidenced during this consultation that such a pattern would not meet our statutory criteria, we may be prepared to depart from that presumption.

23 The Commission carefully considered the details of the two warding pattern schemes it received during consultation. It was of the opinion that in this instance, not enough evidence had been received to justify departing from a uniform pattern of three-member wards. Therefore, we have developed a warding pattern that incorporates elements of both schemes received whilst providing for a uniform pattern of three-member wards.

24 The district-wide scheme provided a mixed-pattern warding arrangement of one single-member, seven two-member and 12 three-member wards for the district. The partial district scheme also provided a mixed-pattern warding arrangement with one single-member, one two-member and 11 three-member wards. The latter did not provide any electoral arrangements for the areas of Kendal and Levens other than to specify that five three-member wards should be created.

25 On careful consideration of the proposals received, we were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards in the district-wide scheme neither resulted in good levels of electoral equality across several areas of the district nor generally used clearly identifiable boundaries. The partial district scheme provided for better levels of electoral equality and used more clearly identifiable boundaries.

26 Our draft recommendations are for 17 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.

27 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table A1 (on pages 20–1) and on the large map accompanying this report.

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

Draft recommendations

29 The tables on pages 9–15 detail our draft recommendations for each area of South Lakeland. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 7

Page 30 of 48

 Equality of representation  Reflecting community interests and identities  Providing for convenient and effective local government

Page 31 of 48

Kendal and eastern parishes

Number Variance Ward name Description Detail of Cllrs 2021 Arnside & 3 5% This ward comprises the We received three submissions relating to this ward Milnthorpe parishes of Arnside, Beetham including a district-wide scheme and a partial district and Milnthorpe. scheme. The ward is based on the partial district scheme that included the three parishes of Arnside, Beetham and Milnthorpe together. The Commission considered that this better reflected the community in this area than the district- wide scheme that divided the parish of Beetham between wards. This proposal was supported by evidence supplied in two further submissions. Burton & 3 4% This ward comprises the We received three submissions relating to this ward Crooklands parishes of Burton-in-Kendal, including a district-wide scheme and a partial district Hincaster, Holme, Hutton scheme. The ward is based on the partial district scheme, Roof, Lupton, Preston Patrick, using the two existing district council wards of Burton & Preston Richard, Sedgwick Holme and Crooklands. The district-wide scheme proposed and Stainton. a two-member ward in this area that the Commission felt neither reflected the local community ties nor met its presumption that an authority that elects by thirds should have a uniform pattern of three-member wards. Kendal East 3 8% The ward comprises the We received three submissions relating to this ward eastern part of the town and including a district-wide scheme and a partial district the parish of Kendal including scheme. The partial district scheme did not offer a proposed Kendal Castle and the areas pattern of wards for Kendal town. The district-wide scheme of Sandylands and The Lound. was based on wards in Kendal town containing significant areas of rural land which the Commission did not consider best represented its criteria of convenient and effective local government. This ward is based on the district-wide scheme but with significant modifications to allow the wards to be contained within the town boundary. Our proposed Kendal

Page 32 of 48

East ward differs from the district-wide submission of Kendal North East by not including the area of Mintsfeet but including the area of The Lound. The Commission are of the view that this warding arrangement better represents the community in this area. Kendal North 3 -5% This ward comprises the town We received three submissions relating to this ward centre and the northern part of including a district-wide scheme and a partial district the town and parish including scheme. The partial district scheme did not offer a proposed the areas of Hallgarth, pattern of wards for Kendal town. The ward is based Kentrigg and Mintsfeet. generally on the district-wide scheme proposed for Kendal North West & Burneside. However, instead of including the rural parishes that make up Burneside, the Commission propose that the area of Mintsfeet, plus the town centre is included in this ward. The Commission consider that this better reflects its three statutory criteria of electoral equality, community identity and effective and convenient local government. Kendal Rural 3 -3% This ward comprises the We received five submissions relating to this ward including parishes of Crook, Docker, a district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The Fawcett Forest, Firbank, ward is based on the partial district scheme. The Grayrigg, Hugill, Kentmere, Commission considers that the ward reflects the community Killington, Lambrigg, amongst the rural parishes to the north and east of Kendal. Longsleddale, Nether The district-wide scheme proposed a single-member and a Staveley, New Hutton, Old two-member ward arrangement that the Commission did not Hutton & Holmescales, Over consider appropriately reflected its statutory criteria. Staveley, Skelsmergh & Scalthwaiterigg, Strickland Ketel, Strickland Roger, Whinfell and Whitfell & Selside. Kendal South 3 8% This ward comprises the We received three submissions relating to this ward southern part of the town and including a district-wide scheme and a partial district

