DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Further Electoral Review Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Further Electoral Review of Derbyshire County Council Response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England Draft Proposals for Derbyshire DECEMBER 2011 1 INTRODUCTION In April 2011, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England confirmed that an electoral review of the county electoral divisions in Derbyshire would commence on 11 July 2011. The Commission’s analysis of the 2010 electorate data for Derbyshire confirmed that significant imbalances exist in the county which meet their criteria for carrying out a Further Electoral Review to improve electoral equality. The analysis showed that 24 of the 64 divisions (38%) had an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the county average and one division, Hatton and Hilton, had an electoral variance of 39%. The Review covers the entire Council not just the electoral divisions where there is evidence of electoral inequality and consists of three phases: 1. Preliminary period – information gathering; 2. Stage 1 - council size i.e. proposals for the total number of councillors/electoral divisions; 3. Stage 2 – area definition i.e. proposals for revised boundaries and names of electoral divisions. In August 2011, the Commission confirmed that, in line with the Council’s own view, they were minded to recommend retaining the Council’s current size of 64 Members. In Stage 2, all interested parties (including the County Council) were invited to put forward proposals on the detailed electoral arrangements. On 22 November 2011, Cabinet approved the proposed county electoral division boundaries and electoral division names to be submitted to the Commission. In April 2012, the Commission published their draft recommendations for Derbyshire having considered all the submissions received on division arrangements for the County. The Commission’s proposals are broadly in line with those of the Council with the exceptions of Bolsover and North East Derbyshire districts where the Commission have proposed significant modifications to the Council’s proposals. Table 1 shows the Commission’s proposed distribution of electoral divisions by district, including the projected electorate at 2017 and the level of variance from the average elector:Councillor ratio across the county. 2 Table 1: Local Government Boundary Commission for England proposed number of Electoral Divisions and 2017 Electorate Number of Number of Average Electorate Variance District/Borough Electoral County electorate / 2017 2017 Divisions Councillors Councillor Amber Valley 9 10 100,773 10,077 3.3% Bolsover 6 6 60,192 10,032 2.9% Chesterfield 9 9 83,406 9,267 -5.0% Derbyshire Dales 6 6 59,733 9,956 2.1% Erewash 9 9 87,404 9,712 -0.4% High Peak 7 8 74,835 9,354 -4.1% North East Derbyshire 8 8 80,636 10,080 3.4% South Derbyshire 8 8 77,106 9,638 -1.2% Total 62 64 624,085 9,751 1. THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH Initial proposals for electoral division boundaries and names have been developed by the Council using data from various sources including: Summaries of current electorate by polling districts, parishes, parish wards, wards and districts (2011); Projections of total electorate by polling districts, parishes, parish wards, wards and districts (2017); Forecast housing completions (2011-2017); Details of parish electorate arrangements; GIS maps generated using data from the Electoral Registers. These proposals followed parish or parish ward boundaries, minimised the electoral variance within each district, and were developed as a basis for discussion with interested parties. The proposals attempted to balance the electorate but they did not necessarily reflect local communities. Each political Group on the Council was provided with a set of maps showing these officer proposals and asked to provide feedback and put forward alternative proposals for electoral division boundaries and names. All feedback and proposals received were mapped by officers and electorate projections produced. On 22 November 2011, Cabinet approved county electoral division boundaries and electoral division names to be submitted to the Commission following consideration of the proposals submitted by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Groups. The Council’s proposals were published on both the Authority’s and the Commission’s websites. Residents were made aware of the proposals from publicity on the Council’s website, publications as well as the local press. The Council’s agreed response was approved by a special Cabinet meeting held on the 29 May 2012 following discussions about the Commission’s proposals. Maps showing the Commission’s draft recommendations for each district/borough are 3 included in Appendix A and maps showing the Council’s response and further proposals are included in Appendix B. 2. THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSALS A summary of the responses to the Commission’s proposals for each district in the county is set out below. 2.1. AMBER VALLEY The Commission’s proposed division boundaries and names are the same as the proposals submitted by the Council for the divisions of Alport & Derwent, Belper, Duffield & Belper South, Greater Heanor & Horsley. The Council therefore accepts the LGBCE proposals for these divisions. The Council also accepts the Commission’s proposed name change of Ripley West & Ambergate to Ripley West & Heage. Furthermore, the Council accepts the minor modification proposed by the Commission in aligning the Codnor civil parish with the proposed Ripley East & Codnor electoral division from the existing electoral division of Heanor Central. However, the Council oppose the Commission’s proposals for the following divisions: Alfreton & Somercotes The Commission propose combining the Council’s proposed divisions of Alfreton & Somercotes and Swanwick & Riddings to create a two-member division named Alfreton & Somercotes. The Council oppose the creation of this two-member division and propose maintaining the two single member divisions as specified in the Council’s original submission. The reasons for opposing the LGBCE’s proposed two-member division are: The Commission has offered no justification as to why the division should be two- member. The Commission state the Council’s proposed Alfreton & Somercotes division would have 12% more electors per Councillor than the county average by 2017. This instigated the search for improving electoral equality. However, this is inconsistent with the variance levels of Whaley Bridge(-12%), Apperknowle(11%), Dronfield East(-11%) and Wingerworth & Shirland(11%) in other electoral divisions, all of which are proposed to be above or below a 10% variance from the county average but the Commission have not proposed multiple member divisions in these areas. The Commission have also offered no evidence to back up their comment that there is ‘apparent commonality’ between the Alfreton & Somercotes and Swanick & Riddings. The Council has wider concerns about the proposed two-member division. Community identity will suffer, as the proposed division combines the relatively urban areas of Alfreton and Somercotes with the more sparsely populated areas of Swanwick and Riddings. These two divisions have different needs and the 4 Council is concerned that constituents will find it very difficult to identify with their local Councillors. As a result constituents may be confused where responsibility and accountability will lie with their representatives. Furthermore, there can be unrealistic expectations among constituents that each member representing the division will know their particular problems and can respond accordingly. Another wider concern is that the proposals will not provide efficient and effective local government. The two member division will have in excess of 20,000 electors so the area proposed will be so large it renders inefficient and ineffective community leadership. The proposed two-member division will lead to potential duplication of effort, work and caseload and may result in an unbalanced workload for one of the two elected Members. The Commission’s proposal means that two Councillors have joint responsibility for an area and the electors. Although the two members could split workloads on a geographical basis to alleviate this issue, this in effect recreates two single member divisions. The two member division may also lead to confused lines of responsibility for residents and parish councils in what is already perceived to be a complex system of local government. It therefore does not make local politics and representation more accessible. 2.2. BOLSOVER The Council accepts the Commission’s proposed division boundary and name for Bolsover South. The Council also accepts the name change from the Council’s proposal for the Shirebrook electoral division to Shirebrook & Pleasley, whilst still maintaining the boundaries the Council proposed. However, the Council oppose proposals in the following divisions: Barlborough & Clowne The Commission propose to change the boundaries in the division to follow ground detail but their proposed boundary to the west of the adjacent Bolsover North electoral division does not follow any ground detail and splits the village of Stanfree from its neighbour of Oxcroft. The current boundaries and the proposed changes by the Council follow the existing parish boundaries of Whitwell & Clowne and polling districts BB and BC to the west. Around the urban area of Clowne the boundary follows the A618 Rotherham Road to the north and the minor roads of Hollin Hill Road and Border Lane to the