Hull Labour Group Feels That the Boundary Commission Have Been Too Quick to Dismiss the Case for a Cross-River Ward at Kingswood and Beverley

LABOUR GROUP SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT WARD BOUNDARY PROPOSALS FOR HULL

INTRODUCTION

In our response to the Draft Submission from the Boundary Commission we have put a detailed further submission. We have felt this necessary as we believe we were misinformed at the briefing meeting in June 2017 attended by Labour and Conservative Councillors, which led to us putting in a uniformed “three-member” ward proposition for the entire City, as the guidance stated that this was the preferred option.

Given that the Commission’s draft proposals have accepted a plan based upon two and three member Wards, we have now put in two revised proposals that form part of our principal objection to the draft proposals.

These include:-

1) A challenge to the draft proposal and a restatement of the argument for a cross-river Ward.

2) If this strong argument still does not carry resonance, we then offer a strongly argued alternative to the most contentious and deeply unpopular elements of the draft proposals for West of the River. Our evidenced alternative stems from the Boundary Commission acceptance of a settlement of two and three member Wards, in its draft and builds upon this.

We trust in the assurances that we have been given that the Commission WILL meaningfully consider this substantial proposal, and afford it the full and detailed consideration that we feel it deserves. We do remain deeply concerned that the current proposals without amendment will change the political balance of the City without the casting of a single vote, with scant regard of the effect this has on long- standing established Hull communities.

The refusal of the main opposition group to seek to engage in a Council-wide submission, (See Appendix IV, email sent to Leader of Liberal Democrat Group), clearly shows the lack of commitment to any non-partisan approach. Despite their assurances they would consider a joint submission up until the 3rd March 2017, the Lib-Dems refused even to consider any changes to the two main areas of community contention, namely Beverley/Sculcoates and Hessle Road while striving only to increase the Kingswood Ward to three seats in order to create what they perceive to be a further seat for themselves.

Although we have some areas of difference with the Conservative and Unionist Group you will see agreement on the main areas of contention in their submission and ours..

We believe the amendments we propose are absolutely essential given some of the major issues created in the draft proposals. We believe for the process to retain democratic legitimacy the principal concerns below need addressing:-

 1) The proposed Beverley and Sculcoates Ward

 2) The proposed St Andrews and Newington Ward , [and the deeply unpopular proposal to divide Hessle Road]

In addressing these ward proposals there is inevitably a ‘knock-on’ effect with surrounding wards in order to achieve electoral and community integrity. In a City that contains so many natural dividers there will always have to be compromise and, as with the Labour Group’s original submission, we have been guided by fairness and not by crude partisan interests as has been shown by many of the wards we proposed originally and here in our response to the Commissions draft proposals. It is truly regrettable that we could not draw the Majority Opposition Group into an agreement and that they took so long to reveal that this was not going to be an option. We are the belief that their unwillingness to look any joint agreements stems from the belief that the Commission’s draft proposals are politically advantageous for them alone.

As was stated in our original submission this process of re-warding should be a technical process, and not one that results in altering the existing political balance that has been arrived at democratically by the residents of Hull. Our original submission did exactly this and attempted to not alter the political plurality of the existing City, and made some proposals clearly against our sectional political interest, for the greater good.

We will provide detailed objections to the proposed Wards identified above and go on to recommend solutions to the problems we have identified with a fully researched set of figures to back up these proposals.

PROPOSAL 1- REVISITING THE CROSS-RIVER WARD

INTRODUCTION

Hull Labour Group feels that the Boundary Commission have been too quick to dismiss the case for a Cross-River Ward at Kingswood and Beverley. This premature dismissal led to the rejection of much of our proposed template for West and North Hull.

This dismissal is all the more surprising when the alternative proposed instead is the deeply unpopular “shotgun” marriage that is the proposal for a Beverley and Sculcoates Ward. As the Boundary Commission is supposed to look at issues of community, numbers and governance, we will explain why the case can be made to support this.

The main proponents of the outdated narrative about the river being an ‘uncrossable divide’ were the Liberal Democrats in their submission to the Commission. A completely different argument was put to the Boundary Commission for England at the public hearing on 24th October 2016 in Hull the transcript of which reveals that the author of the Liberal Democrat Local Government Boundary Commission for England Submission; Cllr Dave McCobb; extols a case for a Parliamentary Boundary crossing the River Hull at the Southern end arguing “Drypool” sees itself as the City Centre, (Note 1). Although the Boundary Commissions are independent of one another, it is just not plausible to make two different arguments depending on your audience.