Page 33 of 48

parish including the areas of scheme. The ward is based on the district-wide submission. Aikrigg, Heron Hill and The Commission consider that this ward reflects the Oxenholme. community in this part of the town. Kendal West 3 6% This ward comprises the We received three submissions relating to this ward western part of the town and including a district-wide scheme and a partial district parish including Kendal Fell, scheme. The ward is based on the district-wide scheme with Kirkbarrow and Stainbank some modifications to provide for more identifiable Green. boundaries to the south of the ward to include all of Stainbank Green in one ward. Levens & 3 -2% This ward comprises the We received six submissions relating to this ward including a Stonecross parishes of Helsington, district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The Heversham, Levens and submissions propose that Natland should not be included in Natland and the part of Kendal a ward with Kendal town and that there should be a clear parish south of Romney separation of the urban and rural areas. To create a three- Bridge alongside Milnthorpe member ward in this area it is necessary to propose a ward and Natland Roads. that includes part of the parish of Kendal with neighbouring rural parishes. Our draft recommendations propose that the area around Milthorpe Road and Natland Road are included in this ward along with Natland parish and the parishes along the A591 and A590. We received a submission that suggested that Helsington parish should be included in Lyth Valley but we are unable to recommend this as it would require changes to be made to other areas that would result in poor electoral equality in those areas. Sedbergh & 3 -1% This ward comprises the We received four submissions relating to this ward including Kirkby parishes of Barbon, Casterton, a district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The Lonsdale Dent, Garsdale, Kirkby draft ward pattern is based on both the partial district Lonsdale, Mansergh, scheme and also the existing district council ward. The Middleton and Sedbergh. current Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale ward is the only three- member ward currently in South Lakeland. We received two submissions proposing that this should be retained.

Page 34 of 48

The district-wide scheme recommended the area be split into two two-member wards with other neighbouring parishes added to both wards. These wards both had an unacceptably low variances and additionally the Commission considered that they did not best reflect the statutory criteria in the area.

The Commission considers that the existing three-member ward in this area is the most appropriate warding arrangement for this part of the district.

Page 35 of 48

Ulverston, Windermere and western parishes

Number Variance Ward name Description Detail of Cllrs 2021 Ambleside & 3 -8% This ward comprises the We received four submissions relating to this ward including Grasmere parishes of Lakes and a district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The Skelwith and the Troutbeck ward is based on the district-wide scheme but with some and Town End part of modification to provide for a three-member ward. The Windermere parish. Commission propose to include the part of Windermere parish currently in the Windermere, Applethwaite & Troutbeck ward in this ward. This unites the parish of Lakes in a single ward. The Commission also considers that the inclusion of Skelwith parish in this ward reflects the community identity between Skelwith and Ambleside. This was supported by a further submission. Broughton & 3 0% This ward comprises the We received two submissions relating to this ward including Coniston parishes of Angerton, Blawith a district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The & Subberthwaite, Broughton ward is based on the partial district scheme with a minor West, Claife, Colton, modification to provide for better electoral equality. As Dunnerdale-with-Seathwaite, discussed above, the Commission proposes to include Haverthwaite, Hawkshead, Skelwith in Ambleside & Grasmere ward on the basis of Kirkby Ireleth, Lowick, evidence received, but also to maintain a good level of Satterthwaite and Torver. electoral equality in both wards we propose to include the parish of Haverthwaite in this ward. The Commission considers that the parish of Haverthwaite has good community links to the neighbouring parishes of Colton and Lowick being linked by the A590 and A5092. The Commission did not consider that the district-wide proposal in this area successfully met its statutory criteria. Furness 3 -4% This ward comprises the We received two submissions relating to this ward including Peninsula parishes of Aldingham, Egton a district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The with Newland, Mansriggs, natural geography of this part of the district is such that the

