Electoral Review Panel

9 March 2018 – At a meeting of the Panel held at 10.30 a.m. at Library.

Present: Mr Acraman (Chairman), Mr Boram, Mr Crow, Dr Dennis, Mr Jones, Mr Marshall, Mr Mitchell, Mr SJ Oakley and Mr Waight.

In attendance: Mr Burrett, Mrs Mullins and Mrs Smith, and Cllr Burgess, Cllr Mrs Burgess and Cllr Lamb of Crawley Borough Council.

Declaration of Interest

1. In accordance with the code of conduct, Mr Crow and Mr Jones declared personal interests as members of Crawley Borough Council.

Electoral Review of Crawley Borough Council

2. Mr Acraman outlined the role of the Panel as an Advisory Panel that could comment on any electoral review within West , including the borough council. The Panel reported to the Governance Committee.

3. The Panel considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance (copy appended to the agreed notes) which advised of a review underway for Crawley Borough Council and set out three potential warding schemes. It was clarified that the second scheme had been developed by the Borough Council. The first and third schemes were variants of other schemes developed by the Borough Council, that were being proposed by Mr Crow (first scheme) and Cllr Lamb, the Leader of Crawley Borough Council (third scheme) .

4. The Panel noted that the expectation of the Local Government Boundary Commission for that wards of three councillors would be the predominant pattern for Crawley, as the Borough Council wished to continue to elect in thirds. An 18 ward scheme with two members in each ward was discussed as it could benefit co-terminosity with the 9 County Council divisions, but was not supported because of the presumption of a predominantly three member pattern.

5. The Panel considered scheme 2, which gave an option for 12 wards of three members. It noted that this had been prepared by the Borough Council as an option should all three member wards be required. The Panel considered that this should not be supported because it would involve splitting many of Crawley’s neighbourhoods.

6. The Panel noted that options 1 and 3 were both schemes with 10 wards of three members plus 3 wards of two members. The Panel supported having a mixed pattern of wards and that , and should be the three wards of two member for the Borough Council. There was considerable agreement between the two options with the main differences being around (1) the Tushmore and Tinsley Lane areas in north Crawley, (2) the Town Centre and railway station redevelopments and (3) the boundary between , Broadfield and Gossops Green. It was recognised that Crawley’s very strong sense of local neighbourhood identity should be emphasised to the Commission and should be preserved in the warding scheme as far as feasible. Both schemes had all wards within the 10% tolerance level for projected electoral equality.

7. Mr Crow was invited to set out the benefits of scheme 1. Points in favour of scheme 1 were also made by observers Mr Burrett, Cllr Burgess and Cllr Mrs Burgess. A summary of the benefits were made as follows:

 This scheme would give wards that better reflected local neighbourhood patterns overall.  825 fewer electors would change wards or be moved out of their neighbourhoods in this scheme compared to scheme 3.  The entire Tinsley Lane area remained part of . This was in line with the County Division and reflected the local geography, with Tinsley Lane long being seen as part of Three Bridges. Residents strongly felt part of Three Bridges.  Broadfield would only be split two ways as opposed to three ways under Scheme 3, and the parts of Broadfield proposed to go into Bewbush had good links to Bewbush through two roundabouts and an underpass across the road. It also had a stronger and clearer boundary in Broadfield than Scheme 3  Most of the geographical area of Manor Royal and the town centre would remain in Northgate as per the existing arrangements which were better for co-terminosity with the County Council Division of Northgate & West Green.  No existing electors in the town centre would have to be moved out of Northgate Ward, with only future electors at new developments at two locations on the very edges of the town centre moving wards.

8. Mr Jones set out the benefits of scheme 3. Points in favour of scheme 3 were also made by observers Mrs Mullins and Cllr Lamb. A summary of the benefits were made as follows:

 Scheme 3 reflected a likely scheme to be recommended by Crawley Borough Council.  Electoral balance was better in scheme 3, which would ensure room for future growth within the 10% tolerance level.  The residents of Tinsley Lane, while separated from Langley Green by the Manor Royal Industrial Estate, shared much in common with Langley Green residents – their big issues included Manor Royal and .  The small part of Broadfield to be put into Gossops Green reflected the building style of Gossops Green. The part of Broadfield to be put into Bewbush reflected the building style of Bewbush. There were shared community interests for residents in these areas. These were more peripheral parts of Broadfield that would have less of an impact than the Scheme 1 proposal.  The town centre elements of scheme 3 reflected current ward arrangements well.

9. The Panel noted that both schemes were within the 10% tolerance expected for average projected electorate. It observed that scheme 1 would see fewer electors transfer to a new ward or division and looked more straightforward. Keeping Tinsley Lane in Three Bridges seemed appropriate to the majority of the Panel. It was hoped that if scheme 1 was recommended, that the Commission should be strongly urged to consider flexibility with electoral equality to enable the existing neighbourhood boundaries Bewbush and Gossops Green to be retained as much as possible because of the strength of community identity.

10. Mr Crow proposed that scheme 1 should be supported, with a caveat that the Commission should be asked to consider flexibility with electoral equality for Gossops Green and Bewbush to enable these wards to completely match their neighbourhoods while only having a two-way split in Broadfield. Mr Acraman seconded the proposal which was agreed.

11. Mr Jones asked for it to be recorded that he did not support the proposal.

12. Resolved – That scheme 1 be supported, but that the Commission be asked to consider flexibility with electoral equality for Gossops Green and Bewbush to enable these wards to completely match their neighbourhoods while only having a two-way split in Broadfield.

The meeting ended at 12.15 p.m.

Chairman