CASE

There has been a North Hull Constituency in parliament for forty years, and throughout this time the river has been crossed by this Constituency Boundary. It is against this backdrop that the misleading narrative of a city divided principally between East and West of the River Hull, as the only important factor is just plain wrong. There has always been a North, West and East Hull. There is a principal 1940s estate area off Beverley Road called North Hull Estate. People from this area would see themselves as from North Hull, not West Hull. Equally the Bransholme Estate which is 50 years old in 2017 has a separate identity as part of Hull North, and would not see themselves as “East Hull”.

The very fact the Boundary Commission is revisiting Hull is due to the housing growth of Kingswood. A cursory look at the population shows a modest increase,

3 which means that mostly it is internal churn with people from elsewhere in Hull West and East of the river moving to Kingswood. Given this they do not consider the river per se as a boundary. Many of the residents of North Bransholme and Sutton Park moved here after the mass housing clearances of Hessle Road in the 1970s and 1980s and many residents still return to this road to shop and socialise on Saturdays. Such migration is still continuing on Kingswood as residents become upwardly aspirant. As the Boundary is just like other Roads, it has to be seen as no more of a community divide than that on the draft proposal elsewhere in the City.

VEHICLE MOVEMENTS

The sheer volume of vehicle movements that are reproduced below, clearly demonstrate that there are huge traffic movements between the two parts of this proposed Ward and affirms our view that retail patterns merge around the central location of the Kingwood Retail Park which is far more modally important to these “sub-urban” population groups than the City Centre which is considerably further away in distance, time and convenience for the residents of this area who overwhelmingly drive. This latter fact is reinforced by the fact that the Bus Service to the City Centre from the top of Beverley Road is not commercially viable and is one of the City Council’s subsidised routes. Other bus routes on Beverley Road below Clough Road are full self-supporting, where there is far less car ownership, and clear connections to the City Centre..

Below is the listed vehicle movements over the two bridges over a 12 hour period. This shows that far from being community dividers the Bridges unify and unite these communities

Jun-16 2 Way Eastbound Westbound Flow A1033 Ennerdale Bridge AM Peak 1326 1393 2719 PM Peak 1777 1592 3369 12 Hour 13720 13754 27474 Sutton Road Bridge AM Peak 765 750 1515 PM Peak 618 850 1468 12 Hour 7875 8646 16521

Chart of Vehicular Movements Across Bridges June 2016 Source: Hull City Council Business Intelligence Team, Strategic Planning and Partnerships

Segment Households F 33% G 9% H 23% I 35%

Hull City Council Customer Insight Segmentation Source: Source: Hull City Council Business Intelligence Team, Strategic Planning and Partnerships

DEMOGRAPHICS

The enclosed demographics show clearly far more similarities on the proposed cross-river Ward, where the commonalities are clearer. As stated previously these are communities which share the characteristics of home ownership, car ownership and higher salaried employment. Compared to elsewhere on the Beverley Road, where there is significant ethnic diversity both these communities in our proposed Beverley and Kingswood Ward are fairly monocultural.

If we contrast this with the proposed Boundary Commission proposal, presented below, the rainbow nature of the map clearly show the lack of a cohesive community footprint in Beverley and Sculcoates when compared to the above Proposed Ward.

Segment Households B 3% C 3% D 5% E 6% F 18% G 6% H 11% I 5% J 20% L 24%

Summary

We invite the Boundary Commission to look again at their premature rejection of the Beverley and Kingswood Ward. With a river-crossing Ward it ensures that a settlement of three seat Wards based on our original submission could be again considered, without the compromises that have caused upset within the proposed map for Hull.

PROPOSAL 2

INTRODUCTION

If Proposal 1, above, DOES NOT find favour we will have to assume there will be no agreement for a Ward to cross the river.

If this is the case, we proceed to outline our substantial comprehensive response to the Boundary Commission’s published draft proposals based upon a settlement for EAST and WEST of the River Hull.

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED BEVERLEY AND SCULCOATES WARD

The proposed Beverley and Sculcoates Ward is wholly unacceptable. It is bordered by a total of 10 Wards, (including across the river), and stretches from the East Riding Border to the City Centre. More importantly it seeks to force at least five distinct communities into a Ward that has no commonality of community or shared relationship or interest.

At the Northern end the owner-occupiers, in this more traditionally affluent area, will typically shop at Kingswood or look further afield, and have a view that they live in the Hull suburbs. Car ownership is also higher in this community. The section at the Southerly end is the Fountain Road Estate and contains the remains of the Irish Catholic Community. Residents here look towards the City Centre. The St Charles School on the estate shares its name with the nearby Catholic Church in the City Centre where it used to be based. Its location in this vicinity is no accident, given the inner City’s religious denomination. There is low car ownership, low per capita incomes, and residents are a 10 minute walk from the city centre. They clearly have no common community interests or ties to Beverley High Road. This Proposed Ward appears to be a Gerrymander of the worst sort, and there is no community support for this; possibly with the exception of the Political Party that suggested it.

