APPENDIX A

Community Governance and Polling Districts & Places Review

Details of analysis of responses to the First Report

1. Background:

1.1 The Report to Council outlines the background which has led to these reviews taking place, and Council are reminded that whilst this particular review of Polling Districts and Polling Places falls outside of the statutory reviews which are now required to be conducted by each local authority every four years, the opportunity has been taken to conduct a full review of the whole of the Council area in parallel with the Community Governance Review, especially as a review was otherwise due to be undertaken before the end of 2011 in any event.

1.2 Council are reminded that whilst it is the responsibility of the Council to draw up a scheme of Polling Districts, and to designate geographical Polling Places, it is the personal responsibility of the Returning Officer to designate the physical Polling Stations within those geographical areas.

1.3 For the sake of completeness this report includes, in Appendix C, a list of the Polling Stations currently allocated to each Polling District. At the time of writing this report a very small number of Polling Stations had not been finalised, due to the need to ensure that the electorate in any given area is served as well as is reasonably practicable. Circumstances may also arise which mean that the Returning Officer has to designate alternative venues as Polling Stations, possibly at short notice.

2. Consultation:

2.1 In drawing up these recommendations the following groups or individuals were invited to comment during the review:

• Local Government Electors for the area under review o Official Notice in Isle of Wight County Press o Press Release dated 16th July 2010

• Existing Town and Parish Councils o Letter to all Town and Parish Clerks including a request to ensure that their members are made aware of the Consultation.

• Schools o Letter to all Schools (both LA controlled and Independent).

• Isle of Wight Council members o Letter to all members

B - 6 • Isle of Wight Youth Council members o Letter sent to Chris Smy (Isle of Wight Council Youth Empowerment Worker)

• Constituency Political Parties o Letter to all Constituency Parties who fielded Candidates at the June 2009 local elections.

• Isle of Wight Council Departments o Article in The Vine dated 15th July 2010 o Highlighted at Corporate Management Board to ensure all Service areas are aware

• The MP for the Isle of Wight o Letter to MP

• NHS / PCT o Letter to Chief Executive

• Isle of Wight Association of Local Councils and the Society of Local Council Clerks o Letter to Secretaries, in order to cascade to members

• Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce o Letter to Secretary, in order to cascade to members

• Rural Community Council o Letter to Chief Executive

• Isle of Wight Economic Partnership o Letter to organisation

2.2 The process was carried out in two stages with comments and suggestions being requested in the first instance. These where then assessed with an informal analysis and there was a further period of consultation on these comments. This was circulated to all respondents and to all Town and Parish Councils in order to seek further views, which have in turn been used to finalise the recommendations in the Report to Council.

2.3 This document deals with the responses received and recommended conclusions following both sets of consultation and makes final recommendations to Council. For ease of reference Community Governance issues are dealt with first, followed by polling places and districts.

2.4 A number of Parish and Town Councils on the Isle of Wight are considered to be “Protected”, and this status is conferred where a Parish or Town Council has had their existing electoral arrangements put in place or amended within the previous five years by either the Secretary of State, the Electoral Commission or the Local Government Boundary Commission for . With the exception of “Fishbourne” and “ and ” Parish Councils (whose B - 6 protected status expired in May 2011) all current protected statuses will have expired by May 2015 and it is currently proposed that a further review be carried out from June 2015, once all existing protected statuses have expired.

3. Summary of Responses received to Report – Community Governance Review

3.1 WEST WIGHT

Brighstone

During the first stage of the review a comment was received from Parish Council with the proposal that the area should be included in the Ward, rather than the Brook Ward as is currently the case. No further comments were received on this and as it is only a small area which affects a low number of residents and only impacts on the Parish Council it is recommended that this be amended.

Recommendation: Amend the warding of Brighstone Parish Council so that the Hulverstone area be included in the Mottistone Ward rather than the Brook Ward.

Calbourne

The area generated the largest number of responses when the review was first launched, and various suggestions were made, including options for dissolving Calbourne Parish Council and merging areas with either or Gurnard, and possibly including Tapnell in one of the resulting areas. Additionally, suggestions were made for alterations to the boundary in the Marks Corner area, although this can not be carried forward, as adjacent Parish & Town Councils are protected.

