Electoral Review of the District of Cotswold
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT OF COTSWOLD WARDING PATTERNS SUBMISSION TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND BY THE CDC CONSERVATIVE GROUP 1. Introduction 1.1 This submission is made in response to the announcement of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England that it was minded to recommend that Cotswold District Council should have 35 councillors in the future (from May 2015), and an invitation for interested parties to submit warding patterns based on that recommended future number of councillors. 1.2 It is, however, noted that some flexibility may be considered by the Commission (usually one additional or one fewer councillor) if such a proposal was to better reflect the key review criteria of (i) elector equality; (ii) community identity/interest; and (iii) effective and convenient local government. 1.3 This submission is also framed around the Council’s request for, and the Commission’s acceptance of, a desire to achieve a uniform pattern of single-member wards, if at all possible. 1.4 This submission also takes account of, and builds on, the outcome of the Community Governance Review of parish arrangements undertaken by the District Council (completed in advance of the warding proposals element of the District Review). 2. Our Approach 2.1 Commission Guidance 2.1.1 This submission seeks to reflect the Commission’s Guidance Document ‘How to propose a pattern of wards’. 2.1.2 In particular, regard has been had to the following three key criteria advanced by the Commission: electoral equality - any new pattern of wards should mean that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members elsewhere in the authority; community identity/interest - ward patterns should, as far as possible, reflect community interests and identities, and boundaries should be identifiable; effective and convenient local government - the electoral arrangements should enable effective representation of voters. 2.1.3 It has not, however, been possible to put forward a boundary proposal which meets all of the above principles across all of the proposed wards. In such circumstances, we have set out our considerations and the rationale behind our recommendations. 2.2 Deliberations 2.2.1 The starting point for our deliberations was the recommended future Council size of 35, and the aim of achieving a uniform pattern of single-member wards. 2.2.2 A projected electorate in December 2019 of 74,210 gave rise to an average electorate per councillor (based on 35 councillors) of 2,120. In accordance with review guidance, it was noted that tolerances of plus or minus 10% could be factored into any scheme (giving a range between 1,908 and 2,332 electors for each new ward). 2.2.3 There are 115 Parishes in Cotswold District, represented by a mixture of Town/Parish Councils (87) and Parish Meetings (28). Given the urban/rural mix of the District, the actual number of Parishes in a Ward currently varies from 1 in some Wards to 9 in others. Governance across parishes varies dramatically, and ranges from large Town Councils covering over 18,000 electors to the smallest parish comprising just 21 electors. 2.2.4 Given that a reduction in councillor numbers and an increase in electorate can only lead to a greater number of voters being represented by each member, we have sought a scheme which is sympathetic to the challenges faced in our rural areas, and which seeks to ensure that no new ward is overly large, in order to provide effective representation. 2.2.5 In devising a new warding scheme, with the parishes being used as building blocks, we have sought to retain, wherever possible, the identities of individual parishes, particularly where parish warding has not been a feature, either currently or in the past. This has proved difficult in certain instances, given the electorates of some of our larger towns and villages, although we have sought to minimise artificial divisions. 2.2.6 We have approached this element of the review in various ways: starting from the north of the district and moving south; starting from the south-east of the district and moving west and north; starting from the south-west of the district and moving east and north; starting with Cirencester (our largest urban area) and working outwards. 2.2.7 From this preliminary work, it became clear that a scheme based on 35 councillors was unlikely to achieve a robust and equitable scheme which complied with the key criteria, particularly in respect of Cirencester and the larger towns/villages. 2.2.8 As a result, we re-appraised our proposals, but this time working to a possible scheme based on 34 councillors. In such a scheme, the projected 2019 electorate of 74,210 gave rise to an average electorate per councillor of 2,183, with a tolerance range between 1,965 and 2,401 electors for each new ward. Although not substantial in terms of numbers, the flexibility around scheme preparation was quite significant. In addition, it was not considered that the slightly increased electorate per councillor would give rise to problems in terms of representation or overall governance. 