Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for on Warding Arrangements as part of the Electoral Review of City of Council

14 January 2013

City of York Council Liberal Democrat Group

York Outer Liberal Democrat Local Party

Introduction

This submission sets out proposals for warding arrangements based on the Commission’s proposed council size of 47 elected members representing a variety of one, two and three member wards.

This submission has given consideration to the Commission’s technical guidance and the statutory criteria with an overall aim to establish a pattern of wards that achieves good electoral equality, reflects community identity and provides for effective and convenient local government.

We have sought to use strong easily-identifiable boundaries when deciding where ward should be drawn and we have attempted to strike a balance between the need to reflect local identity with the statutory duty to ensure that everyone’s vote is of equal value regardless of where they live in York.

Most of the electoral wards in York are broadly accurate reflections of local community interests. Given the Commission’s recommendation that the council stay at 47 elected members, our submission has suggested ways of ‘tidying up’ existing wards that are currently projected to be significantly above or below the average electorate per councillor by 2018 (‘the quota’) in a way that is sensitive to community identity on the ground.

Statutory Criteria

As the Commission will be aware, Schedule 2 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 requires any proposal for new warding arrangements to have regard to the following statutory criteria:

 the need to secure equality of representation;  the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and  the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.

Equality of Representation

In our submission we have aimed to ensure equality of electoral representation, whilst maintaining community identity. Our proposals would see no ward created that 1 is more than 9% outside the average electorate per councillor by 2018. 21 of the 25 proposed wards are within 5% of this threshold.

Effective and Convenient Local Government

In our submission we have aimed to ensure that the wards are as conducive as possible to effective representation by elected members. While geographical unity is important we have also considered demographic unity and community identity.

Community Identity

The LGBCE guidance states that community identity “cannot be easily measured and can often mean many different things to different people.”

In our review we have sought to maintain as far as possible the historic distinction between York’s urban unparished area (administered by the former York City Council) and the suburban and rural parished areas that were located in the , Selby and Harrogate districts of North before local government reorganization in 1996. We have sought to join areas which share common interests and characteristics.

We have sought to use obvious and identifiable physical boundaries between communities, especially the Ouse, York’s largest river as well as some of the smaller waterways, stretches of the city’s bar walls, major roads and railway lines.

Parishes of York

York’s Parish Councils represent democracy at its most local level. We have maintained the system preferred by the Commission of using parishes as the building blocks of our proposed wards.

We have divided our submission into three geographical areas of York, using the River Ouse and the parished and unparished areas as our general dividing lines (see Map 1).

Area west of the River Ouse (currently represented by 17 councillors)

The current electoral wards of Acomb, Bishopthorpe, Dringhouses & Woodthorpe, Holgate, Micklegate, and Westfield.

Unparished area east of the River Ouse (currently 13 councillors)

The current electoral wards of Clifton, Fishergate, Guildhall, Heworth and Hull Road.

Parished area east of River Ouse (currently 17 councillors)

The current electoral wards of Derwent, Fulford, Haxby and Wigginton, , Heworth Without (see note on parishing below), Huntington and New Earswick, , Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without, Strensall and Wheldrake.

2

Map 1 – Proposed Geographical Areas for Warding Arrangements in York, showing existing ward boundaries

Proposed Wards

We have included draft names for our proposed wards although we are open to alternative suggestions from the Commission, residents and local community groups.

Rural and suburban wards east of the River Ouse (17 councillors)

The most pressing problem in this area is the electoral inequality in the wards of Derwent, Fulford and Heslington. In addition, the Strensall ward is projected to be 7% below quota by 2018.

We propose no changes to the following wards:

. Haxby and Wigginton . Heworth Without . Huntington and New Earswick . Osbaldwick

3

. Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without . Wheldrake . Fulford – our preferred option would see no change to the boundaries of Fulford Ward, detailed reasons for this are set out below.

Note on Heworth Without

As the Commission may be aware, Heworth Without Ward historically shared the same boundaries of the Heworth Without Parish but was expanded at the last review to take in a small area of York’s unparished area between Malton Road and Stockton Lane.

