Final Recommendations for Bedford Borough Council 33

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and final recommendations 5

Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 9 Bedford town, Brickhill and Kempston 9 Bedford Borough rural 15 Conclusions 19 Parish electoral arrangements 20

3 What happens next? 23

4 Mapping 25

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 27

B Code of practice on written consultation 31

C Table C1: Final recommendations for Bedford Borough Council 33

D Additional legislation we have considered 37

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of Bedford Borough Council to ensure that the authority has appropriate electoral arrangements that reflect its functions and political management structure. The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same.

The Boundary Committee for England commenced the review in 2009. On 1 April 2010 the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee. It therefore falls to us to complete the work of the Boundary Committee.

This review has been conducted as follows:

Stage Stage starts Description

Council size 4 August 2009 Submission of proposals to the Boundary Committee and its analysis and deliberation on council size One 27 October 2009 Submission of proposals on wider electoral arrangements Two 12 January 2010 Boundary Committee’s analysis and deliberation Three 17 May 2010 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them Four 12 July 2010 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations

The Boundary Committee endorsed the Council’s proposal for a council of 40 members on the basis that the Council had provided the most thorough justification in support of its proposals. A warding pattern of 13 two-member wards and 14 single-member wards was proposed. The draft recommendations were based generally on the Council scheme with some modifications. Where we moved away from the Council’s proposals, we had sought to reflect communication links, geographic factors and evidence of community identity received during consultation. Broadly speaking, the draft recommendations would provide good levels of electoral equality.

Submissions received

During Stage Three we received 28 representations including submissions from the

1 Council, the Liberal Democrat group and the Leader of the Conservative group. The remainder of the submissions received were localised comments, mainly from parish councils and local residents. Most of the submissions related to the proposed warding arrangements for Bedford town and the rural south of the borough in the Wootton, Elstow and Wilshamstead areas. All these submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Analysis and final recommendations

Electorate figures

Bedford Borough Council submitted electorate forecasts for December 2013, a period five years on from the December 2008 electoral roll which is the basis for this review. These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 6% over this period from 116,246 in 2008 to 123,307 in 2013. Although we considered this level of growth to be high, we noted that there were specific development areas within the borough highlighted by the Council that supported its projections. On balance, therefore, we were satisfied that they are the most accurate electorate figures that could be provided. Following recent changes in legislation, we also need to have regard to a five-year forecast from the date of the publication of our final recommendations. We therefore requested that the Council provide a forecast for 2015. Having considered these electoral forecasts, we are content that they provide the best estimate that can be made at this time.

General analysis

Throughout the review process, the primary consideration has been to achieve good electoral equality, while seeking to reflect community identities and securing effective and convenient local government. Having considered the submissions received during Stage Three, we have moved away from the draft recommendations in certain areas and have made several minor changes, specifically in the Bedford town area, to reflect the evidence received.

Our final recommendations for Bedford are that the Council should have 40 members, with 14 single-member wards and 13 two-member wards. We consider our proposals will ensure good electoral equality while providing an accurate reflection of community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during stages One and Three.

What happens next?

We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Bedford Borough Council. The changes we have proposed must be laid before Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements which will come into force at the next elections for Bedford Borough Council, in 2011.

We are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the review through expressing their views and advice. The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk.

2 1 Introduction

1 The Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee for England to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements for the new Bedford unitary authority. The review commenced on 4 August 2009. The Boundary Committee wrote to Bedford Borough Council, as well as other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals on the council size for the new council. Following the Committee’s decision on the appropriate council size, it invited the submission of proposals on the warding arrangements for the council. The submissions received during these stages of the review informed our Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Bedford Borough Council , which was published on 17 May 2010.

2 On 1 April 2010, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee. We have now reconsidered the draft recommendations in the light of the further evidence received.

What is an electoral review?

3 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

4 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identities and interests; and providing for effective and convenient local government – are set out in legislation 1 and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations.

5 Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Why are we conducting a review in Bedford?

