Representations by South Heighton Parish Council on the Draft Recommendations by the Local Government Boundary Commission on the Electoral Review of East Sussex County Council and Districts
Following consultations by the Boundary Commission in autumn 2015 for suggested boundary changes to address electoral inequalities, South Heighton Parish Council made representations to the Commission that the Parish did not wish to be included within an expanded Newhaven Ward as was being suggested by Lewes District Council in its representations, but wanted to remain within the rural Ward of Ouse Valley and Ringmer. Whilst recognising that there were notable variances within the Newhaven Wards there were not in respect of the town as a whole and the Parish Council consequently believes that these would be better addressed by internal revisions within the town, with the village of South Heighton and hamlet of Norton remaining associated with the rural areas with which it has far more in common than with the urban area of Newhaven. These representations are reproduced in Appendix One. South Heighton Parish Council has made similar representations to previous Commission reviews, most recently in 2000/01, and on behalf of the residents has consistently expressed its affinity to the adjacent rural villages rather than the urban town of Newhaven. The Council believes that these representations, indeed the reasons for including South Heighton Parish as part of the Ouse Valley Ward in the 1978 review, are still valid.
The Commission has now published its proposed electoral boundary changes. It appears that these discount the Parish Council’s representations, but seek to accommodate those of the Lewes District Council and proposes a Ward which incorporates further Parishes to make a larger Ward for Newhaven in order to facilitate 6 ward members for Newhaven and a reduced number of two ward members for the Ouse Valley and Ringmer.
The Parish Council considered these proposals at its meeting on 17th May 2016 and resolved to continue its objections subject to the views of residents at the Annual Parish Meeting. This was held on 24th May 2016, when the Commission’s proposals were presented to the meeting. During the discussion and questions the residents clearly indicated that they continued to express a strong separate local community identity feeling far more of an affinity with the rural areas of the Ouse Valley rather than the urban area of Newhaven. Residents were subsequently asked at the meeting if they wished to be within the proposed Ward of Newhaven North, or remain in a rural Ouse valley and Rother Ward as they currently were. Overwhelmingly (there were two abstentions from current Newhaven Town Councillors who live in the Parish) the residents voted, by a show of hands, that they did not wish to be incorporated within the proposed Newhaven North Ward.
Consequently the Parish Council objects to the Commission’s draft recommendations to change the Ward boundaries and would put forward the following arguments in support of this objection (in addition to those already made and included as Appendix One) and proposes a solution that would facilitate the Commission being able to achieve all of its objectives of delivering electoral equality for local voters, reflecting the interests and identities of local communities and promoting effective and convenient local government.
In respect of the Lewes District Council’s submission in November 2015 paragraph 6.7, the case is presented that South Heighton parish should be included within Newhaven North because “Placing [Tarring Neville and South Heighton] within Newhaven means that they will be more closely linked to the communities and facilities that they use day-to-day.... The change has re-joined the previously split community of South Heighton”
There are several inaccuracies in these assumptions; in fact the opposite is true: South Heighton sees itself as a separate community to Newhaven as fervently demonstrated at the Annual Parish Meeting. The use of the facilities in Newhaven by parish residents is no different from any small village using the facilities of its nearest town and in fact demonstrates the similarities of, and links South Heighton has to other rural villages in the Ouse Valley rather than to the urban town of Newhaven. Like small rural villages the local community is focused around its local pub and own village green and recreation ground, not around those of the adjoining town. It has a distinct and separate identity, with its own community groups and organisations and is not linked to the town; nor do the residents wish to be. As referred to in the Parish Council’s previous representations its loss of
Page 1 of 7 village facilities such as the post office and shop, limited bus access increase its affinity with other villages and the problems they face, not with an urban town. There is no aspect of re-joining. South Heighton originated as a separate rural village growing on a ridge in the Downs as local employment opportunities in the adjacent chalk and lime works increased. It has throughout its history been a separate village from the town.