The previous attempt to have a functioning Traders Association only covered the shops South of Clough Road which demonstrates that the businesses see these as distinct and separate communities. The current successful Council “Heritage Lottery Grant” that was successful for Beverley Road only covers the section below Queens Road/Sculcoates Lane. This reinforces that from a governance and Council perspective there is clearly no synergy or connection within this proposed Ward monolith.

We expect you have had many consultation responses that detail many of the community objections to this proposed Ward. We believe the lack of any community of interest is best demonstrated by the customer insight segmentation heat maps from the Hull Customer Segmentation Team that show significant differences between the respective communities.

This map very clearly shows that there is a large difference between the north and south of this Lib-Dem/Boundary Commission proposed ward.

North of Clough Road much of the population live in traditionally affluent, economically active, owner occupier segments:

 Group F (18%): Older couples living in owner occupied, typically semi- detached houses.  Group H (11%): Economically active couples and families in owner occupied terraces.  Group G (6%): Affluent qualified professionals in large mixed owner occupied housing.  Group I (5%): Economically active young families in Segment Households B 3% owner occupied detached and semis. C 3% D 5% E 6% F 18% G 6% H 11% I 5% J 20% L 24%

These segments are much more in keeping with those segments within the neighbouring areas east of the River Hull – in the proposed Kingswood, and Holderness wards.

Conversely, the very south section of this Ward South of Clough Road, shows much of the population live in traditionally less affluent, renting segments, in predominantly “green” insight groups.

 Group L (24%): Young ethnically diverse private renters in economically challenged areas.  Group J (20%): University students in rented accommodation.  Group E (6%): Low income renters in high density, cheap rented accommodation.  Group D (5%): Low income families in public rented housing.  Group C (3%): Young people with dependent children in public rented housing.  Group B (3%): Economically inactive singles in public rented flats.

These ‘green segments’ are much more in keeping with segments in the adjoining current Myton ward. This analysis shows that the north and south of the proposed Beverley and Sculcoates ward are clearly not socially homogenous.

Based on the types of segments found in the north, compared to the south, of the proposed wards; the needs and behaviours of the respective populations are likely to be very different.

In addition, based on our understanding of voter turnout within the segments; voter turnout is going to be significantly higher in the north of the proposed ward – creating a potential risk whereby there is a conflict between the priorities, wants and needs of voters in the north of the ward and those with greater need in the south of the ward. This was a principal argument for the abolition of the old Beverley Ward prior to 1999, which was about three quarters of a mile shorter and more compact.

OBJECTION TO THE NEWINGTON AND ST. ANDREWS WARD

Equally as contentious is the draft proposal to split Hull’s iconic Hessle Road at the Boulevard junction [or just behind the houses]. Hessle Road is Hull’s most famous street in that it was the epicentre of the Fishing Community, and remains a thriving shopping district centre. This proposal would split this street meaning that key streets from Rawlings Way to Boulevard are in a different Ward. This would mean that the side streets that lead up to the Boulevard Fountain would be in a different Ward to this structure.

There is a clearly defined organic community in Hessle Road, and these proposed divisions, like this, just lead to the feeling of bureaucratic elites ignoring the wishes and feelings of local people. This is “cultural vandalism” as one ex-fisherman’s leader stated in response to this Boundary Commission proposal.

HESSLE ROAD’S RESPONSE

This proposal has led to complaints from all the Hessle Road Community Associations and the Hull Bullnose Heritage Group, the largest fisherman’s support organisation with 5000 website supporters. The unprompted anger to this Ward plan has led to pub and shop petitions against this proposal.

The role of the Hull Bullnose Heritage Group is crucial as they are organising the community festival in May 2017 around the three murals celebrating the History of the Hessle Road Community. Under this proposal both these and the memorial “bethel boards” that are being fitted in May 2017, listing the names of Hull’s 6000 dead fisherman would be in two Wards.

This is why there has been press coverage of the widespread opposition; (See Appendix III)

ANTI-PROSTITUTION ZONE

The UK’s first S.222 Prostitution Prohibition Zone which has resolved the street prostitution in this Area, covers the Hessle Road Area fly-over to fly-over and to the Railway track. This order was successfully granted by the Court as it was a clearly defined community area. This Warding proposal splits in two the S.222 area and as Council services, Police and other support services cover major Roads and arterial routes this proposal will undermine the co-ordinated response around a major anti- social behaviour issue which blighted this community for many years. The undermining of the established governance of this area is a major factor in our opposition to this Gerrymander Boundary.