We understand that there will be a community governance review in York next year. It is the view of the Liberal Democrat Group that it would be in the best interests of convenient and effective local government if this review could consider parishing this area of Heworth Without.

4

Derwent, Heslington and Strensall

The Derwent ward is currently projected to be 13% below quota and Heslington 20% above quota. The campus has grown significantly over the last few years with more on-campus student accommodation scheduled to open in the next academic year. Our proposals for this area seek to solve both problems while improving community identity and securing effective and convenient local government.

Heslington

We propose creating a new ‘University’ ward that would encompass the University of York campus. This would be a single-member ward, roughly coterminous with polling districts YEB and YEC. This change might necessitate the Commission recommending the warding of Heslington Parish – we propose that the area covering Heslington village (roughly polling district YEA) is separated from the eight colleges of the University of York to create two parish wards, ‘University’ and ‘Village’ respectively. ‘Village’ ward could be linked with one of the neighbouring parishes (we have proposed either Dunnington or Fulford) to create a new single-member ward.

We appreciate the Commission is generally unwilling to split parishes; however in this unusual case it is our view that an exception would be in the best interests of local community identity. We understand that our proposal enjoys the support of some members of the University of York Student’s Union (YUSU) Community Assembly and many residents in Heslington village. The villagers currently form a mere 15% of the total electorate in the ward and their views were summed up at the last review by one respondent who stated “there is no clear reason why the University should remain forever part of this essentially rural ward [Heslington].” He went on to suggest that Heslington village should “join adjoining rural areas.”

These changes would allow the differing needs of the two communities in Heslington to be better represented by two councillors accountable to the separate electorates. The new University Ward would provide good electoral equality and reflect community identity and interests. Based on the experience of other cities including Middlesborough, Preston, Norwich and Hull a ward based around a university rather than a parish would provide effective and convenient local government for the student population. Crucially, rather than isolate students it would ensure that their views were properly represented.

Under our proposed scheme, students who live off-campus would still form a significant minority in the wards surrounding the university. Students who live in the private rented sector have similar needs to other local residents, e.g. information on refuse collection, anti-social behaviour issues and shared local facilities. By comparison, students who live in accommodation provided by the university have altogether different needs, especially as for most this will be their first experience of living in York; either as first-years, international or visiting students. Therefore they need different types of local representation from their councillor and our proposals reflect this. 5

We have two proposals for the Commission as to which of the neighbouring parishes Heslington village could be linked with. Either Heslington could join with Dunnington and Kexby to form a new ward – ‘Dunnington and Heslington,’ or could be linked with Fulford (see below).

There are a number of road links between Dunnington and Heslington – via Field Lane and Hull Road, or along Common Lane. The two areas are both thriving village communities with similar demographics and shared local concerns. An elected member would be able to focus specifically on the concerns of full-time residents in both areas. The new ward, while geographically larger, would therefore better reflect community identity than the current Heslington Village/University Ward arrangement and it would provide better electoral equality. The character of the current Derwent Ward would be maintained, but electoral equality would be improved for the long- term.

Our alternative proposal would link Fulford with Heslington village, although this depends on the Commission’s view in light of significant projected electorate growth in Fulford ward.

Strensall

Before local government reorganization in 1996 the Heslington, Dunnington and Kexby communities were grouped together for elections to County Council and Council. was part of Ryedale and was linked to the Stockton-on-the-Forest and Strensall parishes until boundary changes in 2003.

The addition of Holtby would help negate Strensall’s predicted -7 electorate variance and thus improve electoral equality.

6

Fulford

In 2000, the Boundary Report agreed that given the good electoral equality, reflection of local communities and identifiable boundaries that would be secured, the current single-member ward of Fulford should be maintained. We believe that this situation has not significantly changed over the last decade.

We have two options for the Commission to consider for Fulford.

a) Maintain Fulford as a single ward with current boundaries

Fulford has a distinct identity, as a village with historic parish boundaries which has been traditionally separate from the urban core of York.