3. Our Recommended Warding Proposals 3.1 Based on our extensive deliberations, we are proposing a scheme of 34 councillors moving forward. 3.2 Although we have tried to secure a scheme which provides for a full pattern of single-member wards, this has proven exceptionally difficult to achieve in the northern-most part of the District when trying to balance elector equality with community identity. This is explained in more detail later on in this section. 3.3 As a result, the scheme that we commend to the Commission is based on 32 single-member wards and one two-member ward (although we do present a single- member ward alternative for this area). 3.4 Within such scheme, we have achieved elector equality in all but three of the proposed wards. However, in those three proposed single-member wards the electorates exceed the normal tolerance thresholds by what we would respectfully suggest are both relatively minimal and manageable (by +0.08%, -3.93%, and +5.44% in percentage terms or by +2, -86, and +119 by way of elector numbers) and also preserve the integrity and balance of the scheme as a whole and avoid forced and/or artificial combinations/splits of parishes with consequent negative effects/impacts. In such cases, we have provided a justification for our proposal. 3.5 Details of our proposals are set out in the spreadsheet attached at Appendix A. The spreadsheet identifies the proposed new wards, the parishes (or part- parishes) included in each, and electorate figures (including electorate variances against the average). 3.6 We would make the following comments on a ward-by-ward basis: (i) Ward 1 (Campden and Vale) - Our Two-Member Ward Proposal Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward Ward from under/over 2019 Total Average average thresholds Aston Sub-edge 44 4697 2348.5 Chipping Campden 2021 Mickleton 1488 Saintbury 68 Weston-sub-Edge 369 107.58% n/a Willersey 707 This ward relates the area referred to in paragraph 3.2 above. This parishes involved are situated at the northern-most point of the District and, as such, the options for dealing with those parishes are more limited than in other areas. Along with Ebrington, the parishes form part of the current three-Member Campden- Vale Ward. In the time prior to the 2001 Periodic Electoral Review (effective from May 2003), Mickleton was a ward in its own right; Chipping Campden and Ebrington were joined to form another ward; and the remaining four parishes were joined to form a further ward. As such, there are long-standing community ties between these areas. We have explored a number of options for this part of the District. While Chipping Campden could stand as a single-member ward in its own right, the combined electorate of the remaining parishes would exceed the single-member ward 10% threshold figure quite significantly, by 275. Whilst our proposals do contain wards with electorates outside the threshold figures, none are to the extent as would be the case here. Similarly, whilst a combination of Mickleton and adjoining Ebrington would ‘work’, there is no natural solution for the remaining Vale parishes other than by way of a forced combination with part of Chipping Campden which, in itself, would lead to an artificial parish warding and consequent negative effects on neighbouring parishes, and the scheme as a whole. The more rural parishes have natural synergies and strong community links and, together, form the southern limit of the Vale which lies between the Cotswolds and Evesham. All parishes are accessed by the B4362, which runs through the proposed ward. In addition, they all have close, strong and long-standing ties with Chipping Campden. As such, we would ask the Commission to accept this proposed ward as a one-off exception to the single-member ward principle. We believe that such a solution would be supported locally, and is the most appropriate manner in which to meet all of the review criteria in this part of the District. However, if the introduction of a two-member ward is not acceptable to the Commission, we would put forward the following single-member ward alternative. Although, we believe that this alternative does meet the community identity and governance elements of the criteria, the elector figures are significantly in excess of the threshold (by +12.58% or 275 electors). ALTERNATIVE - Ward 1 (Mickleton and Vale) Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds Aston Sub-edge 44 2676 122.58% 275 over Mickleton 1488 Saintbury 68 Weston-sub-Edge 369 Willersey 707 ALTERNATIVE - Ward 2 (Chipping Campden) Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds Chipping Campden 2021 2021 92.58% n/a (ii) Ward 2 As our submission provides for Ward 1 as a two-member ward, we have not included a specific Ward 2 in case the Commission wish to split our proposed Ward 1 into two single-member wards (allowing for the introduction of a new Ward 2 without affecting the remaining numbering within the scheme).