Individual submission to Boundary Review in Borough (Edward Carlsson Browne) – July/August 2014

This document sets out my submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for (‘the LGBCE’) for new warding arrangements for Colchester Borough Council (‘the council’), in light of the decision to reduce the number of councillors from 60 to 51. My name is Edward Carlsson Browne and I am the Labour Candidate for the Harwich & North parliamentary constituency, which includes area of Colchester borough (‘the borough’) to the north, south and east of Colchester. I grew up just outside the borough in Alresford, was educated in Colchester itself and have many relatives and friends living in or around Colchester, so I consider myself to be well‐ informed about community identities in the Colchester area.

My interest is primarily with those areas contained within the Harwich & North Essex constituency, since I do not have any formal mandate to comment upon arrangements elsewhere in the borough. However, the areas of the borough within Harwich & North Essex are made up three non‐contiguous parts, only one of which has an electorate that could be covered by an integer number of three‐ member wards. It is therefore inevitable that the new wards created by the review process will cross current constituency boundaries.

The borough had an electorate of 130,550 in April 2013 and in April 2020 is predicted to have an electorate of 144,964. With a council size of 51, this would require each councillor to represent an average of 2,560 electors according to the 2013 figures and 2,842 electors by 2020. In the rest of this submission, the ratio of the 2013 total electorate divided by the 2013 electorate per councillor will be referred to as ‘the current theoretical entitlement’, whilst the ratio of the 2020 total electorate divided by the 2020 electorate per councillor will be referred to as ‘the 2020 theoretical entitlement’. These ratios will be used to determine how many councillors should be assigned to a given area.

As the council currently elects by thirds, the presumption ought to be in favour of a uniform pattern of seventeen three‐member wards. The LGBCE’s guidance allows exceptions to be made where a uniform pattern would conflict with obligations to deliver electoral equality, reflect community interests and identities and promote convenient and effective local government, but I see no reason why a uniform pattern of wards would not be able to achieve these objectives.

I will now turn to consider each of the three parts of the Harwich & North Essex constituency that lie within the borough.

1. Dedham Vale and the Colne Valley

The four wards of Dedham & Langham; Fordham & Stour; Great Tey and West Bergholt & Eight Ash Green cover the northern part of the borough and are separated from the rest of the borough by the A12 trunk road. This is a rural area, although many residents commute to Colchester, London and further afield and the villages of Eight Ash Green, Great Horkesley and West Bergholt in particular are defined by their proximity to both Colchester and the A12.

At present they have an electorate of 13,011 and by 2020 they are predicted to have an electorate of 13,504, giving a current theoretical entitlement to 5.08 councillors and a 2020 theoretical entitlement to 4.75 councillors. This area should therefore form the core of two wards, but must be combined with other areas in order to obtain electoral equality. Given that the electorate of these areas is predicted to increase only marginally by 2020, whilst the electorate of the borough will increase by over 10%, it would be sensible for them to be combined with faster‐growing parts of the borough in order to ensure a relatively stable ratio of councillors to electorate.

Although the A12 is the biggest road passing through these wards, its status as a trunk road means that it is not always the primary avenue for local communication. In this regard attention should be paid to the A134, the B1508 and Boxted Straight Road as connecting factors both between the villages in this area and with other nearby settlements.

I do not wish to propose any definite arrangement of wards for this area, since the comparatively small size of the parishes here means that there is more than one workable solution here. I would however note that the primary avenues of communication radiate out from Colchester, rather than passing laterally through the rural area, and that the villages are depend Colchester for secondary education, retail and entertainment purposes. The A12 should not therefore be viewed as an uncrossable barrier in this area.

2.

The town of Wivenhoe is situated in the east of Colchester borough and is bordered on three sides by Tendring district and the River Colne. The only land area within the borough that adjoins Wivenhoe is the University polling district (EW). As the name implies, this polling district covers the main campus of the University of Essex at Wivenhoe Park. At present Wivenhoe has two two‐ member wards, with Wivenhoe Cross comprised of the University and the north of Wivenhoe, whilst Wivenhoe Quay is made up of the remainder of the town. Prior to the last redrawing of wards, all of Wivenhoe was covered by a single three‐member ward.

At present the two Wivenhoe wards have an electorate of 7,691 and this is predicted to increase to 8,199 by 2020, giving a current theoretical entitlement to 3.00 councillors and a 2020 theoretical entitlement to 2.88 councillors. This is well within allowable levels of electoral equality.

Such a ward would be a strong representation of community identities. Many students at the university live in Wivenhoe and this is particularly reflected in the intakes of Broom Grove Infant and Junior Schools. The University is a major employer in the town, all buses from Wivenhoe go through the Wivenhoe Park campus on their way to Colchester and the present pairing of the university with parts of Wivenhoe has provided for effective local government arrangements. A merger of the two existing Wivenhoe wards would minimise disruption for the electorate and create a ward with strong, clear boundaries that is a good representation of local community identities. I recommend that this ward be called Wivenhoe.

3. Mersea and Colne Banks

The three wards of East Donyland, Pyefleet and West Mersea are situated to the south of Colchester, along the west bank of the Colne. Whereas areas to the west are part of the Witham constituency and areas to the north are part of the Colchester constituency, these wards form a detached part of the Harwich & North Essex constituency. The bulk of the electorate in this area lives in the town of West Mersea on Mersea Island, whilst the next largest settlement is just to the south of Colchester , which comprises the East Donyland parish. In between these two areas lie the parishes of Abberton, , Langenhoe and Peldon, whilst the rest of Mersea Island is covered by the parish of East Mersea.