6 In December 2007 the Government approved a bid from Bedford Borough Council for a unitary authority to take over the responsibility for all local government services in the area which were formerly provided by Bedfordshire County Council and the Borough Council. A Statutory Instrument was subsequently approved by Parliament establishing a new Bedford unitary authority from 1 April 2009. The Electoral Commission was obliged, by law, to consider whether an electoral review was needed following such a change in local government. Its view was that an electoral review of Bedford was appropriate at the earliest opportunity.

How will our recommendations affect you? 7 The recommendations determine how many councillors will serve on the council. They also determine which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward and, in some instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your ward name

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 3 may change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. However, if you live in a parish, the name or boundaries of that parish will not change.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

8 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL (Deputy Chair) Jane Earl Joan Jones CBE Professor Colin Mellors

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

4 2 Analysis and final recommendations

9 We have now finalised our recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Bedford Borough Council.

10 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Bedford is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, 2 with the need to:

■ secure effective and convenient local government ■ provide for equality of representation ■ reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular - the desirability of arriving at boundaries that easily identifiable - the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

11 Legislation also requires that our recommendations are not based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but reflect estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward at the end of the review.

12 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that, in formulating proposals to be considered, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five-year period.

13 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Bedford Borough Council nor the external boundaries or names of parish or town councils, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues. Submissions received

14 Prior to, and during, the initial stages of the review, members and officers of the Boundary Committee visited Bedford Borough Council and met with the Mayor, elected members, officers and parish and town councils. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. The Committee received 10 submissions during its initial consultation on council size for the new authority, and 21 representations during Stage One, together with copies of the representations the Council had received in response to its own local consultation. We received 28 submissions during Stage Three including a submission from the Council which provided details of a further consultation it had conducted on warding arrangements for the Spires area of Renhold parish. All of these

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 5 submissions can be inspected at both our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.

Electorate figures

15 As part of this review, Bedford Borough Council (hereafter referred to as the Council) submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2013, projecting an increase in the electorate of the borough of approximately 6% over the five-year period from 2008 to 2013. The main areas of growth were expected to the south of Bedford town in Wilshamstead (the Wixams development) and new developments to the immediate north of the Bedford urban area.

16 During Stage One, the Conservative group on the Council and a local resident suggested that the Council may have underestimated growth in certain areas of development. The local resident noted that the Wixams development may actually contain 1,800 new electors by 2013 rather than 1,387 projected by the Council. However, they did not provide substantive evidence to support their view.

17 Following recent changes in legislation, we are required to have regard to a five- year forecast from the date of the publication of our final recommendations. We therefore requested that the Council provide a further electorate forecast for 2015. The Council had given careful consideration as to whether the growth forecast to occur over the five-year period to 2013 would continue at a similar rate over the subsequent two-year period. In light of the current economic climate, the Council opted for a more cautious approach and, on balance, chose to re-schedule the projected 2013 figures as the new 2015 forecast.

18 Having considered the evidence provided by the Council, we are content that its approach to the revised 2015 electorate forecast is a reasonable one and are content to use it as the basis of our final recommendations.

Council size

19 At the start of the review Bedford Borough Council had a council size of 36 members. The Council has new functions and responsibilities and it is therefore necessary to consider the number of members required for the authority to provide effective and convenient local government. It is important to consider this in isolation from the former number of county and district councillors for Bedford, and to consider how the new authority is managed, and how it intends to engage with and empower its local communities.

20 The Boundary Committee received 10 submissions during this stage of the review involving proposals for three different council sizes. Bedford Borough Council proposed a council size of 40 members, while the Bedford Borough Conservative Group proposed a council size of 41 members. One proposal from a local resident argued for a return to 54 councillors, the same number of borough and county councillors that represented the area prior to it achieving unitary status.