It is for these reasons that the new proposed foot-print for the Map is proposed in the new draft proposals.

NEW PROPOSALS

We have split our new proposals into 2 sets. They are mutually exclusive, so if Proposal 1 is not accepted in the arguments put forward, Proposal 2 can still be considered separately.

PROPOSAL 2 – A NEW BLUEPRINT FOR THE CITY OF HULL.

INTRODUCTION

As the Boundary Commission has CONTINUED to reject the proposal for a cross- river Ward, we have sought to provide a revised Warding Map for Hull.

WEST OF THE RIVER

AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED MAP WITH NO CHANGES

In terms of the following Wards we propose NO changes to the following Wards draft proposals.

Orchard Park Ward

We are accepting of broad proposed settlement for Orchard Park Ward which now incorporates the West Part of the former BEVERLEY D Polling Box [West of Beverley Road]. A busy dual carriageway is a natural boundary at this point of Beverley Road.

University

By accepting the Beverley Road and Cottingham Road Boundaries to this Ward, University is a two-person Ward as stated previously.

Derringham

We fully accept the integration of Sorrell Drive into Derringham.

We are disappointed some streets from Derringham Bank estate remain outside of this Ward, we reluctantly could accept this footprint. The failure to be able to

11 integrate the whole of Derringham Bank estate into this Ward does throw up different issues of division So we reluctantly agree this.

Wyke

On this proposal we support Wyke on its current proposed Boundaries.

AGREEMENT WITH THE MAP WITH MINOR CHANGES

In terms of the following Wards we propose the following MINOR changes

Avenue

We propose tweaking the Boundary, so the 356 voters from the former MYTE Polling district from MYTON is moved into AVED of AVENUE Ward. This draws the new Boundary down and includes both sides of Wellington Lane. This stops the problem that currently there are three streets in AVED that are completely landlocked down one side of Park Road and can only be accessed by driving through MYTE. This increases AVENUE Ward to 9903 voters, improving the electoral equality from -3% to +1%.

Boothferry

We would have preferred some more streets around Derringham Bank Estate to be removed from Boothferry Ward into Derringham Ward as this proposal whilst improving the situation, still divides this estate.

Whilst we accept the moving of Woldcarr, Northfield and Springfield to the new Boothferry Ward we object to Parkfield moving as it has actual physical connectivity to Alliance and De la Pole Avenue via an access Road. For waste management and crime issues it makes sense to leave this connected to Newington Ward. This affects only 205 voters but would reduce the Boothferry numbers to 9,209 increasing the variance to -6.3%.

1. FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH WARDING MAP PROPOSALS AND THEREFORE NEW PROPOSALS

In terms of the following Wards we propose the following MAJOR changes

Beverley Ward

For all the reasons outlined earlier we reject fully this WARD on its proposed boundaries. Instead we propose a Ward that comprises of :-

The former BEVA, BEVB, BEVC and BEVD [Part EAST of Beverley Road] and insert NWDD, [but importantly removing NWDB]. We would name this proposed Ward BEVERLEY. From the attached “Customer Insight” heatmap. this proposal removes the areas in Green that have no commonality with this WARD and now means that it numbers 6,683 as a TWO member seat. This means that the new Ward is completely homogenous in the types of resident groups that it contains. This equates to +2% variance but provides for a much better community fit. [The polling districts of MYTF and NWDB join a newly constructed CENTRAL Ward].

Myton (Central)

We propose a new 2-seat in part of Myton comprising of MYTC,MYTE [less 356 people to AVENUE in AVED], MYTF and NWDB and part of MYTD North of Freetown Way [less 799 to ST. ANDREWS & DOCKLANDS]. As you can see by the enclosed Customer Insight Map this unites the green Area East of Beverley Road with the similar terrain of the rest of the Ward. This proposal equates to a ward of 6,446 people or a -1.5% variance. As this area would now contain the principal ethnic minority communities, this ward encapsulates the new diversity of the City Centre enabling this communities shared synergies around bespoke ethnically

13 diverse retail and support services to be captured in one area. The City’s main translation and support services Hub is also located in this Ward.

The area removed from the “new” Myton is a sensible tidying up. Currently a “Habinteg” Sheltered Housing development is landlocked in Avenue Ward but access to these streets involve driving through Myton Ward. All these households have car ports as this is a specialist disability housing development where they have to drive and use mobility vehicles. The current boundary does not work in terms of a community test. The streets to this development should also be in Avenue as they lead towards Pearson Park.

Given that MYTON is named after “MYTON GATE” which now sits outside of the proposed ward we propose calling this area “Central Ward”.

