Political Groups
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Political group submissions to the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough council electoral review This PDF document contains 8 submissions from political groups. 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. Fuller, Heather From: dianne Sent: 07 August 2014 12:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Doncaster MBC: Draft Recommendations Attachments: BoundaryCommission140807.doc; Boundary_Commission140804.docx Hello Please see the attached documents, which I have also to sent to you by post, and which I hope you will consider. Many thanks Dianne Williams Secretary of Bentley LP Branch 1 By the end of the 19th century, Bentley was still largely a rural village on the outskirts of Doncaster. This was dramatically changed by the siting of a new colliery at the end of the century employing 1,700 workers. The colliery transformed the village into a small township, resulting in large developments of residential estates, shops, a cinema and a recreation park being created. Bentley Colliery had its own football team which still exists today, and they reached the 3rd qualifying round of the FA Cup in the 1956/57 season. There was also a colliery cricket team, again which still exists today. The growth of the township was recognised when in 1911, a separate Urban District of Bentley with Arksey Council was constituted with a council headquarters in the village centre at Cooke Street, Bentley. This was abolished after 1st April 1974, due to the Local Government act 1972, and was amalgamated into Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC). Under the creation of DMBC, Bentley had two electoral wards, Bentley Central and Bentley North Road. The draft boundary recommendation, is for a ward comprising most of the former Bentley Central and a small part of Bentley North Road, with an electorate only numbering enough for two councillors. Meanwhile most of the remainder of Bentley is added to Scawsby and Cusworth, which has no joint affinities with each other, to provide ward of three councillors. Ironically, the proposed number of electors per councillor is almost identical for the year 2019, with 4,365 electors for Cusworth and Scawthorpe (Scawthorpe can be seen as an extension of Bentley and the proposal also includes a large section of Bentley itself in the West End of Bentley), with 4,343 electors for Bentley. Bentley provides many of the facilities for its hinterland, and even in the reduced ward, and not counting Arksey and Toll Bar, it has a multitude of shops and services, for example: 6 churches and religious buildings, 2 doctor’s surgeries, I health centre, 2 dentists, 1 optician, 3 post offices, I petrol station, 2 motor car repairs, 1 motor cycle repair, 2 bicycle shops, 1 mobility shop, 8 hairdressers, 3 salons, 3 supermarkets/convenience stores, 9 fast food take aways, 1 restaurant, 5 cafes, 4 public houses, 1 trophy shop, I horticultural centre, 1 florist, 1 frozen food store, 2 funeral directors, 1 gymnasium, 2 furniture stores, 1 bank, 1 model shop, 2 greetings card shops, 1 pet shop and 1 electrical appliance shop, and a number of working men’s clubs, a large public park and pavilion, and a library which is possibly the largest one outside of the central library in Doncaster. Additionally, Bentley Railway Station which is approximately 4 minutes walk from the centre of Bentley under the Boundary Commission proposals, would be located in the Scawsby and Cusworth Ward. The community and voluntary sector in Bentley is strong, and the Bentley Area Community Partnership (BACuP) is the umbrella organisation which brings together on a monthly basis, representatives of organisations across the wider Bentley area. There are an estimated 35 organisations representing sport, cultural interests, allotment holders, craft clubs, care in the community, faiths and religious groups. Bentley Park and Pavilion are facilities associated with the growth of Bentley as a mining community in the earlier part of the 20th century. These historical amenities have been the subject of £2.7 million, Heritage Lottery, ‘Parks for People’ investment which will be of considerable benefit to Bentley for decades to come. BACuP organises the annual Bentley Bonanza, an event held in Bentley Park and Pavilion, where most of the organisations support as stall holders, stewards or performers. This event attracts up to 2,500 people of all ages. Other activities include the annual bonfire night firework display, which attracts over 3,000 people from across the wider Bentley area. The only youth centre in Bentley is the My Place Centre, which stands adjacent to the park and Pavilion, and this is a multi-million pound Government funded centre opened in 2013, to serve the wider Bentley area. In view of the above, we are hopeful that you would consider incorporating all of Bentley together with its hinterland, which is part of wider Bentley, to form a three member ward and reducing Scawsby and Cusworth to a two member ward (comprising mainly Scawsby and Cusworth). Bentley – 3 member ward comprising polling areas of, MB, MC, NA, NB, NC, ND, NE, NF, NG and TM. 2013 – 12,583 (electorate) 2019 – 12,704 (electorate) Scawsby and Cusworth comprising polling areas of, MA, ME, MF and MG. 2013 – 8,982 (electorate) 2019 – 9,077 (electorate) This proposal would not affect the remainder of the Doncaster proposals and would leave both wards meeting the criteria of plus or minus 10% of the mean. We hope that you will please consider our proposal as we feel that the draft recommendations completely break up many of the communities of Bentley. Fuller, Heather From: Jonathan Wood Sent: 10 August 2014 22:59 To: Simon Keal Boundary Commission; Reviews@ Subject: Conservative Group Consultation Response to initial boundary proposals Attachments: Response to Boundary Commissions Proposals 10Aug14.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Simon 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 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.