Kent County Council boundary review 2015: Submission from the Canterbury Society

The LGBCE scheme for eight county councillors from the Canterbury district involves a massive disruption, compared with the present divisions used to elect nine members. The LGBCE states that this disruption is caused by the reduction in the number of councillors.

However, very much less disruption of previous boundaries and of links between communities can be achieved – largely by returning to the pre-2005 boundaries when Canterbury district also elected eight county councillors.

Specifically, the LGBCE recommendations:

 Split six district wards, including two (Westgate and Wincheap) out of historic Canterbury’s five. Splitting wards is confusing to electors, makes extra liaison work for councillors and disrupts the activities of the political volunteer life- blood of democracy. It also violates the LGBCE’s objective of reflecting community identities.

 Mean that only 4 of the new 8 county councillors will fit into the City Council’s area member panel system – at present 7 of the 9 do so. These four area member panels reflect the identities and distinct interests of each of the two coastal towns, historic Canterbury city and the rural area. Again this would be confusing for electors and makes avoidable extra work for councillors; it is difficult to reconcile this with the claim to be providing effective and convenient local government.

 The medieval suburb of Wincheap, close to the heart of historic Canterbury, is to be removed from its natural home in the city and put in with a division which the LGBCE describes as one of rural parishes with shared interests and community ties. We find it extraordinary to see Wincheap described by the LGBCE as “a small area of housing on the Canterbury city side of the A2”.

The Canterbury Society therefore proposes the following alternative scheme

This scheme should keep to district wards as far as possible, only splitting two – Reculver and Wincheap. The boundary within Wincheap is strong and clearly identifiable – the A2. This division also follows the Thanington parish boundary, and so divides the older urban part of the ward from the areas of more modern urban development or more rural housing.

The county council division boundaries we would suggest are:

WHITSTABLE (two members). The present division unchanged, comprising the five wards which comprised the former urban district.

1

HERNE BAY (two members), comprising Beltinge, Greenhill, Herne & Broomfield, Heron and West Bay wards plus the unparished part of Reculver..

CANTERBURY RURAL NORTH, comprising Blean Forest and Sturry wards, along with Chislet and Hoath parishes.

CANTERBURY RURAL SOUTH, comprising all of the three rural wards south of the city plus Thanington parish (in Wincheap ward).

CANTERBURY CITY – either a 2-member division, which avoids any further ward split; or two divisions with one ward (probably Barton) split. A 2-member division would mean 14,983 electors per councillor (close to target); the outer boundary would be that of the current urban wards, so reinforcing their role, except for the clear A2/Thanington parish boundary.

If Barton were divided, using polling district boundaries, between the part closer the radial route to Sandwich and the part along the two radial routes to Dover, which is a reasonably natural split, the two divisions could be:

CANTERBURY CITY NORTH: Northgate, St Stephens and CB1, CB2, CB 4, CB7 & CB8 in Barton – 15,574, 9% off target.

CANTERBURY CITY SOUTH: Westgate, Wincheap (less Thanington) and CB3, CB5 & CB6 in Barton – 14,392, spot on target.

It is also possible to envisage an East/West split, dividing only Westgate.

Conclusion

The aims of the Boundary Review were:

 To deliver electoral equality so that each county councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the county.  To ensure that the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.  To devise electoral arrangements that provide for effective and convenient local government.

The proposals we have made represent an improvement in the range of electors per councillor. Under the Commission’s scheme, the figures would range from 13,261 to 15,451; under this alternative scheme the range would be 13,664 to 15,624.

Our proposals also reflect more accurately the real identities of local communities and make for more effective and convenient local government. We hope that it will be possible to re-consider the LGBCE proposals in the light of the problems which have been identified, including disruptive boundaries, the violation of community ties, and inconvenience to effective local government.

Contact: Professor Jan Pahl, Chair of the Canterbury Society

2