St. Andrews

This new proposal comprises of the old STAA, STAB, STAC and STAD polling districts, re-unifying Hessle Road Fly-over to Fly-over. We also propose adding back the Thornton Estate which was part of this Ward until 1999 [and includes the old start of Hessle Road prior to the A63]. The proposal in 1999 sought to reunify the divided Thornton Estate which was wrongly divided. This proposal seeks to maintain this. It also recognises that a key play park for the children of West Thornton on Bean Street in St. Andrews, is now in the same Ward. This desire route is shown by the Pedestrian Crossing by this Park and the local Community Centre.

This proposal also adds in the Marina meaning that ALL the West Hull docks of Albert Dock and St Andrews Dock and the Marina are now in one Ward. As this area is one entire regeneration zone it makes sense to have a cohesive administrative area, ending the artificial divide of St Andrews Dock between two Wards [Myton and St. Andrews]. This area is likely to attract LEP funding, and will be a key part of the next stage of Hull’s waterfront renaissance with a Council strategic master plan being prepared for the former Lord Line and disused lock-pits around Hull’s Bullnose, on the Eastern side of St Andrews Quay and retail park. Currently the dock area is accessed via English Street in Myton behind Smith and Nephew, or off the A63 in St Andrews Ward. This future development needs clear governance and we need to learn from the strategic ease of having all the Docks in one Ward which was so beneficial in planning Siemens into East Hull’s Marfleet Ward. Having the residents voice and the industrial zone in the same Ward will be of clear benefit. This proposal complements the accepted proposal in East Hull of placing all of the Eastern Docks in the Marfleet Ward.

This proposal would remove the Shire Streets which were part of the current PKGA box. Although we could see the logic of them being similar to Hessle Road, the inclusion of this block on the Draft Map led to the Boundary Commission’s heretical

14 proposal to divide Hessle Road fly-over to fly-over. In light of this, we propose placing “The Shires” into our proposed new Newington Ward. From a Governance perspective having all of the Hessle Road S.222 anti-prostitution zone in one Ward is imperative for a statutory response to this anti-social behaviour. Equally with this area of Hessle Road fast becoming a heritage and memorial trail for the Fishing Industry this proposal will link all the Murals to the fisherman, which are being erected with funding from Hull City of Culture 2017 in May, along with the Bethel Boards that will mark the deaths of the 6000 lost trawlerman.

By adding MYTA and MYTB and 799 of MYTD this equates to a Ward of 10,362 or +5% variance. We now propose calling this Ward, St Andrews & Docklands.

Newington

Our proposal comprises of a Newington of the existing NTNA, NTNB, NTNC and NTND [part thereof], NTNE and PKGA. Whilst we accept the moving of Woldcarr, Northfield and Springfield to the new Boothferry Ward we object to Parkfield moving as it has physical connectivity to Alliance and De la Pole Avenue via an access Road. For waste management and crime issues it makes sense to leave this connected to Newington Ward. The inclusion of the left hand side of Hawthorn Avenue from STAC, includes no residents but allows the industry that in co-located to the new housing development to be in the same Ward, which appears to be a far better fit.

The main proposal of change is for the whole of the Gipsyville estate to remain in this Newington Ward rather than Pickering. The Boundary Commission draft seems to have accepted the case for Gypsyville to remain in one ward. There is absolutely no case why this should not be Newington Ward. This original estate was 1930s in character and abutted the former Boothferry Park Football Ground, for most of the time the estate existed. It is logical for this community to continue to share a Ward with the new housing built upon the old ground. Equally the long-established links of Football support from these neighbouring community streets are continued by having the common shared link of the KC Stadium in the same Ward.

A cursory glance at the map would show that the concentrated settlement of housing built upon the former Amy Johnson School site sits practically alongside the new build off of Wheeler Street and the Boothferry Park site, joining onto North Road and Gypsyville. In contrast the nearest housing settlement in Pickering Ward to Gypsyville is separated by the Park, and the soon to be developed new industrial park that will be sited between “the Shires” and “Summergroves”. The housing tenure of both Gypsyville and Pickering is extremely different in development. In contrast the mixed tenure of refurbished Council Housing and new build [by

Keepmoat] for both sale and housing association rent in Gypsyville a few years ago directly mirrors the new development and rental and sale mix, by the same [Keepmoat] developer, on Amy Johnson off Hawthorn Avenue. This again lends to the view that both should be in Newington Ward.

At the Anlaby Road end of North Road, Gypsyville has shared retail and shopping facilites with Newington Ward around the new Aldi, and the traditional shopping footprint. It appears that an overhead railway-line for freight has wrongly been seen as a community divider, when it most certainly is not.