At present this area has an electorate of 10,291 and by 2020 this is predicted to increase to 11,246, giving a current theoretical entitlement to 4.02 councillors and a 2020 theoretical entitlement to 3.96 councillors. West Mersea itself has a current entitlement to 2.37 councillors and a 2020 theoretical entitlement to 2.27 councillors. It is therefore clear that the Mersea and Colne banks area must be placed in two separate wards, one of which should be based primarily upon West Mersea.

West Mersea borders only two other parishes, namely East Mersea and Peldon. East Mersea itself has a road connection only to West Mersea, whilst Peldon is linked to West Mersea by Mersea Island’s only road to the mainland, the Strood. It is clear that these areas should therefore be linked together in a single ward, but their combined electorate would still fall outside the allowable 10% variance. At present Peldon and East Mersea are part of the Pyefleet ward along with Abberton, Fingringhoe and Langenhoe. If the entire wards of Pyefleet and West Mersea were combined, they would have a current electorate of 8,216 and a predicted 2020 electorate of 8,674. This equates to a current theoretical entitlement to 3.06 councillors and a 2020 theoretical entitlement to 2.96 councillors. This is well within allowable levels of electoral equality.

Such a ward would have strong internal connections along the B1025 and be linked together by the 67 and 175 bus routes. The Roman River and Abberton Reservoir constitute strongly, easily recognisable boundaries to the north and west. West Mersea, as a key local service centre, would act as the focal point and by combining two existing local government wards disruption to community identities would be minimised. I recommend that this ward be named Mersea & Pyefleet.

Aside from my proposed Mersea & Pyefleet ward, East Donyland parish is bordered only by the River Colne and by unparished areas. It would therefore be necessary to have a ward combining Rowhedge and parts of Colchester. Though Rowhedge is geographically distinct from Colchester, such a linkage would not be overly disruptive. At present East Donyland ward includes the Cherry Tree polling district (EC), which is self‐evidently a contiguous part of the Colchester urban area and thus it is clear that Rowhedge is already linked with Colchester.

Nevertheless, Rowhedge’s strongest links are not to Blackheath but to the Old Heath area of Colchester. Both communities are defined by their proximity to the River Colne and both have a strong village identity, in spite of Old Heath’s location within the Colchester urban area. They are connected by the 66 bus and a footpath which is to be upgraded to a cyclepath, the Rowhedge trail. Residents of Rowhedge are dependent upon Colchester for many of their retail needs and their nearest supermarket is the Co‐Op on Abbots Road in Old Heath.

However, East Donyland parish and Old Heath ward do not have a sufficiently large electorate to justify being assigned a three‐member electorate on their own. I therefore suggest that they be combined with a third community defined by its proximity to the river, namely the Hythe (here defined as those streets within the current New Town wards) to the east of Port Lane (and including those properties on the eastern side of Port Lane). Such a ward would unite an area currently covered by the same Neighbourhood Action Panel and connected by the 61 and 64 bus routes.

I regret that I cannot state with certainty what the electorate of such a ward is or would be, since I do not have access to detailed information regarding the distribution of electorate within the current Hythe polling district (AY). I am nevertheless certain that it would be comfortably within the allowable 10% variance of electorate from the average. I recommend that such a ward be called Hythe, Old Heath and Rowhedge.

To briefly reiterate, I have made comments on three separate areas of the borough regarding electoral arrangements and have made specific proposals for three wards, as follows:

Hythe, Old Heath and Rowhedge

Parish/Polling Current Ward April 2013 April 2020 2013 Theoretical 2020 Theoretical District Electorate Electorate Entitlement Entitlement Rowhedge East Donyland 1539 2022 0.60 0.71 Barn Hall Old Heath 1691 1781 0.66 0.63 Old Heath Old Heath 2362 2444 0.92 0.86 Scarletts Old Heath 527 541 0.21 0.19 Hythe (part) New Town 2381 2714 0.93 0.95 Total 3.32 3.34

Note that whilst these figures appear to show that councillors for this ward would represent 11% more electors than the borough average, they include the entire electorate of Hythe polling district. My proposed split of Hythe polling district would ensure acceptable electoral equality was achieved with a measure of ease.

Mersea and Pyefleet

Parish/Polling Current Ward April 2013 April 2020 2013 Theoretical 2020 Theoretical District Electorate Electorate Entitlement Entitlement Abberton Pyefleet 368 385 0.14 0.14 East Mersea Pyefleet 204 669 0.08 0.24 Fingringhoe Pyefleet 652 504 0.25 0.18 Langenhoe Pyefleet 481 213 0.19 0.07 Peldon Pyefleet 446 468 0.17 0.16 West Mersea West Mersea 6065 6435 2.37 2.26 Total 8216 8674 3.21 3.05

Wivenhoe

Parish/Polling Current Ward April 2013 April 2020 2013 Theoretical 2020 Theoretical District Electorate Electorate Entitlement Entitlement University Wivenhoe 1613 1918 0.63 0.67 Cross Wivenhoe Wivenhoe 1737 1785 0.68 0.63 Cross Cross Broome Grove Wivenhoe 1181 1231 0.46 0.63 Quay Wivenhoe Wivenhoe 3160 3265 1.23 1.15 Quay Quay Total 7691 8199 3.00 2.88