21 The Council proposal was based on an analysis of the allocation of responsibility between the mayoral, executive and non-executive functions, councillors’ workload for

6 delivery of non-executive functions, scrutiny arrangements, and the community leadership role envisaged for councillors. The Council considered that significantly fewer than 40 councillors would damage the ‘link between the community and the councillor’ and that more than 40 councillors could undermine accountability and be in excess of the number required by the Council’s political management structure. The Council was concerned that a councillor’s ability to perform their representational role would be compromised by the demands of committee work and at external bodies if there were fewer than 40 councillors.

22 The Bedford Borough Conservative Group proposed an increase of five members to a council size of 41. They had approached the question of council size by assessing the strategic, decision-making and scrutiny roles of councillors in balance with the representational aspects of councillors’ roles and how effectively they both engage with their constituents and represent their constituents’ views. They also made a broad comparison of the population, electorate and future growth prospects of Bedford compared with other unitary authorities. They contended that each of these comparisons showed that electors in the Borough were under-represented.

23 Eight further respondents declined to propose a specific council size and instead proposed a desired number of councillors for a respective ward or local area.

24 The Boundary Committee was not persuaded to revert to a council size of 54, as proposed by one resident, as this figure did not reflect the new roles and responsibilities of the new authority. The Bedford Borough Conservative Group proposal for an increase to 41 members relied, in the main, on broad comparisons of Bedford Borough’s electorate and population to that in other unitary authorities. The Committee considered that, whilst additional evidence might have been helpful in supporting the case, there was sufficient evidence to justify an increase and that there was a broad consensus for either 40 or 41 members. The Council had provided evidence of the political management structure and the role envisaged for councillors as the authority accommodates its new responsibilities.

25 In our opinion, council size proposals should be justified in the context of each local authority’s individual characteristics and needs. We therefore endorsed the view that a council size of 40 would provide for effective and convenient local government in the context of the Council’s internal political management structure and will effectively facilitate the representational role of councillors.

Electoral fairness

26 As discussed in the introduction to this report, the prime aim of an electoral review is to achieve electoral fairness within a local authority.

27 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations should provide for electoral fairness whilst ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

28 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we calculate the average number of electors per councillor. The average is achieved by dividing the total electorate of the borough (116,246 in December 2008 and 123,307 by December 2015) by the total number

7 of councillors representing them on the council, 40 under our final recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our final recommendations is 2,906 in 2008 and 3,083 by 2015.

29 Under the final recommendations, the number of electors per councillor in two of the 27 wards will vary by more than 10% from the average across the borough by 2015. Overall, we are satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our final recommendations for Bedford. General analysis

30 During Stage One, 21 submissions were received including an authority-wide scheme from Bedford Borough Council. The scheme was based on a mixed pattern of single- and two-member wards for the borough. The Council also submitted those responses it had received during consultation on its own proposals. The Bedford & Kempston Conservative Association (hereafter referred to as the Kempston Conservatives) submitted warding proposals for the urban Bedford, Kempston and Brickhill areas which would provide for a uniform pattern of single-member wards for this area.

31 A former borough councillor put forward warding arrangements for the borough that were largely based on retaining the existing wards for the Bedford urban area and some alternative wards for the rural area. A local resident put forward alternative warding arrangements for some of the rural areas of the borough.

32 In our draft recommendations we noted that, for the Bedford town area, the Council had proposed a largely two-member warding pattern with the exception of Kempston. We considered that the Kempston Conservatives’ proposals for a wholly single-member warding pattern for Bedford and Kempston would result in insufficiently clear ward boundaries. Moreover, several of their proposed wards would have electoral variances of more 10% from the average for the borough by 2015.

33 For the rural area, we noted that there was more consensus between the proposals submitted at Stage One. The Council had proposed a largely single-member warding pattern with a few of exceptions for more built-up areas surrounding Bedford town. The proposals submitted by the local residents for the rural area also proposed a similar numerical spread of wards which were broadly similar, albeit with several exceptions, to the Council’s proposals.

34 The remainder of the submissions received were localised comments from parish councils and local residents, many of whom wished to retain the existing warding arrangements in their area.