In contrast Hessle High Road has few shared neighbourhood shops or facilities that would unite these residents of Gypsyville with those far further West in Pickering Ward, where they look West for retail reasons to Sainsbury and Aldi at Summmergroves roundabout.

The socio-economic footprint of Gypsyville also has far greater linkages with the City Centre than the more suburban Pickering Ward. We invite consideration of the social segmentation maps enclosed in our submission which show far greater synergies with Newington. In light of this evidence, and no contra indications made within the Boundary Commission draft proposals, we invite the Boundary Commission to keep Gypsyville as one entity but within a Newington Ward.

By keeping “the Shires” in this Ward they stay in a Ward with similar housing stock, and age profile to much of the tradition Newington Housing. Much of this Shires area is now available for private rent, and has a mix of tenants. There are no such other properties in Pickering Ward, lending further support to its clearer synergies away from Pickering Ward. On these proposals the Newington Ward is now sized at 9976 electors meaning a variance of +1.6%. We propose this Ward being called Newington and Gipsyville.

Pickering

With the extraction of the Gypsyville boxes of PKGA and NTNC the newly proposed Pickering, as a two-person Ward can be easily constructed. We invite consideration of the “customer insight maps”. This proposed Ward is 6589 which is a variance of less than +1%, providing far better electoral equality than the original proposal for this Ward.

2. Summary for West Hull and the North Hull Wards, West of the River Hull

These proposals show complete agreement with the Boundary Commission on 50% of their draft proposal and Labour Group agreement with the most minor of tweaks on 60% of the proposed new draft Wards. The alterations the Hull Labour Group proposes are a direct response to the public contention in the other Wards. This covers an area of FOUR WARDS covered by TWELVE Councillors. We stick within this numerical balance, but instead make a proposal of 2 x 3 Councillor Wards; and 3 x 2 Councillor Wards, rather than the proposed 4 x 3 Councillor Wards.

In one sweep these proposals will ensure residents’ consensus, removing from the draft map the two major controversies that it has unleashed. We know there is widespread support for OUR proposals which will unite rather than divide some of Hull’s most historic communities. This settlement would still lead to a net reduction in the 2-person WARDS for the whole City from 9 to 6, when compared with the 1999 Boundary Commission final proposals.

EAST OF THE RIVER HULL

1. AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED MAP WITH NO CHANGES

Drypool

We accept the draft proposals, and believe that moving Garden Village into Holderness makes more community sense.

Holderness

We accept the draft proposals, and see this as making far more community sense by moving Garden Village into this ward.

Southcoates

We accept the proposed Boundaries of the New Southcoates Ward proposed on the Map.

Kingswood

We support the current proposed Boundaries of the draft Boundary Commission map. Attempts to make Kingswood a 3 person ward would merely mean the addition of an artificial community of Council Housing from across major road divides to make up the required numbers. Whilst we have observed some opposition to the draft proposals, we believe this is not spontaneous. The Chair of the “outraged” Residents Association is the Lib Dem proposed candidate for this area for 2018. His desire to see a combined “Kingswood” is based upon his perceived political advantage.

The Kingswood estate’s recent unification by a Council-funded link-road was opposed by many residents of the Kingswood West Estate, who did not want the residents of old Kingswood [access off Wawne Road] to be linked, as it would also link the nearby social housing. There are even objections listed to the Council’s proposed link-road in the Kingswood Action Plan consultation documentation. This reflected this opposition at the time from the new development of Kingswood. It is wrong to see this recently joined community as therefore homogenous. Whilst in 10- 20 years these historic divisions may have elapsed, for now the Boundary Commissions current proposal reflects the reality on the ground.

We enquired as to the Member of Parliament for Hull North, Diana Johnson MP as to how many representations she had received regarding the proposed boundaries for the Kingswood Ward. She informed us that not one letter or phone call has been received on the subject of the proposed Kingswood Ward.

On this basis we believe it would be wholly wrong to force a un-natural settlement on the Council Estate residents across the main Bude Road into a contrived entity to help create a “3 person Kingswood Ward”, which otherwise does not numerically add up.

North Carr

The Boundaries that are proposed for North Carr meet with our broad support. They keep the Garths as one unified area, and also keep the original community North of Wawne Road Roundabout as a homogenous entity. There are many myths that the Western area is aligned to Kingswood. The reality is the through Road is a recent construct that was opposed by many on “West Kingswood”. Despite the Road being approved anyway, it is some years off this community being unified. This stems from

18 the fact that the new build housing sits closely located with the social housing of North Bransholme. The housing off Wawne Road consists of far more modest starter homes, and privately rented properties, differing from the predominantly owner occupied West Kingswood which is far higher priced and different in design and scale and tenure.

