Draft Recommendations for East Lindsey District Council on Our Interactive Maps At

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 5

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 7 Electoral arrangements 8 Rural East Lindsey 8 Louth 12 Mablethorpe 14 Skegness 15 Conclusions 16 Parish electoral arrangements 17

3 What happens next? 19

4 Mapping 21

Appendices

A Table A1: Draft recommendations for East Lindsey 22 District Council

B Glossary and abbreviations 25

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body that conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of East Lindsey District Council to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Commission commenced the review in December 2011. This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 3 September 2012 Consultation on council size 27 November 2012 Submission of proposals for warding arrangements to LGBCE 19 February 2013 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 14 May 2013 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them 6 August 2013 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Submissions received

We received 12 submissions during our consultation on council size and nine submissions during consultation on warding arrangements. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

As part of this review, East Lindsey District Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2018, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 5% over the six-year period from 2012–18.

We are content that the forecast data supplied by the Council is the most accurate available at this time and these figures form the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

East Lindsey District Council currently has 60 councillors. During preliminary discussions on council size, the Council proposed a council size of 60, no change from the existing membership. A submission was also received from two independent members on the council which argued that council size could be reduced to 48 members or fewer.

We considered that the evidence received pointed most strongly to a council size of 55 members and carried out a public consultation on this number.

During this consultation we received 12 submissions, of which one supported a council size of 55, three supported a council size of 60 and four supported a more radical reduction in council size. The remaining four submissions did not make specific proposals on council size.

Following the consultation we considered that insufficient evidence had been received to counter our view that a council size of 55 was most appropriate for the council. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a council size of 55.

General analysis

During our consultation on warding arrangements, we received nine submissions. We did not receive any district-wide proposals.

Consequently, we have developed our own proposals for the district, based on a council size of 55 and having reference to our statutory criteria as well as the localised evidence received during our consultation. Our draft recommendations are for a pattern of 19 single-member, 12 two-member and four three-member wards.

What happens next?

There will now be a consultation period, during which time we encourage comment on the draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for East Lindsey District Council contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 5 August 2013. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

We would particularly welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. Express your views by writing directly to us at:

Review Officer East Lindsey Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk

You can also view our draft recommendations for East Lindsey District Council on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body that conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 During our consultation on warding arrangements, we invited the submission of proposals on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during this stage of the review have informed our draft recommendations.

3 We are now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish our final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for the Council in autumn 2013.

What is an electoral review?

4 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

5 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why are we conducting a review in East Lindsey?

6 We decided to conduct this review because, based on December 2011 electorate figures, 15 of 48 wards (31%) have electoral variances of more than 10% from the average for the borough. This level of electoral inequality is not forecast to improve by 2018.

How will the recommendations affect you?

7 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. In addition, your ward name may change.

8 It is therefore important that you let us have your comments and views on the draft recommendations. We encourage comments from everyone in the community, regardless of whether you agree with the draft recommendations or not. The draft recommendations are evidence based and we therefore stress the importance of

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

3 providing evidence in any comments on our recommendations, rather than relying on assertion. We will accept comments and views until 5 August 2013. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in the autumn of 2013. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 19 and more information can be found on our website, www.lgbce.org.uk You can also view our draft recommendations for the Council on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

9 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

10 Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for East Lindsey District Council we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed ward boundaries and ward names. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

11 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for East Lindsey is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:

• secure effective and convenient local government • provide for equality of representation • reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular o the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable o the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

12 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the date of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward at the end of the review.

13 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five-year period.

14 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of East Lindsey District Council or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

15 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5

16 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority ward arrangements. However, principal councils have powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct Community Governance Reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

Submissions received

17 Prior to, and during, the initial stage of the review, we visited East Lindsey District Council and met with members, parish council representatives and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 12 submissions during our consultation on council size and nine submissions during our consultation on warding arrangements, all of which may be inspected at both our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

18 As part of this review, East Lindsey District Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2018, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 5% over the six-year period from 2012–18.

19 The figures were calculated with reference to future housing development in the district with electors allocated to polling districts where development was considered likely to be complete by 2018. We are content to use these forecasts as the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

20 East Lindsey District Council currently has 60 councillors elected from 48 district wards, comprising 37 one-member, 10 two-member and one three-member wards. During preliminary discussions on council size, the Council proposed a council size of 60, no change from the existing membership.