The Commission also seem to have misinterpreted the Parish Council’s and possibly Norton’s representations. The Council was not advocating “to move the more rural electors into a different ward”, but had the understanding that it was a prerequisite of the Commissions review that the existing boundaries of Parishes were sacrosanct as the smallest denominator that could be considered. Consequently the Council was/is seeking that the whole of the South Heighton Parish be retained within a rural Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward. The Council would also take issue with the Commissions view that “the majority of electors in the Parish of South Heighton live in areas that are part of the town of Newhaven”. Whilst there may not now be a substantial physical boundary between the settlements, the village is not seen as part of the town by the residents who expressed this view zealously at the Annual Parish Meeting and has grown up as a separate settlement, not as part of the town.
The Commission appears within its draft recommendations, to have made adjustments to the suggested Lewes District Ward boundaries to accommodate two factors. Firstly to facilitate a three member Ward of Newhaven North (and a subsequent two member Ward for the Ouse Valley and Ringmer). It has further extended the proposed Newhaven North Ward to include two additional parishes to achieve the necessary electoral equality and secondly to achieve continuity with both District Ward and County Division boundaries.
Whilst recognising the objective of retaining the current total number of Councillors for the District, the Parish Council can see no demonstrable evidence from the submissions that there is an overwhelming case for the increase to three members for a new extended Newhaven North Ward and a reduction to a two member Ouse Valley Ward, when the retention of the current two member Newhaven Ward and three member Ouse Valley Ward could (under the proposals put forward below) not only achieve electoral equality for local voters, but would far better reflect the interests and identities of local communities and promote more effective and convenient local government.
In summary the proposals are: Retain the current 2015 boundaries for the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward (retaining South Heighton Parish within this Ward); Retain the existing number of members for the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward (three); Retain the current external boundaries for Newhaven Town (the current Town Council boundary); Modify the internal Ward boundaries as suggested by the Commission and Lewes District Council to form Newhaven North and Newhaven South Wards, but with minor simpler modifications to the boundary dividing the two Wards; and Retain the existing total number of members for Newhaven Town (Newhaven North two and Newhaven South three).
The retention of the current distribution of member seats and the suggested minor amendments to the boundaries within Newhaven provide variances that are well within 10%, for both 2015 and 2021. They provide even better electoral equality than the Lewes District Council submission (Nov 2015) and the Commission’s draft recommendation (Mar 2016). Table One summarises the electoral equality results of the proposed changes, based on the information provided on the Commissions website and additional information on individual roads provide by Lewes District Council’s Democratic Services Team (see Table Two).
Plan A below identifies the minor boundary changes proposed within Newhaven town, compared to those proposed by Lewes District Council and the Commission. In essence the proposals (indicated by the green line on the Plan) include moving a small number of streets north of the main A259 into the proposed Newhaven North Ward and the town centre, south of the ring road into the proposed Newhaven South Ward, with the A259 acting as the boundary for the rest of the town. As well as achieving a better electoral equality the proposed boundary changes have additional advantages. The proposed boundary is much simpler and can be readily recognised by residents. It places residents in Lawes and Evelyn Avenues which are north of the A259 which physically and socially divides the town at this point within the community they associate with. Although also
Page 2 of 7
Table Two – Information on Electors in Individual Roads in Newhaven from LDC
Electors by street in central Newhaven
Harpers Road 58 Jacksons Mews 12 Essex Place, Lower Place etc 42 Folly Field 29 North Lane 8 Butchers Lane 18 High Street 29 Marshall Lane 28 Dacre Road 2 Bridge Street 60 Chapel Street 11 70 42 185 Source: Lewes DC Democratic Services
Most importantly from the Parish Council’s prospective the proposals facilitate South Heighton remaining within the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward, meeting the residents’ of South Heighton wishes in respect of remaining within a Ward that they believe is more appropriate and better reflects the interests and identity of the local community and maintains the effective and convenient local government that they have enjoyed for many years.
With regard to the electoral equality achieved by this proposal this is set out below and as expressed earlier provides a better electoral representation than either Lewes District Council or the Commissions recommendations.