Page 36 of 48

Osmotherley, Pennington and options for a ward are limited. Both the district-wide scheme Urswick. and the partial district scheme produced near identical proposals. We have based our ward on the partial district scheme which provided for better electoral equality in the area. Grange 3 3% This ward comprises the We received two submissions relating to this ward including parish of Grange-over-Sands a district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. Both and part of the parish of Lower submissions provided for very different warding Allithwaite. arrangements but both had unacceptably high variances at 12% and 13% respectively. We have based our ward on the partial district scheme with a series of small modifications to the north-west of the proposed ward to improve electoral equality. We propose to include the area around the village of Cartmel in the parish of Lower Allithwaite in the neighbouring ward of Holker & Lyth Valley whilst retaining the village of Allithwaite with the town of Grange-over-Sands in a Grange ward. We consider that this reflects the community in this area. Holker & Lyth 3 -4% This ward comprises the We received six submissions relating to this ward including a Valley parishes of Broughton East, district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The other Cartmel Fell, Crosthwaite & four submissions argued in favour of the status quo and Lyth, Lower Holker, Staveley- against three-member wards. The ward is based on the in-Cartmel, Underbarrow & partial district scheme but with a major modification to the Bradleyfield, Upper Allithwaite north-west of the proposed ward to provide for better and Witherslack, Meathop & electoral equality across the district. We propose that the Ulpha, and part of the parish Lyth Valley is paired with Holker as opposed to Windermere of Lower Allithwaite. in the partial district-wide scheme. The Commission consider that this ward is the best fit of its statutory criteria in this part of the district. Ulverston 3 -2% This ward comprises the We received four submissions relating to these wards; a East eastern half of Ulverston and district-wide scheme, a partial district scheme and two is made up of the Ulverston submissions that did not support three-member wards in

Page 37 of 48

Town Council wards of Ulverston. However, the Commission makes the Ulverston Central, East and presumption that an authority that elects by thirds should Town. have a uniform pattern of three-member wards. The draft Ulverston 3 1% This ward comprises the arrangements for both wards are based on the partial district West western half of Ulverston and submission. It is proposed that the two wards are is made up of the Ulverston coterminous with the Cumbria County Council’s electoral Town Council wards of divisions. The Commission seeks, where possible, to Ulverston North, South and achieve a good level of coterminosity between district wards West. and electoral divisions. It also considers that this proposal best meets the statutory criteria. Windermere 3 -6% This ward comprises the We received four submissions relating to this ward including remaining part of the parish of a district-wide scheme and a partial district scheme. The Windermere excluding ward is based on the district-wide scheme that proposed that Troutbeck and Town End. the three existing district council wards of Windermere Town, Windermere Bowness South and Windermere Bowness North form a three-member ward for the area. We also considered the partial district scheme that divided Windermere between two larger wards with significant rural elements added to them. The Commission did not consider this to be reflective of the community in the area. One further submission supported the creation of a three-member ward in this area.

Page 38 of 48

Conclusions

30 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2015 and 2021 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2015 2021

Number of councillors 51 51

Number of electoral wards 17 17

Average number of electors per councillor 1,632 1,783

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

Draft recommendation South Lakeland District Council should comprise 51 councillors serving 17 three- member wards. The details and names are shown in Table A1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for South Lakeland. You can also view our draft recommendations for South Lakeland on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

31 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.

32 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, South Lakeland 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.

Page 39 of 48

33 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Kendal parish.

Draft recommendation Kendal Town Council should comprise 28 councillors, as at present, representing 11 wards: Kendal Castle (returning one member), Kendal Fell (returning one member), Kendal Gooseholme (returning one member), Kendal Heron Hill (returning five members), Kendal Highgate (returning five members), Kendal Mintsfeet (returning one member), Kendal Nether (returning four members), Kendal Oxenholme (returning two members), Kendal Stonecross (returning three members), Kendal Strickland (returning four members) and Kendal The Lound (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

Page 40 of 48

3 Have your say

34 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of whom it is from or whether it relates to the whole district or just a part of it.

35 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for South Lakeland, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

36 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

37 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to: Review Officer (South Lakeland) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP

The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for South Lakeland which delivers:  Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters  Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities  Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

A good pattern of wards should:  Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters  Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links  Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries  Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government

Electoral equality:  Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the council area?