21 The Council’s proposal was supported by evidence in relation to decision- making functions, changes to scrutiny and regulatory committees and councillor workload. It argued that any reduction in council size would cause problems for community representation and discourage some people from standing for council, reducing its diversity.

22 The submission acknowledged that scrutiny workload had reduced in recent years but argued that the spare capacity this created had been ‘redeployed’ to improve other decision-making functions and allow for the workload generated by new roles. It therefore argued that a council size of 60 remained most appropriate for the district.

23 A submission was also received from two independent members on the council which argued that council size could be reduced to at least 48 members on the basis that decision making at the council was currently unwieldy and inefficient and that the

Council had not sufficiently explored opportunities for closer working with the many town and parish councils in the district.

24 We considered that the evidence received pointed most strongly to a council size of 55 members, which would not require changes to the council’s decision- making or scrutiny functions and continue to ensure adequate representation for communities in the district. We therefore carried out a public consultation on a council size of 55.

25 During this consultation we received 12 submissions, of which one supported a council size of 55, three supported a council size of 60 and four supported a more radical reduction in council size. The remaining four submissions did not make specific proposals on council size.

26 Following the consultation we considered that insufficient evidence had been received to counter our view that a council size of 55 was most appropriate for the council. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a council size of 55.

Electoral fairness

27 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations will provide for electoral fairness, reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

28 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The district average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the district (104,127 in 2012 and 109,367 by 2018) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 55 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 1,893 in 2012 and 1,988 by 2018.

29 Under our draft recommendations, all of our proposed wards will have electoral variances of less than 10% from the average for the district by 2018. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness for East Lindsey.

General analysis

30 During our consultation on warding arrangements, we received nine submissions. All submissions received were from parish and town councils, which generally commented on warding issues in their local area. We did not receive any district-wide proposals. Neither the Council nor its political groups decided to make a submission during this period of consultation.

31 We have consequently developed our own proposals for warding arrangements for the district, taking into account evidence received during the public consultation where relevant. Our proposals are based on a council size of 55 and have regard to our statutory criteria.

32 Our draft recommendations are for a pattern of 19 single-member, 12 two- member and four three-member wards. In developing our proposals we have had regard for electoral equality and sought so far as possible to reflect community identities where such evidence exists.

33 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table A1 (on pages 22–24) and the large map accompanying this report.

34 We welcome all comments on the boundaries and ward names we have proposed as part of these draft recommendations.

Electoral arrangements

35 This section of the report details our draft recommendations for each area of East Lindsey, with reference to submissions where relevant. The following areas of the authority are considered in turn:

• Rural East Lindsey (pages 8–12) • Louth (pages 12–14) • Mablethorpe (page 14–15) • Skegness (pages 15–16)

36 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table A1 on pages 22–4 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Rural East Lindsey

37 The rural area of East Lindsey comprises the vast majority of the land area of the district including coastal and inland communities and smaller towns such as Horncastle and Spilsby.

38 The rural area is currently represented by 38 councillors representing 23 single- member, six two-member and one three-member ward. With the overall reduction in council size for the district, the allocation of members to the rural area is reduced to 35, reflecting the share of electorate in the rural part of the district.

39 Eight submissions were received making reference to the rural area during the public consultation. Some requested that there be no or minimal change to warding arrangements in the rural area while others made proposals for parishes to be included in specific wards.

40 Given the overall reduction in council size and consequent reduction in members allocated to the rural area, as well as existing levels of electoral inequality, significant changes to warding arrangements are required in this part of the district. However, we have taken into account submissions from rural parishes where relevant and sought to incorporate proposals in our draft recommendations where they reflect our statutory criteria.

41 We received a submission from the Bucknall, Tupholme and Waddingworth group of parishes proposing that the current boundary and size of Roughton ward is

‘suitable’ for the communities contained within it. Woodhall Spa Parish Council argued that the ward of Woodhall Spa should be expanded to include the parish of Roughton. However, this proposal would result in Woodhall Spa having 11% more electors than the district average by 2018. We have not therefore adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

42 On balance we consider that the existing single-member Roughton and two- member Woodhall Spa wards provide for the best reflection of community ties in this area while maintaining good electoral equality. We have therefore included the existing Roughton and Woodhall Spa wards as part of our draft recommendations. These wards are forecast to have 4% fewer and 3% fewer electors than the district average respectively by 2018.