The of Fulford was historically located in the Selby district of North Yorkshire (1974-1996) and was in the Derwent Rural District of the prior to 1974. The distinct identity of Fulford has been enhanced over the last ten years with the expansion of the annual Fulford Show and new community groups including Fulford in Bloom. The Parish Council has been cited more than once as an example of best-practice in local democracy. It is one of the most active in York and works closely with Fulford’s councillor to effectively represent the village at a local level. The River Ouse marks the natural western boundary of Fulford and is also the ancient border between the three Ridings of Yorkshire.

Recent archaeological discoveries in the fields around Germany Beck have led to a revival of interest in Fulford’s unique history. It is now widely accepted that the area was the site of the 1066 Battle of Fulford and English Heritage is currently undertaking a review on including the site on its Historical Battlefield Register.

The electorate projections supplied to the LGBCE by ’s City Strategy Directorate show that Fulford is expected to be some 21% below the average electorate per councillor by the year 2018. Having met with the officers to discuss these figures, the Liberal Democrat Group is extremely concerned that the Council has not taken the development at Germany Beck fully into consideration in their projections.

Planning permission exists for the construction of 700 homes at the site. The same electorate projections have been supplied to Fulford Parish Council by the City Strategy Directorate. We understand that these were provided to the LGBCE by the Parish Council at the last stage of the review. The projections estimate an additional 1,500 residents moving to Fulford by 2022/23 including 963 electors by 2018/19. If the Commission were to consider the long-term implications of the development, in the light of these more accurate estimates, we are confident that they would not recommend any changes to Fulford based on the statutory criteria.

7

b) A single-member Fulford and Heslington village ward

If the Commission were to base its recommendations on the short-term lower estimates and therefore judges that Fulford would be significantly overrepresented in 2018, then we would suggest linking Fulford with Heslington village, as outlined in our above recommendations for Heslington.

The villages of Fulford and Heslington share close proximity and a range of similar local characteristics. These include active community groups and independent businesses. The two communities face similar issues and in both areas residents are concerned about matters including the increase of student housing (HMOs), the protection of local services and York’s green belt. Currently the two villages work successfully together to address these concerns through the Fulford and Heslington ward committee.

The two villages share a number of amenities including local shops, banks, sports facilities and open green spaces. Heslington Lane runs between the two villages and it is a short walk to Heslington Main Street from Fulford.

Linking the two villages would re-establish the historic ties that existed prior to local government reforms when both communities were part of the Selby District of North Yorkshire. Before 1974 both areas were included in the East Riding of Yorkshire, in the Derwent Rural District. We are confident that the reestablishment of this link would be well-supported amongst residents of both.

There is a clear divide between Fulford and the urban area of York; our solution would maintain this and be preferable to joining Fulford or Heslington with the unparished urban area of York, i.e. Fishergate or Hull Road wards. It would enable both to maintain their unique village identity.

8

Unparished area east of the River Ouse (14 councillors)

The most pressing problems in this area are the electoral inequality in Fishergate and Hull Road. In addition the Guildhall ward is projected to be 8% overrepresented by 2018.

We propose no specific changes to the following wards:

. Clifton . Heworth

Fishergate, Hull Road and Guildhall

We are generally sympathetic to the proposal from York Green Party for a three member Guildhall Ward that would take in parts of some of the neighbouring wards to ensure electoral equality in this area.

Fishergate

Fishergate has a clear local identity as a historic district of York to the south of the city walls. Fishergate is the centre of York’s thriving cultural community with the newly refurbished York Barbican and many independent businesses along the main route into the city centre. The ward’s northern boundary currently skirts around the city’s bar walls and these provide a natural community barrier that we would like to see maintained in the new ward boundaries.

However, we appreciate that projected electorate size means that minor changes may have to be made to Fishergate’s boundaries to accommodate developments in the ward. The area around Lawrence Street and north of Heslington Road contains large numbers of small flats, shared housing (including student housing) and apartment style properties. This area looks more to the retail outlets on Foss Islands Road and the city centre and therefore could most easily be transferred to the Guildhall ward (which essentially covers York’s city centre) without radically changing the character of either Guildhall or Fishergate ward.