West Carr

This proposed Boundary re-unites Sutton Park in one homogenous community, righting the wrongs of the poor administrative Boundary that was arrived at in the final recommendation agreed in 1999. We have detailed in comprehensive detail above that putting aside political expediency, this is a sound coherent boundary, that far better serves the community. West Carr, as it would now be, is a clear conurbation divided by major arterial Roads.

2. AGREEMENT WITH THE MAP WITH MINOR CHANGES

Marfleet

We agree to the Ward Proposals with a tweak to remove Griffin Road and Parthian Road from Longhill Ward and return this property to the Marfleet Ward in which they currently sit. Our draft proposal had proposed moving this to get better electoral equality for Ings but as this proposal was rejected, there is little point in moving this community from their current governance arrangements and the reversal of this move significantly improves electoral equality getting rid of the second 8% on the draft map. The new Marfleet Ward would have 10,002 electors, a variance of merely +1.8%

Longhill

We agree to the Ward Proposals with a few minor tweaks. We believe that following the drain is a far more natural divider up until the major Road of Marfleet Lane. At this junction, we believe the Boundary should follow Marfleet Lane to Staveley Road and then Hopewell Road. This effectively moves East Mount Avenue into Longhill and this makes sense as access to this area is via Saltshouse Road, and the families down here use the Longhill Primary Schools. The areas of Mallard and

Winchester more naturally sit with Longhill as the current boundary arbitrarily chops Mallard Road in half and can only be accessed by driving through Longhill currently. Our proposal would make a new Ward size of 9,202 electors or a variance of -6.3%

Ings

We agree to the Ward Proposals with the following tweaks. Balham Avenue and the streets off are accessed via Bellfield Avenue, which the commission proposes and the boundary between Ings and Sutton Wards. This boundary in the commission’s draft isolates this area from its shared community. We propose instead altering this boundary by moving it to Saltshouse Road to the North of Balham Avenue and then down to include part of INGSF around Neasden Primary School and then returning to the proposed draft Boundary at the point below Peckham Close. This area is then united with its shared community of Ings Estate.

The proposed changes to the Longhill Boundary would result in the Council Housing on Anson and Leander Road also being encompassed within this Ward. This move effectively counterbalances the changes to the Longhill Boundary to reflect the realignment down the drain bank. This would lead to a new Ward of 6,846 or a variance of +4.6%.

Given that this footprint no longer just covers the Ings Estate and that Bellfield Avenue runs right through the proposed ward east to west, we propose that this ward be called ‘Bellfield Ward’.

Sutton

We agree to the Ward Proposals with a minor tweak listed above that pertains to Balham Avenue returning to the Ings Ward. This revised tweak has the effect of leading to a new Sutton Ward of 10,067 or a variance of 2.5%. This massively improves the electoral equality for this area getting rid of one of the other 8% variances on the draft Map.

3 Summary of the Proposals for Wards for East Hull and the North Hull Wards East of the River Hull

These proposals show complete agreement with the Boundary Commission on 60% of the draft proposal and agreement with the minor tweaks on 40% of the proposed East of the River Wards. We believe these minor changes make modest improvements that can meet with the broad agreement of most communities East of

20 the River Hull. We also are clear that these minor changes proposed dramatically improves the electoral equality removing two of the three largest “out-riders” on the draft map, Marfleet [-8% in the draft] and Sutton [+8% in the draft]. This should be a key consideration of the Boundary Commission in its final conclusions. These changes also improve the community and governance fit for these four Wards in East Hull.

Overall Summary

Our proposals mean that the number of Wards that have a variance of less than 2% is now 57.1% of the Map. This compares to the Boundary Commission proposals where this figure is 50%. Our new amendments reduce the number of Wards with a variance of +8/-8% from 3 to 1, a reduction of 66%. We recommend these proposals to the commission.

Hull Labour Group

March 2017.

Contact Officers - Andrew Stankard & Lesley Garner, Principal Cabinet Support Officers, Kingston upon Hull City Council, The Guildhall, Kingston upon Hull, HU1 2AA.

Contact :- 01482 300300 Email:- [email protected] or [email protected]

APPENDIX 1 – CUSTOMER INSIGHT

Drawing on a range of local and national datasets, and linking socio – demographic information with real local attitudinal and transactional data, Hull’s customer segmentation model sub divides the city’s population into 13 distinct groups (or segments).

The model provides a detailed and accurate understanding of our resident’s and their distribution around the city.

The segments, built at Census Output Area level, are specifically designed so that residents living in the same segment share similar social, economic, demographic, behavioural and attitudinal characteristics.