43 The existing two-member Coningsby & Tattershall ward is forecast to have 22% more electors per councillor than the district average under a 55-member council. We propose to create a three-member ward in this area, expanding the existing ward to include the parishes of Mareham Le Fen, Tumby and Wildmore. These parishes have good road connections with the larger villages of Coningsby and Tattershall. We propose to name the ward Coningsby & Mareham to reflect the communities included. This ward is forecast to have 5% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

44 To the east of Coningsby we propose to create a new two-member ward based around the villages of Sibsey and Stickney and neighbouring parishes to their west. The new two-member Sibsey & Stickney ward is forecast to have 9% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

45 Horncastle Town Council proposed that the parish of West Ashby should be included in the three-member Horncastle ward. While this would improve electoral equality in Horncastle, we have not adopted this proposal as it would result in poorer electoral equality in neighbouring wards.

46 We instead propose to improve electoral equality in the three-member Horncastle ward by including within it the three rural parishes of Scrivelsby, Wood Enderby and Claxby with Moorby. On a tour of the area we noted these parishes all have good road connections with Horncastle. With the inclusion of these parishes, the three-member Horncastle ward is forecast to have 5% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

47 East of Horncastle we propose to create a new Hagworthingham ward, comprising villages lying near to and accessed from the A158. We consider that this road results in a ward with strong internal connections. The ward comprises the southern part of the existing Tetford ward and the western part of Hundleby ward, as well as the parish of Bolingbroke from the existing Halton Holegate ward to provide for good electoral equality. The proposed single-member Hagworthingham ward is forecast to have 6% fewer electors than the district average by 2018 and we have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

48 We received a submission from East Keal Parish Council arguing that the ward of Halton Holegate should remain broadly unchanged as it comprised settlements of a similar size and nature.

49 We toured this area and recognise the strong connections between the villages south of Spilsby, so propose a Halton Holegate ward based largely on the existing ward. However, in addition to the inclusion of Bolingbroke in Hagworthingham ward as discussed in paragraph 47, we propose to include the parish of Stickford in Halton Holegate ward. These amendments provide for good electoral equality in Halton Holegate ward, as well as reflecting the road connection between Stickford and other villages in the ward along the A16. The proposed single-member Halton Holegate ward is forecast to have 6% more electors than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

50 The existing single-member Willoughby with Sloothby ward is forecast to have 17% fewer electors than the district average by 2018 under a 55-member council. We propose to include the parishes of Ulceby, Skendleby and Ashby with Scremby in this ward to improve electoral equality. With the inclusion of these three parishes, Willoughby with Sloothby ward is forecast to have 2% more electors than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

51 We propose to retain the existing single-member Burgh Le Marsh and single- member Spilsby wards unchanged as part of our draft recommendations. Both of these wards comprise single parishes and have good electoral equality. Burgh Le Marsh and Spilsby wards are forecast to have 5% more and 6% more electors per councillor respectively than the district average by 2018.

52 Chapel St Leonards Parish Council proposed that the two-member ward of Chapel St Leonards should remain unchanged. We have accepted this proposal and have included the existing Chapel St Leonards ward as part of our draft recommendations. This ward is forecast to have 5% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2018.

53 In the south-east of the district, we received a submission from the Firsby Group of parishes, comprising Bratoft, Firsby, Great Steeping, Irby in the Marsh and Little Steeping parishes. This group proposed they should remain united in a single ward to avoid duplication of activity between district councillors.

54 To incorporate this proposal and provide improved electoral equality in the south-east of the district, we propose to include the Firsby Group in a new two- member Wainfleet & Firsby ward combining the existing Croft ward with the parishes of Wainfleet All Saints and Wainfleet St Mary.

55 We also propose to create a new single-member Friskney ward, combining the parish of the same name with the Eastville, Midville and New Leake group of parishes. Friskney and the Eastville group of parishes have a road connection along Station Road and Fen Bank. The proposed Wainfleet & Firsby and Friskney wards are forecast to have 7% fewer and 10% fewer electors respectively than the district average by 2018. We have included these wards as part of our draft recommendations. However, we note that a three-member ward combining our proposed wards of Wainfleet & Firsby and Friskney would also have satisfactory

electoral equality. We therefore invite comments as to whether a three-member ward is more appropriate in this area.