Hull Road

The current Hull Road ward is projected to be 17% above the average electorate per councillor by 2018. Following the model applied to Fishergate we would suggest that relatively small changes to this ward would improve electorate equality and make the ward a better reflection of local community identity.

The area to the west of Melrosegate (broadly coterminous with the HA Polling District) does not share many of the characteristics of the existing Hull Road ward. Particularly in the last few years, many new build flats aimed primarily at young professionals working in York’s city centre have been constructed in this area. Again this is a district that looks towards the facilities on Foss Islands Road and the city centre. Indeed it is only a short walk or cycle journey along Lawrence Street and through Walmgate Bar to reach the historic centre of York. If this area was

9 transferred to neighbouring Guildhall to form a three member ward it would improve electorate equality and create a larger city centre ward. This would better reflect the changes to housing patterns in York since the Commission’s last review.

We further propose that the Commission consider smoothing the boundary between the expanded Guildhall ward and Heworth and Clifton wards to remove some of the anomalies that we understand the Green Party submission has identified here.

10

Area west of the River Ouse (16 councillors)

The most pressing problem in this area is the electoral inequality in Rural West York Ward which was created in 2003 as something of a compromise and involves the amalgamation of seven rural parishes into the current unwieldy three-member ward.

We propose no changes to the following wards:

. Acomb . Bishopthorpe . Holgate . Westfield . Micklegate

Rural West York

The ward is projected to be 17% below quota in 2018 and therefore needs a radical restructuring. It is also a poor reflection of community identities within the ward. Given this, we propose breaking the ward down into its recognisable constituent parts. This entails the creation of two single member wards, one covering the parish of (Polling District YJA) and the other covering the three parishes of , with (Polling Districts YJG & YJH YJF).

Copmanthorpe and Poppleton

These two new wards would provide good electoral equality. They also reflect community identity and interests, and based on the experience of other single member wards that are coterminous with parish boundaries (e.g. nearby Bishopthorpe) they would provide for more effective and convenient local government. Given the large distances between the two communities this would also make it easier for a resident without access to a car to represent their community.

Since the establishment of a York unitary authority in 1996, Copmanthorpe has always been combined with other areas in somewhat contrived multi-member wards. This review gives the Commission an opportunity to improve the quality of local government for the community. A single councillor would be able to concentrate solely on the residents of Copmanthorpe, the Parish Council and other local groups. None of the councillors elected to represent Copmanthorpe in the elections of 1999, 2003, 2007 or 2011 were residents of the village.

Askham

The remainder of Rural West York covers the parishes of , and with Knapton (Polling Districts YJB, YJC, YJD, YJE). This would ideally form another single member ward. However, we recognise that this would be significantly below the average electorate per councillor and is not feasible at the present time.

11

Given this, we suggest that the area is combined with the outermost part of the Tadcaster Road area, east of Hogg’s Pond and south of the railway line (i.e. parts of the CA polling district of the Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward). This would form another single member ward. While we have generally kept parish and unparished areas apart, in this case we feel this provides the only viable solution.

This new ward would include the three parishes of Askham Bryan, Askham Richard and Rufforth with Knapton as well as the unparished Tadcaster Road area. We propose the boundaries of the unparished area would be the railway line, the Knavesmire/York Racecourse (the existing ward boundary with Micklegate) and the historic church of St Edward the Confessor at the junction of Tadcaster Road at St Helen’s Road. This area forms a natural community, separated from the rest of Dringhouses by a railway line and from the city centre by open green space.