Table Three – Detailed Electoral Equality of Proposed Changes
Wards as Number of Electorate Electorate proposed Variance 2015 Variance 2020 Cllrs 2015 2021 above Newhaven 2 3,524 -3% 4,128 4% North Newhaven 3 5,094 -7% 5,992 0% South Subtotal for 5 8,618 -5% 10,119 2% Newhaven town Ouse Valley 3 5,120 -6% 5,487 -8% and Ringmer
In respect of the second factor, to achieve continuity with both District Ward and County Division boundaries, although this would be ideal, the Parish Council believes that with the localism agenda and continued devolution of decisions and facility provision to the local communities it is far more important that the lower tiers of local government are aligned to these communities. With the Commissions intension to increase the number of County Councillors, it should be recognised that it is better to align the new County Divisions with the differing character and communities within the County, rather than try and assign dual boundaries, particularly where to achieve this means the Commission can not achieve its statutory objectives of reflecting the interests and identities of local communities and promoting more effective and convenient local government at the tiers of government closest to the communities and electorate.
In summary the Parish Council believes the proposed changes are an improvement on the Lewes District Council and Commission recommendations and most importantly better achieve all three of the Commissions statutory objectives, will achieve a much more balanced and accurate reflection of the local communities and go further to achieving the localism agenda. (see summary Table Four below).
Page 4 of 7 Table Four – Summary Table (Red text indicates negative factors, green text indicates positive factors)
Submission by Lewes District Draft recommendation by Proposed Changes Council November 2015 Commission March 2016 June 2016 Delivering electoral equality for local voters Includes a variance of 16%, and Provides significantly improved levels Better levels of electoral equality commission considered that of electoral equality compared with than either Lewes District persuasive evidence was not Lewes District Council, but achieved Council or the Commissions provided to justify such a high only by including rural parishes of Firle recommendations. variance. and Beddingham, which have nothing No variance larger than 8% in common with Newhaven. Includes a variance of –12% for Newhaven South Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities Does not recognise that: South Heighton, Beddingham & Firle remains with Ringmer, with South Heighton is an independent Glynde, and Firle all disagree with the which it has a close rural affinity. Parish and has always been a Commissions recommendations. Beddingham remains in the separate settlement from The rural interest of the Parishes can same Ward as Glynde where Newhaven; not be well served by a predominately residents and Parish Councillors Residents and Parish Councillors urban Ward where Councillors will be consider that they are in fact consider that they are unconnected required to concentrate on pressing one community. to Newhaven; urban issues, substantial different to South Heighton remains There is a strong local village those of the villages. grouped with other rural Ouse community spirit and identity; Does not reflect the South Heighton Valley Parishes and complies The Parish has more in common residents’ perception of a rural identity with the wishes of the residents, with the adjoining rural Parishes, and separate local community and helping to maintain the local with similar issues and problems; wish to remain separate from community identity. and Newhaven. Report 65/16 adopted by Lewes District Council on 11 May 2016 requests the Commission “to reconsider its proposed changes to [Ouse Valley & Ringmer] ward” Promoting effective and convenient local government Lewes District Council’s The Commission’s draft The electors in the rural recommendation, of rural parishes recommendation compounds Lewes parishes of South Heighton, being managed from Newhaven, District Council’s by extending the Tarring Neville, Glynde, would be likely to lead to a situation urban Newhaven influence even Beddingham and Firle remain in where the minority voice of rural further into rural Parishes. the rural Ward of Ouse Valley & parishioners within the ward would Ringmer. This makes for much not be clearly heard. Hence they more effective local government would not be effectively represented as the rural parishes are or governed. grouped together in one Ward. Current electoral representation has been effective and appropriate. Better meets the localism agenda by aligning like communities to represent their views.
Page 5 of 7 Appendix One Previous representations by South Heighton Parish Council that are still relevant and are requested to be re-examined by the Commission as part of the supportive case to the Council’s proposed changes and objection to the Commissions recommendations.