56 We propose to retain the two-member Alford ward largely unchanged with minor amendments. We propose transferring Rigsby and Ailsby parish to our proposed Legbourne ward and to include Hannah cum Hagnaby parish which is currently in Withern with Stain ward. This amendment reflects the stronger road connections of this parish to its south than to its north-west. Otherwise, the boundaries of this ward would remain unchanged from the existing ward. Alford ward is forecast to have 2% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018 and we have included it as part of our draft recommendations.

57 The existing Legbourne ward is forecast to have 25% fewer electors than the district average by 2018. We also note that the ward currently includes parishes to the north of the town of Louth with poor road connections to the remainder of the ward. We consider that in community terms these parishes would more appropriately be included in wards to the north of Louth.

58 We therefore propose that the parishes of Elkington and Welton le Wold are included in Binbrook ward, while the parish of Keddington is included in a new Fulstow ward to the north of Louth. We also propose that 10 rural parishes to the south east of Legbourne, currently lying in Hundleby, Withern with Stain and Alford wards, are included in Legbourne ward to improve electoral equality. These parishes have a strong communication link to the remainder of the ward along the A16.

59 With the inclusion of these parishes, the single-member ward of Legbourne is forecast to have 9% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

60 As well as the inclusion of the parishes of Elkington and Welton le Wold in the new Binbrook ward, we propose to include the northern part of the existing Ludford ward in this ward, along with two parishes already lying within Binbrook ward. The A631 and A157 roads provide for good road access to all of the villages in this ward. The new single-member Binbrook ward is forecast to have 1% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

61 We propose a new single-member Goulceby & Tetford ward comprising the southern part of the existing Ludford ward with the northern part of the existing Tetford ward. The villages in this new ward lie near to or have access from the A153, which runs through the centre of the ward providing a strong communication link. Our proposed single-member Goulceby & Tetford ward is forecast to have 1% fewer electors than the district average by 2018.

62 At the western end of the district, the existing single-member Wragby ward has good electoral equality and includes parishes with strong communication links. We therefore propose to include the existing Wragby ward unchanged as part of our draft recommendations. Wragby ward is forecast to have an equal number of electors to the district average by 2018.

63 In the north-east of the district, we propose to improve electoral equality in the Withern area by including the Theddlethorpe and Carlton villages with the parishes in the existing Withern with Stain ward, forming a new Withern & Theddlethorpe ward. We note in particular that the villages of Little Carlton and Great Carlton appear to have stronger connections with the Withern area than with the Skidbrooke ward in which they currently lie. Our proposed single-member Withern & Theddlethorpe ward is forecast to have 3% fewer electors than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

64 Further to the north, we propose a new two-member ward centred on the village of North Somercotes and the A1031. This ward combines the eastern part of the existing Marshchapel ward with the existing North Somercotes ward and the northern part of the existing Skidbrooke ward. The A1031 provides a strong road connection between the villages in this ward while also reflecting community identity on or near the coastline. This new two-member North Somercotes & Saltfleetby ward is forecast to have 7% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018 and we have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

65 The existing single-member ward of Grimoldby combines four parishes with a strong road connection and has good electoral equality. We have therefore included this ward unchanged as part of our draft recommendations. Grimoldby ward is forecast to have 5% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2018.

66 North of Louth, we propose to improve the electoral equality of the two-member Holton le Clay ward by including the parishes of Waithe, Grainsby and North Thoresby in the ward. The proposed new Holton le Clay & North Thoresby ward is forecast to have 4% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

67 The existing Tetney ward combines two parishes with strong communication links and has good electoral equality. We therefore propose to retain this existing ward unchanged as part of our draft recommendations. The single-member Tetney ward is forecast to have 4% fewer electors than the district average by 2018.

68 Finally, in the area between North Thoresby and Louth we propose a new single-member Fulstow ward comprising parts of the existing Binbrook, North Thoresby, Marshchapel and Legbourne wards. The villages in this proposed ward have strong road connections along the A16 and between Fulstow and Alvingham. This new Fulstow ward is forecast to have 3% fewer electors than the district average by 2018 and we have included it as part of our draft recommendations.

69 Overall, we propose that rural East Lindsey is represented by 35 councillors, with fifteen single-member, seven two-member and two three-member wards. All wards in the rural area are forecast to have electorates within 10% of the district average by 2018.

Louth

70 The market town of Louth lies inland in the north of the district. It is represented by a town council and currently has seven members on East Lindsey District Council, all representing single-member wards.

