Liberal Democrat Warding Submission – 27 October 2016 0 Local Government Boundary Commission for England 2016 Electoral Review of Hull City Council Liberal Democrat Warding Submission 27 October 2016 Liberal Democrat Warding Submission – 27 October 2016 1 Contents Page 1) Introduction 2 2) The River Hull – Primary Community Divide 3 3) Character of the city 4 4) 2001 Electoral Review 5 5) Requirement for Change 6 6) Basic principles of the Submission 7 7) Option A – Overview of the Proposal 9 8) Option A – Detailed Overview of the Proposed Wards 11 Wards West of the River Hull 12 a) Avenue Ward 13 b) Beverley Ward 16 c) Boothferry Ward 19 d) Cottingham Ward 24 e) Derringham Ward 29 f) Myton Ward 31 g) Newington and St Andrews Ward 35 h) Orchard Park Ward 38 i) Pickering Ward 41 j) University Ward 44 Wards East of the River Hull 49 a) Bransholme Ward 50 b) Drypool Ward 53 c) Holderness Ward 55 d) Ings Ward 57 e) Kings Park Ward 59 f) Longhill Ward 62 g) Marfleet Ward 65 h) Southcoates Ward 68 i) Sutton Ward 70 j) Wawne Ward 73 9) Option B – Overview of the proposal 77 a) Bransholme East Ward 79 b) Bransholme West Ward 82 c) Sutton Ward 85 10) Conclusion 89 Appendix – Supporting Evidence: Maps and Tables 90-107 Liberal Democrat Warding Submission – 27 October 2016 2 1) Introduction a) In submitting the warding proposal, the Liberal Democrats have met the requirements set out in the 2014 Electoral Reviews: Technical Guidance and legislation. In particular, they have taken note of Schedule 2 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. b) The Liberal Democrats accept and support the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) ‘minded to’ size of a 57 member council. c) A 57 member council would by 2022 lead to each councillor representing about 3,274 electors, which is broadly in line with local authorities that are statistical neighbours and ‘similar’ (see tables 2 and 3) to Hull. d) Before creating a submission, the Liberal Democrats gathered together information relevant to the review (see Appendix B: Supporting Evidence: Maps and Tables). The information was used to develop the warding pattern and forms the supporting evidence for the submission. Liberal Democrat Warding Submission – 27 October 2016 3 2) The River Hull – Primary Community Divide a) Whilst an all three member pattern of wards would be the ideal, the Liberal Democrats believe there is a significant obstacle, in that the primary divide in the City, River Hull, makes that impossible. b) The River divides the City two parts (east and west). Given where the electoral population of Hull falls, it is impossible to divide it into 19 three member wards of roughly equal population without one or more of those wards crossing the river. c) Taken on population alone 29 of the council seats should be west of the river, with 28 east of the river. Neither of these divide into 57 by 3. d) At no point along the course of the River Hull could it be positively argued that a ‘cross river ward’ would reflect community identity or interest. e) Both “East Hull” and “West Hull” are strong identities culturally for people within the City. This is reflected in a variety of different ways, from which rugby league team people support (Hull FC in the west, Hull Kingston Rovers in the east) to where people do their shopping (Hessle Road in the west, Holderness Road in the east). f) This strong divide is reflected in the history of the ward boundaries in the City. It is thought that at no point in the history of local government in Hull has there been a ward that crosses the river. g) To avoid crossing the River Hull, the Liberal Democrat submission will therefore make the case under option A that 57 councillors should be arranged in 20 wards, with three two member wards and 17 three member wards. Option B would see the number of two member wards increase to six. h) Both options proposed as part of the submission would secure: equality of representation (29 west of the river, 28 east of the river); protection of the identities and interests of local communities, and; the effectiveness and convenience of local government. Liberal Democrat Warding Submission – 27 October 2016 4 3) Character of the City a) Hull has an unusual external boundary when compared with many other English unitary authorities. The city has only one neighbouring authority, the East Riding of Yorkshire, with which it has a very tight boundary. b) Hull is a geographically ‘small’ authority (7,145ha) which contains comparatively few suburbs and no rural hinterland to speak of (see table 2 and 3 in appendix B). c) During the years of rapid expansion between the early 1800s and the