APPENDIX-II

CHANGES PROPOSED ON LABOUR DRAFT AMENDMENTS

AVENUE AVEA Avenue 2541 2586

AVEB Avenue 1238 1265

AVEC Avenue 1679 1703

AVED 356 from MYTE Avenue 1325 1733

AVEE Avenue 1524 1546

AVEF Avenue 1047 1070

9903 3301 per Cllr

1% Variance

BEVERLEY Beverley 1448 BEVA 1315 Beverley 842 BEVB 845 Beverley 1933 BEVC 1958 NEWD Beverley NWDD 1355 [Less East of Bev Beverley 2280 BEVD Rd] 1210

6683 3342 per Cllr

2% Variance

MYTON Add NWDB Myton 1068 NWDB 1519 Myton 1041 MYTC 1093 799 to STAA Myton 1045 MYTD 401 356 to AVED Myton 1811 MYTE 1501 Myton 1835 MYTF 1932

6446 3223 per Cllr

-2% Variance NEWINGTON Newington 1045 NTNA 1012 Newington 1668 NTNB 1485 [383to Booth] Newington 1889 NTND 1515 Newington PKGA 2157 Newington 1382 NTNE 1406

NTNC 2401

STAC PART 0

9976 3325 per Cllr

2% Variance

ST ANDREWS STAA St Andrews 1469 1540

STAB St Andrews 1630 1616

STAC St Andrews 1153 1008

Myton A St Andrews MYTA 2636 Myton B St Andrews MYTB 1280 799 from MYTD St Andrews MYTD [PART] 799 STAD St Andrews 1438 1483

10362 3454 per Cllr

5% Variance

BOOTHFERRY

Proposal Exisitng Draft Boundary Proposal 9630 Less Parkfield Drive & Riley NTND Development -421

9209 3070 per Cllr

-6% Variance

PICKERING

PKGB 1387

PKGC 1561

PKGD 1465

PKGE 1103 Less Costello Playing PKGF Part Field Area 1073

6589 3295 per Cllr

1% Variance

EAST OF THE RIVER PROPOSALS

INGS

Proposal 6497

SUTA Part 148

INGF Part 348

MARF Part 500

INGA Part to Longhill & Bilton Grange -261

INGB Part to Longhill & Bilton Grange -386

6846 3423 per Cllr

5% Variance

LONGHILL & BILTON GRANGE

Proposal 9985

INGA Part 261

INGB Part 386

MARF Part to Marfleet -930

MARF Part to Ings -500

9202 3067 per Cllr

-6% Variance

MARFLEET

Proposal 9072

MARF Part 930

10002 3334 per Cllr

2% Variance

SUTTON

Proposal 10563

SUTA Part -148

INGF Part -348

10067 3356 per Cllr

2.50% Variance

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX IV

Email to Councillor Mike Ross sent 15/02/17

Mike,

It is becoming clear that your wish to meet to discuss the boundary issues is less than heartfelt despite comments from you and members of your group to the contrary.

So far we have offered you three times and dates to meet with us and you have rejected every one of them. The latest offer was for a meeting on rising of the Finance and Value for Money Overview & Scrutiny Commission on Friday 17th February which you refused because Councillor Dave McCobb could not attend. I accept that you have said that he is working but given his declaration that he works from home, (Park Avenue), how difficult is it to excuse himself for a short while to meet with us? Diary confusion aside, you are perfectly aware that I work in Grimsby and so your alternative offer of before 5.30 on Thursday 16th was not helpful. In contrast we have already successfully met with the Conservative Group at the first request.

I find it difficult to understand why the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group cannot meet with us without Councillor McCobb being present unless you are afraid that there will be some great agreement pushed on Friday during one meeting, which would be incredibly naïve.

I would expect you to be confident enough to discuss broad issues and ‘red lines’ which may allow some advancement and I will hold open the invitation to meet on Friday in the hope that you are serious about trying to reach some form of agreement prior to the next Council meeting, as you indicated. Should you remain determined not to meet without him I would be willing to arrange for a teleconferencing facility to be made available.

Yours

Councillor Daren Hale

NORTH CARR

KINGSWOOD

WEST CARR

ORCHARD PARK

SUTTON

LONGHILL & BILTON GRANGE

UNIVERSITY

BELLFIELD

HOLDERNESS BEVERLEY

WYKE

SOUTHCOATES

DERRINGHAM AVENUE

MARFLEET CENTRAL DRYPOOL

BOOTHFERRY

ST ANDREWS & DOCKLANDS NEWINGTON & GIPSYVILLE

PICKERING

Map provided by: Business and Information Systems Operations Team, ICT Ref: Proposed_wards_2017-03.mxd Scale: 1/14,000 @ A0 µ