CWaC boundary review Response to the draft recommendations from the Cheshire West and Chester Conservative Group Introduction The Conservative Group welcomes the 'Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council.' In making our response to these recommendations we would like to place on record our thanks to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for their work to date. We support the overall reduction in the size of the council from 75 councillors to 70 (paragraph 26) which we believe will allow a sensible number of councillors to carry out their roles and responsibilities with no detrimental impact on the effectiveness of individuals and teams of councillors to do so. Although our own scheme submitted at the initial stage of this process was based on a reduction to 69, we accept that for reasons of good electoral equality and based on the community evidence received, that a warding pattern for 70 councillors is a better solution. A more drastic reduction in the size of the council would, in our view, result in an excessive burden on elected members and might lead to the combination of areas with little affinity to each other, resulting in a 'forced fit' of wards and parishes together and a deterioration in the strong community identities which are a characteristic of this part of Cheshire. We strongly support the plurality of ward member configurations as noted in paragraph 30 of the draft recommendations which is a common method used in many councils across the country. We agree with the Commission that a 'mix of one‐, two‐ and three‐councillor wards...would have good levels of electoral equality and in some places used clearly identifiable boundaries' (paragraph 28) evidenced when referring to the schemes submitted as part of this consultation process to date. We support the Commission in their view that the 'draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests' although we will offer a number of suggestions where we believe improvements can be made, including changes to the names of proposed wards (paragraph 32). At this stage we would reinforce our view that a mix of one‐, two‐ and three‐councillor wards is appropriate for Cheshire West and Chester and would urge the Commission to continue with this broad position for the following reasons: ‐ Different configurations meet the needs of individual areas and help provide for convenient local government. For example, a two‐councillor ward based around Upton in Chester is the most appropriate solution as the community is strong and distinct (based largely around the parish of Upton‐by‐Chester and District) and to split it into two one‐councillor wards would be both arbitrary and confusing for residents. A similar argument could be made for the town of Frodsham which is a distinct community with a strong collegiate focus on itself and also in the area of Blacon in Chester where the whole of the community in that area is best represented by three‐councillors, working for the shared and common interests that exist across the ward. We believe there are many further examples across Cheshire West and Chester which would confirm this approach; ‐ Multi‐member representation means maintenance of representation when a councillor is absent for whatever reason (working, performing Executive duties, on holiday, is ill or has a personal interest in an item); ‐ Multi‐member representation allows councillors to share responsibilities, to focus on their own strengths and develop specialist interests within the local authority; ‐ Multi‐member representation allows a wide range of candidates to perform the role of councillor, including those who are working, looking after young children, who are retired ‐ a strong combination of factors that should aid representation of residents at this level. We accept that there are instances where a one‐councillor option is the most appropriate solution for a particular area, as in the case of the proposed Saughall and Mollington ward. This is a distinct collection of rural communities on the periphery of Chester and reaching towards Ellesmere Port. It would be wrong to attach the villages that make up this proposed ward to another area for the sake of creating a multi‐member ward. The ward as currently proposed reflects the community of interests and identities. We note the Commission's desire for strong examples of community support to confirm their view in respect of the draft recommendations and note the representations already received by a number of members of the public, community groups and parish councils. We support this approach and will continue to build our case based on clear examples from the local communities which are of paramount importance in this process. NORTHERN RURAL WARDS Eddisbury Hill We support the boundaries proposed which will find favour with most of the parish councils in the ward, and which embrace changes to parish council boundaries carried out in the recent Local Government Review. We proposed the name of 'Eddisbury Hill' to reflect a significant change in the ward boundaries. However, the Commission’s proposals are so similar to the existing ward that it seems reasonable to retain the same name of 'Tarvin and Kelsall'. Elton and Mickle Trafford In respect of the proposed Elton & Mickle Trafford ward (paragraph 47) we broadly support the boundary of this modified ward and accept the consequent adjustments around the Commission's proposed Manley ward, which is the best compromise once the other boundaries are defined. We note that the Ellesmere Port and Neston Conservative and Unionist Association propose some minor modifications to the boundary which we believe are sensible and we are happy to support them. We appreciate the Commission taking on board our comments regarding the potential name of the ward and the existing strength of the name 'Chester Villages' which has been a unifying factor in the current ward (paragraph 48). We accept that the use of the prefix 'New' is potentially confusing for residents and would therefore suggest the name 'Gowy Rural' for this ward. Given the disparate nature of the communities of which it is to be made up, we believe 'Elton & Mickle Trafford' gives too much prominence to the larger communities at the potential exclusion of the smaller villages which nevertheless have a strong identity. The River Gowy is a dominant geographical feature that runs through the ward and is sufficiently generic, but well known, to give a clear identity to this new ward. Frodsham We support the boundaries proposed, which retain the identity and character of Frodsham and reflect its local infrastructure. Helsby We support the Commission’s proposals for a single ward, reflecting the parish boundaries and the self‐sufficient nature of Helsby. This proposal is widely supported across political parties. Manley We support the Commission’s proposed boundaries which create a ward of small rural villages close to the sandstone ridge and the Sandstone Trail, and with broadly similar concerns. Rather than offer a medley of small village names for this ward, we propose the name of “Sandstone”, the unifying feature of this area and which has arisen from discussions with parish councils. Marbury The natural boundaries of the existing Marbury ward make it difficult to adjust its size to the target requirements. We believe the Commission’s proposals here are the best fit, retaining a three‐ councillor ward but with revised boundaries. There are connections between the two areas with for example, Scouting troops in Barnton and Whitley drawing members from the wider area. We support the Commission’s proposals. Weaver and Cuddington We support the Commission's proposals. Weaver and Cuddington ward has worked well as a three‐ member ward, the adoption of the River Weaver as the northern boundary is logical, and the inclusion of Crowton and Norley is sensible due to the communities of interest which exist between those villages and existing settlements, especially relating to the schools and libraries. SOUTHERN RURAL WARDS Farndon The Commission’s proposal appears to be popular with the wider community; we therefore add our support. Malpas The administrative boundaries define much of the boundary for this ward. We support the Commission’s proposals to maintain the current boundaries of this single seat ward thereby maintaining all the informal working arrangements. This proposal seems to be widely supported. Tattenhall We support the Commission's proposals. CHESTER We would make a general point regarding the classification the LGBCE have used for 'areas' within their draft recommendations. We would note that the Saughall and Mollington ward has been listed as in a group with the recommendations for 'Neston.' Whilst the area looks to both Chester and Ellesmere Port from a pure geographical perspective, the villages in the proposed Saughall and Mollington ward (with the largest population centres) are very much 'Chester orientated.' Residents of Saughall, for example, which is the largest village of the proposed ward use Chester for all their common daily tasks, be it shopping, using leisure facilities, education and other activities. Christleton & Huntington and Overleigh We note support of the LGBCE for the concept of 'south Chester' (paragraph 60) and the clear support from local residents for the combination of the current Lache and Handbridge Park wards. As the draft recommendations state, 'residents across the area share common services, shops and schools; the police, fire and health services treat this area as one.' We note that our proposals for a three‐councillor Overleigh ward appear to have the support of local residents as noted above (see personal submissions from residents, Jack Jackson, Graham Badrock, Stephen Jones and Michael Tomlinson as evidence) and that when visiting the area (paragraph 64) the LGBCE could see the 'highly persuasive' case for this solution in this area.