In any event, the prospect of changes to boundaries in the Yarmouth, Shalfleet, Calbourne and Gurnard Parish & Town Council areas did not find favour with the councils concerned once they had the time to reflect on the situation a few months after the initial submissions were made.

Yarmouth Town Council considered that the parish boundaries should not be altered due to their historical nature.

Shalfleet Parish Council did not formally discuss the review, but were informally divided in their opinion, and did not wish to give any formal comment at this stage.

Northwood Parish Council expressed support for the Marks Corner area to be included in their parish area, although it was noted that due to protected status this alteration could not be carried out at present.

Gurnard Parish Council passed a resolution to the effect that they strongly resist the proposal for part of Calbourne Parish to be included within Gurnard Parish.

B - 7 Finally, Calbourne Parish Council subsequently resolved that they were content with the current boundaries of their parish, and that the “status – quo” should be maintained.

The lack of any enthusiasm for change in the West Wight area has lead to a recommendation of “no further action”. It should be noted that when the original consultation document was issued in July 2010 Calbourne Parish Council were in the latter stages of a period of considerable change, and it would be fair to say that members of the Parish Council were not working as well together as they might have done. These circumstances may well have influenced the original suggestions put forward to dissolve Calbourne Parish Council, and it is a tribute to the hard work of both the parish clerk and elected members that the Parish Council now feels that it is working far more effectively, and that they do not wish to break up the existing parish council.

Recommendation: No Action

Freshwater and

No comments were received in respect of either Freshwater or Shorwell Parish Council.

Recommendation: No Action

3.2 CENTRAL WIGHT – Newport & Surrounding

Gatcombe

During the first round of consultation, Gatcombe Parish Council requested that their name be changed to “ and Gatcombe” Parish Council. No further comments were received. It is understood that this is a long-awaited change of name for Gatcombe Parish Council and that the Parish Council are keen for the change to be effected as soon as possible.

Recommendation: Proceed to amend the name of Gatcombe Parish Council to “Chillerton and Gatcombe” Parish Council.

Newport

During the first round of consultation, one elector commented that the Parish and Isle of Wight Council electoral boundaries should be altered so that part of Shide was no longer in the same electoral area as Pan. No further comments were received, and given the protected status of the whole of the Newport Parish Council area, the recommendation is for no action.

Recommendation: No Action

B - 8 3.3 EAST WIGHT – Wootton / and Surrounding.

Fishbourne

One elector in the Fishbourne Parish Council area had originally suggested that the parish area be divided into two, with the two areas so created added to either the Wootton Bridge Parish Council area and the ward of Ryde Town Council respectively. The same elector suggested that Fishbourne Parish Council could be merged in its entirety with Wootton Bridge Parish Council. Fishbourne Parish Council indicated that they were content with existing arrangements.

No further new suggestions were made in relation to the Fishbourne Parish Council area during the second stage of the review. The Parish Council raised some questions as to how Community Governance reviews could be conducted in the future once their protected status expires, and how this may relate to adjacent parish council areas and the expiry of other protected statuses.

An elector for the area questioned the effectiveness of the review, and it should be noted that there is no reason why further reviews cannot be conducted in the future, subject to the time limits within the relevant legislation.

Recommendation: No Action

Havenstreet and Ashey

During the first stage of the review, Havenstreet and Ashey Parish Council indicated that they were content with existing arrangements, and one local elector suggested that the Ashey area be merged with Town Council, and the Havenstreet area with either Fisbourne Parish Council or the Binstead ward of Ryde Town Council.

No further suggestions were received in relation to the Havenstreet and Ashey Parish Council area, and again one elector did question the value of the review process due to the number of areas which are currently covered by protected status.

Recommendation: No Action

Ryde

Suggestions received during the first stage of the review included a suggestion from Ryde Town Council that the south-eastern boundary be extended to include Bullen village, whilst Andrew Turner MP suggested that the boundaries around Ryde be pulled in to exclude the more rural open country.

