Kingsley, Paul From: Barnet Labour Councillors k> Sent: 19 June 2019 08:35 To: Cc: Subject: Barnet Labour submission - response to LGBCE recommendations Attachments: FINAL Barnet Labour response to LGBCE (1).docx Dear Paul I attach the Barnet Labour submission in response to the published draft LGBCE recommendations. Kind regards Geof Cooke From: Sent: 20 December 2018 18:56 To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Re: FW: Barnet Labour submission ‐ additional updated files Paul As requested I attach a spreadsheet containing a presentation of Barnet Labour's submission in the template you provided (the template was loaded with example data from Harrow). The spreadsheet shows the contributions of existing polling districts to proposed wards. Please note 1) As expected, it is messy in the sense that many polling districts are split. Barnet Labour's approach was to aim for tight electoral equality while minimising changes to ward identities as far as possible. We did not use existing polling districts as building blocks whereas Harrow appears to have split a relatively small number of polling districts. 2) As explained in the submission, "other electors" for whom coordinates were not available have been disregarded. 3) There are minor discrepancies in the figures caused by rounding error (forecast electorates rounded to whole numbers and then used in subsequent calculations). 4) In at least one case a fragment of a polling district with just 2 electors appears to be the result of a digitising error by either Barnet Labour or Barnet Council (the calculations involved superimposing the two sets of boundaries). 5) The spreadsheet shows that two of our proposed wards are currently well under the average ward electorate. They are both in the Colindale area where major development is under construction, not just planned e.g. Beaufort Park in Colindale North; Colindale Gardens in Colindale South. Please feel free to contact me if there are any queries. Regards Cllr Geof Cooke On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 23:19, wrote: 1 Response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s Draft Recommendations on Ward Patterns in the London Borough of Barnet Joint submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England from The Barnet Labour Group of Councillors and The Barnet Labour Party Introduction This is a joint submission from the Barnet Labour Group of Councillors and the Barnet Labour Party to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE’s) Stage 2 consultation on proposals for ward patterns in Barnet. For any queries about this submission, please contact Cllr Geof Cooke or call the Barnet Labour Group on A note on the Barnet Labour Group of Councillors and the Barnet Labour Party The Barnet Labour Group of Councillors comprises 24 elected councillors in the local authority area of Barnet. All 24 councillors live in the London Borough of Barnet. The councillors were elected by residents in their respective wards to represent them on Barnet Council. Following the local elections in May 2018, Labour councillors represent the wards of Brunswick Park, Burnt Oak, Childs Hill, Colindale, Coppetts, East Barnet, East Finchley, Underhill, West Finchley and Woodhouse. Prior to the local elections in 2018 the Labour Group had 30 councillors also representing two other wards in the borough – Hale and West Hendon, but not Childs Hill. Overall, in the last two local elections Labour candidates were elected in 12 out of 21 wards and lost out in a 13th by a single vote. The Barnet Labour Party is the Local Campaign Forum (LCF) of the Labour Party in the London Borough of Barnet. Its membership comprises delegates from the three Constituency Labour Parties in Barnet covering the three Barnet constituencies of Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green and Chipping Barnet. Collectively, the three Constituency Labour Parties in Barnet and the Barnet Labour Party have around 4,000 members. Response to the LGBCE’s recommendations This submission seeks to align with the LGBCE’s approach to reflecting the three statutory criteria as evidenced in the draft recommendations for Barnet and other London boroughs. This differs from Barnet Labour’s approach in our submission in December 2018 in the following ways. Equality of representation: In order to future-proof the final pattern of boundaries against a need to repeat the review within the 20-year period that the current boundaries have lasted, we aimed for very small variances within ±1%. However, LGBCE’s standard tolerance is ±10% and there are eight variances in the LGBCE recommendation that are equal to or greater than 5% with the largest being 7%. Reflecting community interests and identities: Most of Barnet is densely populated with few intervals of the type that exist in rural areas where settlements are separated by agricultural land. Therefore, we considered that, in Barnet, ward-level community interests and identities are relatively blurred and that this criterion was of lesser importance than the first criterion. In this submission, we have