‘Askham’ would be centred on the shared identity in the Tadcaster Road/Askham area of York, which manifests itself in the use of shared facilities (Askham Bar Park & Ride and Tesco Supermarket), shared transport links, the ‘Higher York’ partnership between York College and , and the suburban identity of cul-de-sacs such as the Horseshoe, the Middlethorpe estate and the Tadcaster Road area. Our suggested ward name reflects this; Askham derives from the Latin ascam or ascha meaning ‘enclosure of ash-trees.’ Indeed to this day a key characteristic of the Tadcaster Road area is the abundance of trees that shade the historic Roman route into York. A local public house, the Fox and Roman derives its name from the York-Tadcaster Roman Road and the old path of the road still delineates the parish boundaries between Askham Bryan, Askham Richard and Copmanthorpe.

The two areas have also been linked together in the new York Outer Parliamentary Constituency, created for the 2010 general election.

In 2000, Askham Richard Parish Council opposed City of York Council’s proposal to include it in the urban area of Acomb, contending “it would difficult for one person to represent two widely differing views”. We acknowledge their concerns but we do not believe that this would be the case with our suggested ward. The demographics in the two areas are similar, they share services, and the proposed ward would not be dominated by either the suburban or the rural parts – there is a roughly even split between the parished and the unparished areas - meaning that the elected member would have to give equal attention to either element in their council duties.

We certainly feel this provides a more natural fit for the rural area than joining with parts of the Acomb or Westfield Wards. It provides a viable solution for the Rural West York ward that is preferable to altering Bishopthorpe in the south or Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without in the north. Residents in the Askham area of York already look towards the Tadcaster Road area, both as an entrance to the city and for a wide range of facilities.

Woodthorpe and West Thorpe

12

We recommend that the remaining area of the Dringhouses & Woodthorpe Ward becomes a single member ‘Woodthorpe & Acomb Park’ Ward (Polling District CD and part of CC). The garden village of Woodthorpe is a clearly identifiable community with its distinctive Quaker-influenced style of housing and a range of community groups, local facilities and independent shops.

The remainder of the Dringhouses & Woodthorpe ward could form a single member ward that would cover the West Thorpe/Dringhouses area, eastwards from Wains Road (Polling District CB plus parts of CC and CA).

Note on York Central Liberal Democrats Submission

We note the submission by York Central Liberal Democrats and we feel that there is merit in their proposals for redrawing some of the existing boundaries, particularly in the Acomb and Westfield area. We note their preference for single-member wards across the whole of York and we believe that a number of their proposals identify distinct communities that could be better served by a single elected member e.g. Foxwood.

However, we recognise that the Commission might view a radical overhaul of warding arrangements to be outside the parameters of this review. We do feel that some of their single member boundaries could be combined to form viable two or three member wards, for example in the Heworth area. Where there are existing single-member wards in the suburban and rural areas of York we support the maintenance of these based on historic community boundaries.

13

PROPOSALS FOR NEW AND AMENDED WARDS

Electorate Projected Proposed Name Councillors Variance Variance Rationale 2012 2018 Population and geography make this natural community an obvious single-member ward, especially after recent expansion of the university campus. Supported by many students and resident community groups. Easier to represent issues common to first-year and international students on campus, i.e. residents new to York. Precedents from other cities; the university wards in Norwich, Hull, University 1 105% 100% Preston, Middlesbrough are communities focused around a university campus. Improve electoral equality. Natural flexibility in terms of student numbers, particularly those eligible to vote (UK, Ireland, European Union and Commonwealth citizens). Since 2003 every councillor representing the ward has been a recent graduate of the University and there is an active interest in local politics by many of the students and societies on campus. The Germany Beck development is the largest in York, with planning permission for 700 homes. Construction is expected to begin in 2013. 91% Fulford is a single coherent community and a historic village, (Option A) traditionally considered separate to the urban area of York in local government reorganization. Fulford 1 67% The ward boundary is recognizable on the ground, including conservation areas, green spaces and distinctive ‘welcome to Fulford’ 99% signage at the parish boundaries. (Option B) The Parish Council has indicated its support for the status quo, citing the Germany Beck development, as have a range of community groups and local residents.