post-war period Hull absorbed a number of communities and parishes (see map 9 in appendix B). Some areas have lost or had their identities diluted while some notable exceptions have managed to retain a strong community identity (Sutton, Marfleet, the Avenues, etc.). Over the years ‘newer’ communities have developed a community identity of their own (Orchard Park, Bransholme, Victoria Dock, etc.). d) Much of Hull’s housing stock is terraced housing built between the mid-1800s and 1940s. A number of large council estates were built in the post-war period, particularly in the north and east of the city. New housing is concentrated in comparatively small pockets throughout the city, the main exceptions being Kingswood and the Newington & St Andrews area. e) Since 2002 Hull’s electorate has experienced a minor reduction and it is likely that it will see only modest growth over the medium term. The bulk of the growth, along with the new house building, is expected to take place in Kingswood. Some localised reductions in the size of the electorate looks set to continue (see table 1 in appendix B). f) Hull has a number of large commercial and industrial areas where very few people live. Areas of industry and commerce are located for the most part in the city centre, along the Humber foreshore, on either side of the River Hull, the National Avenue area and the Sutton Fields area. Kingswood has a large modern ‘out of town’ business park. g) As described in the previous section, Hull has one major natural divide, the River Hull, which cuts the city in half. Most residents describe and think of themselves as being from either ‘East Hull’ or ‘West Hull’. At no point has a ward ever ‘crossed the river’ (see maps 9 and 10 in appendix B). Liberal Democrat Warding Submission – 27 October 2016 5 4) 2001 Electoral Review a) In May 2000 the LGBCE began a review of Hull with the recommendations for electoral arrangements published in December 2000. b) The final recommendations for future electoral arrangements were made in May 2001 (see map one in appendix B), the key features being that: Hull should have 59 councillors; there should be 23 wards, 11 two member wards and 12 three member wards; the boundaries of 20 of the existing wards should be modified and no wards should retain their existing boundaries; no ward should cross the River Hull; elections should continue to take place by thirds, and; in 22 of the proposed 23 wards the number of electors per councillor would vary by no more than 10 per cent from the city average. c) The Kingston Upon Hull (Electoral Changes) Order 2001 (‘the 2001 Order’) implemented the final recommendations, with the first elections under the new boundaries taking place in 2002. d) Since the 2001 Order was implemented there have been no further reviews of Hull. The fact that Hull has not needed an interim review in the meantime is a testament to the tremendous foresight of the LGBCE. e) The effect of the 2001 Order was that on average each councillor would represent approximately 3,161 electors. f) In 2016 each councillor on average represented 3,144 electors. However, there is significant variance between wards with councillors in Kings Park ward representing 4,511 electors and councillors in St Andrews ward representing just 2,845 electors (see table 1 in appendix B). Liberal Democrat Warding Submission – 27 October 2016 6 5) Requirement for Change a) Hull City Council, as part of the ‘Council Size Submission’ for this review, created a ‘Proforma Forecast 2022’ which projected the development of electoral populations for existing wards (established under the 2001 Order) between 2016 and 2022. b) The forecast suggested that much of Hull has a relatively stable electorate, with a number of existing three member wards forecasted to have minimal variances in 2022 (e.g. Avenue, Drypool, Holderness). c) However, the forecast suggests that a number of existing variances are set to get worse. The following are of particular concern: Kings Park Ward – currently has a 43% variance and projected to be 70% by 2022. Between 2016 and 2022 it is likely that Kingswood area will account for more growth than any other area in the City. The Sutton Park area of the ward has a comparatively stable electorate. Bransholme East Ward – currently has a 13% variance and projected to be 17% by 2022. The ward shares a border with Kings Park ward. Growth is centred around the new housing built in recent years to the east of Noddle Hill Way (Castle Grange estate). Newington Ward – currently has a -13% variance and projected to be -14% by 2022. St Andrews Ward - currently has a -10% variance and projected to be -11% by 2022.