The Parish of South Heighton is principally within the South Downs National Park, made up of rural downland with the village of South Heighton (now adjacent to the eastern suburbanised area of Newhaven following previous encroaching residential development into the Parish) bounded mainly by the Ouse valley and downland to the north, with the smaller more isolated hamlet of Norton set further to the east of the Parish fully within the rural area of the National Park. Although one edge of South Heighton lies adjacent to Newhaven, the Parish has always seen itself as rural in nature and character with its own identity and has continually opposed boundary changes that would see it absorbed in any way within the urban area of Newhaven. This is still the case and both the residents of South Heighton and Norton continue to feel more aligned with the similar villages and rural areas of the Ouse Valley and Ringmer than the urban area of Newhaven and in the case of Norton, Seaford. The opportunities, problems and issues faced by the Parish, South Heighton and Norton are synonymous with those of rural parishes within the Ouse valley and not of an urban area. The Parish Council would therefore object to any proposed boundary revision that would prejudice or degrade this relationship and feels that the Parish should continue to be part of the rural Ward of the Ouse Valley and Ringmer. The reasons for this view are expanded below under the headings provided in your guidance documents:
1 Delivering electoral equality for local voters
According to the Commission’s calculations the Ouse Valley and Ringmer currently has close to the average number of electors per Councillor it is seeking to achieve and this would remain the case as predicted for the year 2021. As the representation is slightly under the target figure (currently the variance is -6% compared with the District average of 1,817 electors per councillor and by 2021 this would be -8% of an average 1,993 electors) there is a clear case for retaining the whole of the Parish within the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward boundary.
The Parish Council recognises that there is a problem of predicted electoral inequality in Newhaven, but this is not just a numbers game and the inclusion of South Heighton village within a Ward of Newhaven to help facilitate this would result in a rural oriented community being swallowed up and represented by an urban electorate/Councillor, hardly equality for those voters resident in the village. The same holds true for the local voters of Norton, should any revision to the current Parish boundary be considered which would mean they were to be absorbed into Seaford. In respect of Newhaven it would surely represent greater equality to consider re-drawing the boundaries within the town itself, since the 2021 variance prediction for Newhaven Valley of -24% is roughly balanced by the +19% for Newhaven Denton and Meeching.
2 Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities
Transport links – The A26 and A27 link all parts of the existing Ward of the Ouse Valley and Ringmer as does the network of footpaths and bridleways crisscrossing the National Park and Ouse Valley. Whilst providing connectivity, there are common concerns within the current Ward, shared by the Parish Council such as the decreasing provision of public transport services linking villages and the problems associated with maintenance and use of footpaths and bridleways.
Community groups - South Heighton and Norton have distinct characters and communities that reflect these. Norton as a small Hamlet has continued to maintain its independence, but is effectively and conveniently represented by South Heighton Parish Council which maintains regular contact with the community and actively pursues the particular concerns that are expressed by the local residents. South Heighton village has its own community groups and activities with a Village Hall Management Committee which provides a key community resource for these, whilst the Parish Council manages the Village Green and Recreation Ground providing for open air events. Again these groups and communities are more akin to those of rural villages in the Ouse Valleys and
Page 6 of 7 Ringmer. This is reflected in the Parish Councils membership the Lewes District Association of Local Councils, but particularly the Parishes of the Lower Ouse Group (POLO), which was formed by local Parish Councils and residents groups based around the southern end of the Ouse River who face similar issues.
Facilities – The residents of the Parish utilise the informal recreational facilities afforded by the South Downs National Park and the Ouse Valley which form the majority of the Ward of Ouse Valley and Ringmer, sharing the opportunities and concerns for this countryside. Like many villages in the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward, South Heighton has suffered the loss of local shop and post office facilities having to deal with the consequences, whilst trying to maintain its village hall and open spaces for the benefit of the local community.
Identifiable boundaries – Although part of the southern boundary of the Parish at South Heighton has become obscured by connective residential development, the majority of the existing parish boundary is well-defined and clearly delineates the characteristically rural parish from the adjacent urban areas, which is again far more reflected by the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward.
Parishes – As previously referred to the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward consists of a number of parishes of similar character to that of South Heighton, typically rural village settlements surrounded by farmland such as Tarring Neville, Beddingham, Firle, Glynde and Ringmer.
Shared interests – Again as referred to earlier the Parish of South Heighton has similar issues to those of the other parishes within the current Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward. It is therefore only sensible and appropriate that the Parish should remain in within this Ward, as the other adjacent Ward areas are far more urban in nature being managed by town Councils more concerned with urban issues.
3 Promoting effective and convenient local government
The current and paste Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward Councillors have represented the interests of the Parish at both District and County levels effectively and have always been easy and convenient to contact. Most importantly the Councillors have been able to readily relate to the concerns and issues of the Parish as they are often reflective of those expressed by other communities within the Ward, which also provides the opportunity to present common arguments and share experiences.
Page 7 of 7