Community identity:  Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area?  Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?  Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

Effective local government:  Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? 18

Page 41 of 48

 Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate?  Are there good links across your proposed ward? Is there any form of public transport?

38 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 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.

39 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.

40 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.

41 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 South Lakeland District Council in 2018.

Equalities

42 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

Page 42 of 48

Appendix A

Table A1: Draft recommendations for South Lakeland District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2015) (2021) councillor % councillor % Ambleside & 1 3 4,822 1,607 -1% 4,937 1,646 -8% Grasmere Arnside & 2 3 5,241 1,747 7% 5,624 1,875 5% Milnthorpe Broughton & 3 3 5,169 1,723 6% 5,361 1,787 0% Coniston Burton & 4 3 4,872 1,624 0% 5,548 1,849 4% Crooklands Furness 5 3 4,684 1,561 -4% 5,136 1,712 -4% Peninsula 6 Grange 3 4,624 1,541 -6% 5,507 1,836 3% Holker & Lyth 7 3 4,838 1,613 -1% 5,131 1,710 -4% Valley 8 Kendal East 3 5,396 1,799 10% 5,764 1,912 8%

9 Kendal North 3 4,902 1,634 0% 5,082 1,694 -5%

10 Kendal Rural 3 5,008 1,669 2% 5,209 1,736 -3%

11 Kendal South 3 5,116 1,705 5% 5,778 1,926 8%

12 Kendal West 3 4,901 1,634 0% 5,654 1,885 6%

Page 43 of 48

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2015) (2021) councillor % councillor % Levens & 13 3 4,624 1,541 -6% 5,267 1,756 -2% Stonecross Sedbergh & 14 3 4,930 1,643 1% 5,307 1,769 -1% Kirkby Lonsdale 15 Ulverston East 3 4,626 1,542 -6% 5,231 1,744 -2%

16 Ulverston West 3 4,593 1,531 -6% 5,390 1,797 1%

17 Windermere 3 4,875 1,625 0% 5,001 1,667 -6%

Totals 51 83,221 – – 90,927 – –

Averages – – 1,632 – – 1,783 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by South Lakeland District Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral 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.

Page 44 of 48

Appendix B

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/north-west/cumbria/south-lakeland

Local authority

 South Lakeland District Council

Political parties

 South Lakeland District Council Conservative Group

Councillors

 Cllr B. Berry (Windermere Applethwaite & Troutbeck)  Cllr B. Gray (Kendal Oxenholme & Natland)  Cllr A. Hall (Coniston & Crake)  Cllr J. Holmes (Lyth Valley)  Cllr J. Jenkinson (Ulverston West)  Cllr P. Jupe (Arnside & Beetham)  Cllr M. Mackie (Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale)

Parish councils

 Allithwaite Upper Parish Council  Crosthwaite & Lyth Parish Council  Dent Parish Council  Kendal Town Council  Lakes Parish Council  Levens Parish Council  Lower Holker Parish Council  Natland Parish Council  New Hutton Parish Council  Old Hutton & Holmescales Parish Council  Preston Patrick Parish Council  Skelsmergh & Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council  Skelwith Parish Council  Ulverston Town Council (two submissions)  Windermere Town Council  Witherslack & Ulpha Parish Council

22 Page 45 of 48

Residents

 Two local residents

Page 46 of 48

Appendix C Glossary and abbreviations

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 inequality 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

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

Page 47 of 48

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

Strickland Roger CP Skelsmergh CP Page 48 of 48

Kendal Rural

Strickland Ketel CP

Scalthwaiterigg CP

Kendal Mintsfeet

Kendal North

Kendal Strickland

Kendal Fell

Kendal Nether Kendal Gooseholme Kendal East Holker & Lyth Valley Kendal CP Kendal Castle Kendal West

Kendal Highgate

Kendal The Lound

Kendal Heron Hill

Kendal Stonecross

New Hutton CP Kendal South

Helsington CP Levens & Stonecross

Natland CP Kendal Oxenholme

Stainton CP Burton & Crooklands

Parish Warding Arrangements for Kendal

District boundary Parish ward

Draft Recommendations Parish $