14

Grouped together in the pre-1996 county and district seats and Derwent Rural District pre-1974. Dunnington & Linked by Common Lane and Hull Road via Field Lane. 1 108% 103% Heslington Similar demographics and active community groups. Easier to represent as a ward councillor, similar communities with similar problems Minor change as the ward would again include Holtby. The parish of Holtby was formerly in Ryedale District and was included Strensall 2 98% 95% with Strensall ward until 2003 The addition improves and provides for long-term electoral equality in this ward. Single coherent unit and natural community. Poppleton 1 109% 107.7% Improves electoral equality. Significant local support. Would follow the pattern of single-member wards in the rural areas south and east of York. Copmanthorpe 1 103% 98% Easier to represent as a ward councillor, currently transport links across Rural West are poor so councillors who do not drive are disadvantaged.

Woodthorpe and 1 102% 99% Acomb Park The precise electorate projections would depend exactly where the Commission chose to delineate these unparished wards. We have used the approximate boundaries proposed by York Central West Thorpe 1 103% 98% Liberal Democrats.

Single member ward covering just the ‘rural’ element is not feasible. Shared community identity/facilities in the Askham/Tadcaster Road. Secures equality of representation and a balance between rural and Askham 1 102% 98% suburban elements. Roughly 45% residents would be from the parishes so no councillor could afford to ignore their needs. The electorate would be approximately 3400 electors in 2012, rising to 3450 by 2018

15

Fishergate 2 91% 98% An expanded 3-member Guildhall ward to reflect the changing nature of York city centre and recent residential developments in the Walmgate, Guildhall 3 91% 95% Foss Islands and Lawrence Street areas. Fishergate would lose approximately 1200 electors (as of 2012) Hull Road would lose 1145 electors (as of 2012) Hull Road 2 104% 101% Guildhall would gain approximately 2345 electors (as of 2012)

UNCHANGED WARDS

Electorate Projected Ward Name Councillors Notes Variance 2012 Variance 2018 We would recommend the Commission consider closely Acomb 2 101% 105% the alternative ward boundaries suggested by York Central Liberal Democrats We are satisfied the existing ward satisfies the three Bishopthorpe 1 100% 95% statutory criteria outlined in our introduction Small areas could join with Guildhall ward to reflect local Clifton 3 102% 105% community ties on the ground as discussed above We are satisfied the existing ward satisfies the three Haxby & Wigginton 3 101% 97% statutory criteria outlined in our introduction Small areas could join with Guildhall ward to reflect local Heworth 3 104% 103% community ties on the ground as discussed above Recommend parishing whole ward at a community Heworth Without 1 97% 92% governance review We would recommend the Commission consider closely Holgate 3 100% 100% the alternative ward boundaries suggested by York Central Liberal Democrats Huntington & New We are satisfied the existing ward satisfies the three 3 102% 97% Earswick statutory criteria outlined in our introduction

16

We would recommend the Commission consider closely Micklegate 3 98% 102% the alternative ward boundaries suggested by York Central Liberal Democrats We note the Derwenthorpe development will bring this ward to within 3% of the quota. Osbaldwick 1 85% 97% We are satisfied the existing ward therefore satisfies the three statutory criteria outlined in our introduction Skelton, Rawcliffe and We are satisfied the existing ward satisfies the three 3 105% 103% Clifton Without statutory criteria outlined in our introduction We would recommend the Commission consider closely Westfield 3 105% 102% the alternative ward boundaries suggested by York Central Liberal Democrats We are satisfied the existing ward satisfies the three Wheldrake 1 99% 95% statutory criteria outlined in our introduction

17

Map 2 – Proposed Warding Arrangements for York

1. Skelton, Rawcliffe & Clifton Without 2. Haxby & Wigginton 3. Huntington & New Earswick 4. Strensall 5. Heworth Without 6. Osbaldwick 7. Heworth 8. Clifton 9. Guildhall 10. Hull Road 11. Fishergate 12. University 13. Fulford (Option A) 14. Dunnington & Heslington 15. Wheldrake 16. Bishopthorpe 17. Micklegate 18. Holgate 19. Acomb 20. Westfield 21. Woodthorpe 22. West Thorpe 23. Copmanthorpe 24. Askham 25. Poppleton

18