71 Under the reduced council size of 55, Louth continues to be represented by seven councillors.

72 A single submission was received concerning Louth from Louth Town Council, which argued that the current number and boundaries of wards in Louth are ‘appropriate’. We have based our proposals in Louth on existing ward boundaries, with some amendments to provide for a better reflection of our statutory criteria.

73 In the south of the town, the existing single-member ward of St Mary’s is forecast to have 14% fewer electors than the district average by 2018, while the single-member Priory ward is forecast to have 10% fewer and the single-member St Michael’s ward is forecast to have 3% more.

74 In order to improve electoral equality in the south of the town, we propose to combine the St Mary’s and St Michael’s wards to form a two-member St Mary’s & St Michael’s ward. These wards have a similar suburban character and good internal communication links.

75 To further improve electoral equality and provide for a stronger reflection of communities, we propose to include a residential area to the west of the town centre bounded by South Street, Edward Street, Westgate and Upgate, in an enlarged Priory ward. We consider that this area has more in common with the town centre than with the residential areas to its south, and should therefore be included in a ward based around the town centre.

76 Conversely, we consider that the newer residential development off Mount Pleasant around Robinson Lane, currently located in Priory ward, has more in common with the residential areas to the south. We therefore propose to include this area in the St Mary’s & St Michael’s ward. With these amendments, our proposed two-member St Mary’s & St Michael’s ward is forecast to have 7% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

77 We note that the town centre and neighbouring residential streets are currently divided between Priory and St James’ wards. We consider that it would provide for a better reflection of community ties around the town centre to combine these two wards into a single two-member ward, subject to the amendments described in paragraphs 75–6 above. This proposal would also provide for improved electoral equality, as the new two-member Priory ward would be forecast to have 4% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

78 The existing single-member wards of North Holme, St Margaret’s and Trinity all have satisfactory electoral equality and appear to reflect community ties and communication links in the north and east of the town. We have therefore included these three wards unchanged as part of our draft recommendations. North Holme, St Margaret’s and Trinity wards would respectively have 4% fewer, 5% fewer and 8% fewer electors per councillor than the district average by 2018.

79 Overall, we propose that Louth is represented by seven councillors in three single-member and two two-member wards. All proposed wards are forecast to have electorates within 10% of the district average by 2018.

80 Our draft recommendations for Louth require consequential parish warding arrangements for Louth Town Council. These are discussed in the parish electoral arrangements section below.

Mablethorpe

81 Mablethorpe and Sutton on Sea are coastal towns in the north-east of the district. They are represented by a single town council and currently return six councillors to East Lindsey District Council, all of whom represent single-member wards.

82 Under a council size of 55, the allocation of district councillors to Mablethorpe reduces by one member, to five. Under this council size, all four existing wards covering the Mablethorpe town area are forecast to be over-represented by 2018, while the two existing Sutton on Sea wards are both forecast to have electorates within 10% of the district average.

83 We did not receive any submissions regarding the Mablethorpe area. We have therefore proposed our own warding arrangements with reference to our statutory criteria.

84 We note that replacing Mablethorpe’s four existing single-member wards with one three-member ward would result in satisfactory electoral equality and a ward which reflects the community of Mablethorpe.

85 We therefore propose to combine the existing wards of Mablethorpe Central, Mablethorpe East, Mablethorpe North and Trusthorpe & Mablethorpe South to form a three-member ward named Mablethorpe.

86 Similarly, we consider that combining the two single-member Sutton on Sea wards into a single two-member Sutton on Sea ward would provide for a stronger reflection of communities in this area. We therefore propose to combine the existing wards of Sutton on Sea South and Sutton on Sea North to form a two-member ward named Sutton on Sea.

87 To provide for improved electoral equality and a stronger reflection of communities in the two proposed wards, we propose to include Highgate Lane, Hall Leas Drive, the remainder of Trusthorpe Road and an adjacent holiday camp in the Sutton on Sea ward. These areas are contiguous with a residential area to their south which already lies within Sutton on Sea North ward, while their connections with the residential area to the north appear weaker.

88 With this amendment, the three-member Mablethorpe and two-member Sutton on Sea wards are forecast to have 7% more and 6% more electors than the district average by 2018 respectively. We have included these two wards as part of our final recommendations.

89 Our draft recommendations for Mablethorpe and Sutton on Sea require consequential parish warding arrangements for Mablethorpe and Sutton Town Council. These are discussed in the parish electoral arrangements section below.