Ryde Town Council had no further comment to make on the review, and Brading Town Council supported the comments made in relation to the proposed contraction of the boundaries of Ryde Town Council. Given the protected status of Ryde Town Council, the recommendation is for no action.

Recommendation: No Action B - 9 3.4 – BAY AREA

Sandown, Shanklin & Lake

Only one suggestion was made during the first stage of the review, which was to merge all three councils to form a single “Sandown and Shanklin Bay Council”. Sandown Town Council were actively opposed to the suggestion, and Shanklin Town Council made no comments during the first stage.

Shanklin Town Council noted the review report but had no further comment to make. The elector who made the original submission was disappointed that the review was not making any recommendations for change in this area, but this is substantially due to the protected status enjoyed by two of the three Councils, and the opposition initially made by Sandown Town Council to any changes.

Recommendation: No Action

3.5 SOUTH WIGHT

Niton & Whitwell and St. Helens

Both Parish Councils expressed their contentment with the current arrangements during the first stage of the review.

No further comments were received, although and Whitwell Parish Council indicated that they were happy for the recommendation for no change.

Recommendation: No Action

Wroxall

During the first stage of the review Wroxall Parish Council suggested an amendment to the boundary between and Wroxall Parish Councils so that Appuldurcombe House, Farm and Park along with the downland behind the house was included in the Wroxall Parish Council area. This proposal generated some strong views from Godshill Parish Council.

Godshill Parish Council resolved (unanimously) to oppose any proposed changes to the boundary due to the strong historical links between Appuldurcombe House and the village of Godshill. Godshill Parish Council made the following submission:

“Appuldurcombe and Appuldurcombe House are historically very much a part of Godshill Parish. The Griffin, Freemantle Gate, Godshill School, and Godshill Church all having close ties with Appuldurcombe and the Worsley family, including the Obelisk and Deer Park Wall. Members of the Worsley family are buried in Godshill Churchyard and in 1983 the Worsley Obelisk was restored by Gen Richard Worsley with help from the former IW County Council and the people of Godshill Parish.”

These historical links between Godshill and Appuldurcombe House have been confirmed by the Isle of Wight Council’s Heritage Service Manager, who added B - 10 that one of the Godshill parish charities for poor widows was set up by the Worsleys. It is also of note that whilst Appuldurcombe House could be accessed by more than one route, that the route which would have been used by visiting guests and for attendance at Church, etc, runs north from the House to the village of Godshill, via Freemantle Gate.

So, any recommendation to alter the boundaries between Wroxall and Godshill in the Appuldurcombe area essentially comes down to the weighting of geographical aspects of the setting of the house against its historical context. The current boundary already includes Appuldurcombe Farm within the Wroxall boundary, and the new boundary proposed by Wroxall Parish Council does not involve any properties which contain registered electors.

One of the aims of a Community Governance Review is to secure effective and convenient local government, which considers the needs of electors. When considering boundary changes, a principle authority could, for instance, consider areas where a new housing development has grown to straddle a parish boundary. This is not the case in this instance, and indeed no electors are registered in the area suggested by Wroxall Parish Council for transfer.

In their original submission, Wroxall Parish Council cited the affect of any planning applications which may be made on the area suggested for transfer on Wroxall Parish Council, and noted that any such applications would be sent to Godshill for consideration, as the parish council in which the application lies is a statutory consultee. However, it has been confirmed that when considering written submissions, officers do not accord any greater weight to submissions from the parish council in which any application may lie. The only difference in the process would be if the application came to Committee, in which case the parish council in which the application lies would automatically be entitled to speak at the meeting, whereas any adjacent parish council would not.

Given that Appuldurcombe House has strong and demonstrable historical links with the village of Godshill, and that Appuldurcombe Farm (at which electors are registered) is already in the area of Wroxall Parish Council, it is recommended that no further action be taken. It is the opinion of officers that the historical links between Appuldurcombe House and the area of Godshill Parish Council outweigh the geographical links between the house and Wroxall Parish Council.

Recommendation: No Action

4.0 Summary of Responses Received - Polling Places and Districts Review

4.1

During the first stage of the review, the adequacy of the lighting in the Community Hall at Northwood House was raised, as was the quality of the disabled access facilities, and the nature of the steep hill between Northwood House and the High Street area.

