Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on Warding Arrangements as part of the Electoral Review of City of York 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 Ryedale, Selby and Harrogate districts of North Yorkshire 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, Rural West York 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, Heslington, Heworth Without (see note on parishing below), Huntington and New Earswick, Osbaldwick, 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 University of York 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