Skegness

90 Skegness is a coastal resort in the south-east of the district, incorporating the town of Skegness and a number of holiday parks. Ingoldmells is an adjoining village to its north. Skegness is represented by a town council while Ingoldmells is represented by a separate parish council.

91 Skegness and Ingoldmells are currently represented by nine district councillors. Under a council size of 55, its allocation reduces to eight members.

92 We did not receive any submissions relating to warding arrangements in Skegness and Ingoldmells, so have developed our own proposals for this area with reference to the statutory criteria.

93 The existing single-member Ingoldmells ward covers the coastal parish of Ingoldmells and the adjacent inland parish of Addlethorpe. This ward currently has strong electoral equality and good communication links. We therefore propose to retain this ward unchanged as part of our draft recommendations. The single- member Ingoldmells ward is forecast to have 4% fewer electors than the district average by 2018.

94 In the south of Skegness, we note that the existing wards of Scarbrough and Seacroft are forecast to be significantly over-represented under a 55-member council.

95 We therefore propose to combine the two existing wards to form a new three- member ward named Scarbrough & Seacroft with a minor amendment noted in paragraph 99 below. We consider that this ward reflects communities in the centre and south of the town.

96 In the north of Skegness, we note that under a 55-member council the existing Winthorpe ward is forecast to be significantly over-represented while the existing St Clement’s ward is forecast to be significantly under-represented. The existing wards appear to broadly reflect community ties and communication links.

97 We propose to amend the boundary between the two wards so that the western boundary of Winthorpe runs along King George V Walk to the west of the caravan parks adjoining Burgh Road, rather than along Cavendish Road and Roman Bank as at present.

98 As well as improving electoral equality in the St Clement’s and Winthorpe ward, this amended boundary provides for a stronger reflection of communities as the properties on the western side of Roman Bank and Cavendish Road appear to have a stronger affinity with the residential area to their east than to their west.

99 Additionally, to provide for better electoral equality and a clearer ward boundary we propose to amend the southern boundary between Winthorpe and Scarbrough &

Seacroft wards along Grosvenor Road, rather than along Brunswick Drive and Vernon Road as at present. We consider that the existing ward boundary divides a residential community and our proposed alternative appears to better reflect communities in this area.

100 With these amendments, the two-member St Clement’s ward is forecast to have 5% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2018, while Winthorpe ward is forecast to have 2% more electors per councillor. The three-member Scarbrough & Seacroft ward is forecast to have 6% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2018. We have included these wards as part of our draft recommendations.

101 Our draft recommendations for Skegness require consequential parish warding arrangements for Skegness Town Council. These are discussed in the parish electoral arrangements section below.

Conclusions

102 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2012 and 2018 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2012 2018 Number of councillors 55 55 Number of electoral wards 35 35 Average number of electors per councillor 1,893 1,988 Number of wards with a variance more 3 0 than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation East Lindsey District Council should comprise 55 councillors serving 35 wards, as detailed and named in Table A1 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

103 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

104 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, East Lindsey District Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

105 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Louth, Mablethorpe and Sutton, and Skegness.

106 As a result of our proposed electoral ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Louth parish.

Draft recommendations Louth Town Council should return 21 parish councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: North Holme (returning three members), Priory (returning three members), St James’ (returning three members), St Margaret’s (returning three members), St Mary’s (returning three members), St Michael’s (returning three members) and Trinity (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

107 As a result of our proposed electoral ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Mablethorpe and Sutton parish.

Draft recommendations Mablethorpe and Sutton Town Council should return 19 parish councillors, one more than at present, representing seven wards: Highgate Lane (returning one member), Mablethorpe Central (returning three members), Mablethorpe East (returning three members), Mablethorpe North (returning three members), Trusthorpe & Mablethorpe South (returning three members), Sutton on Sea North (returning three members) and Sutton on Sea South (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

108 As a result of our proposed electoral ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Skegness parish.

Draft recommendations Skegness Town Council should return 21 parish councillors, one more than at present, representing five wards: Brunswick Drive (returning one member), St Clement’s (returning five members), Scarbrough (returning five members), Seacroft (returning five members) and Winthorpe (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

3 What happens next?

109 There will now be a consultation period of 12 weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for East Lindsey District Council contained in this report. We will fully take into account all submissions received by 5 August 2013. Any submissions received after this date may not be taken into account.