B - 11 Northwood House responded to the initial report to advise that lighting in the Community Hall had been improved, and that they were not aware of any issues with disabled access. However, at the recent Parliamentary Voting System referendum held in May 2011 it was noted that any improvement in the lighting was only marginal, and that the Presiding Officer had, once again, requested that additional uplighters be brought in from the main area of Northwood House. The additional lighting improved conditions on the day of the referendum, but the use of uplighters was not an ideal solution.

The cost of hiring the Community Hall has increased considerably since the Trustees took over the running of the house, and the Returning Officer is minded to source alternative venues to Northwood House, which will then serve the Cowes North and Cowes West polling districts. Until such time as alternative venues are sought, the Community Hall at Northwood House will remain the default polling station for these areas.

4.2

The first stage of the review raised some general concerns about the location of the polling stations in East Cowes in relation to the polling district and parish ward boundaries, particularly in the Osborne ward of East Cowes Town Council.

No further comments were received in relation to East Cowes, and the Returning Officer is aware of the comments relating to the location of the polling station for the Osborne polling district. A more central location is being sought, which will prevent many electors from having to walk up the hill to the main road, which for some electors has meant that they currently have to walk past the polling station for an adjacent polling district.

4.3 Newport

During the first stage of the review Newport Parish Council raised some concerns over the location of polling stations in Newport West, Newport South and Parkhurst, whilst three electors suggested an amendment to electoral boundaries so that Shide was not in the same electoral area as Pan.

No further comments were received which directly related to polling arrangements, however, members will be aware that the Returning Officer needed to relocate the polling station allocated to Newport North prior to the Parliamentary Voting System referendum held in May 2011. Since the use of Summerfield Primary School was discontinued prior to the 2009 elections, there has been some debate over the best location for a polling station to serve this area, and the Returning Officer will now be looking for a more suitable venue, which is reasonably centrally located.

4.4 Ryde

Five electors contributed to the first stage of the review by commenting on the location of the Sherbourne Centre in relation to the eastern part of the Ryde West polling district. The access arrangements at Dover Park School were also

B - 12 raised, although this issue was addressed by using a different entrance for the recent Referendum on the Parliamentary Voting System.

Ryde Town Council supported the proposal to divide Ryde West into two polling districts, with a separate polling station serving each of those districts. It is proposed that the boundary between the two polling districts be drawn south along Pellhurst Road from the northern boundary of Ryde Cemetery, to the point where Pellhurst Road meets Playstreet Lane. From that point the boundary runs to the west along Playstreet Lane to the point where Playstreet Lane meets the southern boundary of the electoral division. A map is included at the end of this appendix. The Returning Officer will then seek to source a new polling station for the new polling district.

The effect of the new polling district will be to reduce travelling distances for many electors, and reduce the need for electors to need to use a car to travel to their polling station.

4.5

During the first stage of the review one elector raised concerns about the suitability of the disabled access at Christ Church Hall, Totland.

Following on from the publication of the first report, Totland Parish Council have replied to the effect that Christ Church Hall is aware that the current ramped side access is not ideal, and that the Hall is actively pursuing alterations to this effect.

5.0 Recommendations:

5.1 In drawing up these proposals the principles of the Council’s Eco- Island objectives have been adhered to wherever possible. To that end we have sought to ensure that all electors have good access to a local polling station in order to reduce travelling distances, and to ensure that buildings used are accessible to all.

5.2 It is recommended:

THAT the Isle of Wight Council gives effect to the Order which modifies the boundary between the Parish Wards and Polling Districts of Brighstone Parish Council, known as Brook Ward and Mottistone Ward, and which renames the existing Parish of Gatcombe to “Chillerton and Gatcombe”, and is designated as The Isle of Wight Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2011.

THAT the Isle of Wight Council adopts the scheme of Polling Districts and Polling Places as set out in Appendix C (attached). This resolution is to be effective for the purposes of proceedings preliminary or relating to any election to be held after 1st December 2011.

Contact Point: Clive Joynes, Electoral Services Manager. Tel 823341 [email protected]

B - 13

B - 14