given greater weight to this criterion. Providing for effective and convenient local government: In our earlier submission, we considered that maintaining a scheme of wards with equal numbers of councillors for each was preferable for several reasons such as fair representation on area committees. LGBCE has recommended a mix of 3 and 2-member wards and one single member ward. In this submission, we accept the concept of mixing 3 and 2-member wards, but we maintain that a single member ward leaves residents unrepresented if their member is absent for any reason and that the geography of Barnet does not warrant such an arrangement. Summary Barnet Labour supports many of the Commission’s recommendations on ward patterns, including its preference for a mix in the number of councillors but propose some amendments based on stronger community identity and convenient and effective local government. We endorse unreservedly the Commission’s proposals for Brunswick Park, Burnt Oak, Cricklewood, Colindale North, Colindale South, East Barnet, Edgware, Edgwarebury & Highwood Hill, Hendon, West Hendon and Whetstone wards and have no suggested amendments or edits. We believe the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s proposals reflect community ties, and present sensible ward boundaries. We accept LGBCE’s proposal for High Barnet if the ward must be reduced to a 2-councillor ward while we continue to believe that there is not a strong case for dispensing with 3- councillor wards in the area. Note on methodology: The variances we quote are based on the electorate forecasting methodology described in our earlier submission and they are likely to differ slightly from those that LGBCE calculates based on a different methodology. Golders Green North and Golders Green South We believe the proposals for Golders Green North and Golders Green South could be improved in community identity and convenient and effective local government terms by replacing Golders Green South with a 2-councillor Childs Hill ward and replacing Golders Green North with a 3-councillor Golders Green ward along the following lines: Community Identity & Convenient and Effective Local Government Childs Hill is an ancient place name relating to a neighbourhood distinct from Golders Green. The southern part of the Commission’s proposed Golders Green South does not have any real community ties with Golders Green, but it is distinctly Childs Hill and most people living in that part of the ward will identify as living in Childs Hill. Our proposed boundaries also have the advantage of placing all of Golders Green Town Centre, including Golders Green Tube Station, in a Golders Green ward, which improves community identity. Childs Hill is a place distinct from Golders Green. The Childs Hill neighbourhood is focused around the town centre, shops, primary school, churches and library around the Finchley Road/Cricklewood Lane junction. All of Golders Green town centre is included in our proposed Golders Green ward. Proposal: We propose replacing the Commission’s Golders Green South ward with a new Childs Hill ward (2 councillors) with an electoral variance of -8.93%; and replacing the Commission’s Golders Green North ward with a Golders Green ward (3 councillors) with an electoral variance of +0.25%. Childs Hill and Golders Green Coppetts and Muswell Hill Overall, we welcome the LGBCE’s proposed outer boundaries for Coppetts and Muswell Hill wards which are similar to our Stage 1 submission apart from the proposal to split the current Coppetts ward into two wards (Coppetts with two councillors and Muswell Hill with one councillor). We note the LGBCE’s reservations about creating a ward with a single councillor, and agree that this will present difficulties from the perspective of convenient and effective local government. Convenient and effective local government Lack of representation on Area Committee & Area Planning Committees: The Council has long standing area-based committees at a constituency level. For Coppetts and Muswell Hill wards this would be the Chipping Barnet Area Committee and Chipping Barnet Area Planning Committee. Both committees are made up of one councillor per ward in the Chipping Barnet area, with one substitute councillor per ward. Although a single councillor ward like Muswell Hill ward can be represented on these committees there will not be any substitute councillor on either. The current arrangements work because representation and substitution on these committees is divided between two or three councillors who alternate in the respective roles. This would not be possible with the proposed single councillor ward of Muswell Hill. Barnet is a large borough and so sub-division into areas is necessary for efficient administration of some functions. It is unlikely that the Council will abandon the Area Committee and Area Planning committee arrangements, and so a future Muswell Hill ward is likely to suffer a democratic deficit on both committees unless the single elected councillor is able to attend every single meeting of both committees without fail for four years.