110 We have not finalised our recommendations on the electoral arrangements for East Lindsey and welcome comments from interested parties relating to the proposed ward boundaries, number of councillors and ward names. We would welcome alternative proposals backed up by demonstrable evidence during our consultation on these draft recommendations. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

111 Express your views by writing directly to:

Review Officer East Lindsey The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

Submissions can also be made by using the consultation section of our website, consultation.lgbce.org.uk.

112 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations made during consultation will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of East Lindsey District Council and at our offices in Layden House (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

113 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, irrespective of whom they are from.

114 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

115 After the publication of our final recommendations, the review will be implemented by order subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. When made, the draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for East Lindsey District Council in 2015.

116 These draft recommendations have been screened for impact on equalities, with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

4 Mapping Draft recommendations for East Lindsey

117 The following map illustrates our proposed ward boundaries for East Lindsey District Council:

• Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed ward boundaries for East Lindsey.

You can also view our draft recommendations for East Lindsey on our interactive maps at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Appendix A

Table A1: Draft recommendations for East Lindsey District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2012) (2018) councillor % councillor % 1 Alford 2 3,691 1,846 -3% 3,911 1,956 -2%

2 Binbrook 1 1,948 1,948 3% 1,978 1,978 -1%

3 Burgh Le Marsh 1 2,035 2,035 7% 2,083 2,083 5%

4 Chapel St Leonards 2 3,870 1,935 2% 4,164 2,082 5% Coningsby & 5 3 5,910 1,970 4% 6,234 2,078 5% Mareham 6 Friskney 1 1,786 1,786 -6% 1,796 1,796 -10%

7 Fulstow 1 1,918 1,918 1% 1,932 1,932 -3%

8 Goulceby and Tetford 1 1,925 1,925 2% 1,967 1,967 -1%

9 Grimoldby 1 1,786 1,786 -6% 2,086 2,086 5%

10 Hagworthingham 1 1,824 1,824 -4% 1,866 1,866 -6%

11 Halton Holegate 1 2,076 2,076 10% 2,116 2,116 6% Holton Le Clay & 12 2 4,042 2,021 7% 4,124 2,062 4% North Thoresby 13 Horncastle 3 5,415 1,805 -5% 5,683 1,894 -5%

Table A1 (cont): Draft recommendations for East Lindsey District Council

15 Legbourne 1 1,811 1,811 -4% 1,813 1,813 -9%

16 Mablethorpe 3 6,355 2,118 12% 6,371 2,124 7%

17 North Holme 1 1,744 1,744 -8% 1,900 1,900 -4% North Somercotes & 18 2 3,565 1,783 -6% 3,681 1,841 -7% Saltfleetby 19 Priory 2 3,669 1,835 -3% 3,820 1,910 -4%

20 Roughton 1 1,872 1,872 -1% 1,916 1,916 -4% Scarbrough & 21 3 6,131 2,044 8% 6,312 2,104 6% Seacroft 22 Sibsey and Stickney 2 4,143 2,072 9% 4,317 2,159 9%

23 Spilsby 1 2,061 2,061 9% 2,115 2,115 6%

24 St Clement’s 2 3,327 1,664 -12% 4,189 2,095 5%

25 St Margaret’s 1 1,756 1,756 -7% 1,896 1,896 -5% St Mary’s & St 26 2 3,662 1,831 -3% 3,711 1,856 -7% Michael’s 27 Sutton on Sea 2 3,875 1,938 2% 4,211 2,106 6%

28 Tetney 1 1,885 1,885 0% 1,909 1,909 -4%

Table A1 (cont): Draft recommendations for East Lindsey District Council

30 Wainfleet & Firsby 2 3,607 1,804 -5% 3,693 1,847 -7% Willoughby with 31 1 1,988 1,988 5% 2,030 2,030 2% Sloothby 32 Winthorpe 2 3,874 1,937 2% 4,037 2,019 2% Withern & 33 1 1,881 1,881 -1% 1,925 1,925 -3% Theddlethorpe 34 Woodhall Spa 2 3,567 1,784 -6% 3,845 1,923 -3%

35 Wragby 1 1,839 1,839 -3% 1,987 1,987 0%

Totals 55 104,127 – – 109,367 – –

Averages – – 1,893 – – 1,988 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by East Lindsey District Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Appendix B

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews.

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Commission for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council