35 While we would have wished to have seen more substantive evidence for the warding proposals submitted at Stage One, we were persuaded that the Council had undertaken a thorough consultation process with local interested parties. We considered that the Council’s scheme provided clear ward boundaries and, where not constrained by the geography of the area, provided a reasonably good reflection of communities in the borough. We therefore based our draft recommendations broadly on the Council’s scheme, subject to a number of modifications, particularly in the north of Bedford town, and the Renhold and Great Barford areas.

8 36 During Stage Three we received 28 submissions including representations from the Council, the Liberal Democrat group and the Leader of the Conservative group. We also received submissions from a residents’ association, 14 parish councils and several local residents. There was general support for the draft recommendations, although in several areas alternative proposals were put forward. In particular we received alternative proposals for Castle ward in Bedford town and for several other wards in the north of the town. We also received submissions in opposition to our draft recommendations for the new Spires estate in Renhold parish and for the rural south-east of the borough. The majority of the submissions received were localised comments, predominantly from parish councils and local residents, and are discussed in more detail below.

37 Having carefully considered the submissions received, we have decided to broadly confirm our draft recommendations as final. However, we propose moving away from the draft recommendations in several areas of the Bedford urban area to ensure more clearly defined ward boundaries that better reflect local communities.

38 Our final recommendations are for a pattern of 14 single-member wards and 13 two-member wards. We consider our proposals provide good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests, especially where we have received such evidence.

39 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table C1 (on pages 33–35) and Map 1.

Electoral arrangements

40 This section of the report details the submissions received, the consideration on them, and our final recommendations for each area of Bedford. The following areas are considered in turn:

■ Bedford town, Brickhill and Kempston (pages 9–15) ■ Bedford Borough rural (pages 15–19)

41 Details of the final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 33– 35, and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Bedford town, Brickhill and Kempston

42 Bedford town is located towards the south of the borough and comprises approximately half of the borough’s electorate. The area is largely unparished but does contain the urban Brickhill parish. At Stage One, the Council proposed a uniform pattern of two-member wards that provided for good levels of electoral equality by 2015. However, we noted that the Council had not proposed to bring any of the overspill development to the north of the town into its proposed Bedford town wards.

43 We based our draft recommendations broadly on the Council’s proposals with modification to a number of its proposed wards in Bedford town to provide clearer ward boundaries. Where respondents provided evidence of community identity, we sought to reflect this in the proposals. At Stage Three, the Council broadly endorsed the draft

9 recommendations for Bedford but put forward a number of proposed modifications in the north of Bedford town and for the Brickhill area to better reflect community identities. In particular, the Council and a number of respondents opposed our recommendation to ward the Spires area of Renhold parish with the urban area of Goldington.

Bedford town central and west 44 During Stage One the Council put forward proposals for two-member Castle, Harpur and Queens Park wards. The proposed wards would have electoral variances of 4% fewer, 1% more and 9% fewer respectively than the borough average by 2015. The Conservatives proposed a pattern of six single-member wards in this area, one of which (Embankment) would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the average for the borough by 2015. Three local residents also commented on warding proposals for this area during Stage One.

45 We based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals for this area of Bedford town as they followed clear ward boundaries and, in our judgement, best reflected community identities.

46 During Stage Three we received three submissions relating to this area. The Council supported the draft recommendations, albeit with two minor amendments. This was to amend the boundary between Castle and Newnham wards where it runs down Denmark Street, to include all of the electors on the west side of the street in Newnham ward. This change to the ward boundary would not affect the proposed electorate figures because the Council had incorrectly mapped its Stage One submission; this amendment would reflect its original intentions.

47 The Castle Residents’ Association objected to the draft recommendations for Castle ward. A petition containing approximately 400 names was enclosed with the representation. It argued for the southern boundary of the ward to follow the River Ouse and for the eastern boundary to be Newnham Avenue. The view that Newnham Avenue should form the ward boundary was also echoed in a separate submission from a local resident. However, the Council provided strong evidence to show how residents south of the River Ouse formed a strong part of the Castle community. Furthermore, although we recognise that using Newnham Avenue would provide a strong and inclusive eastern boundary for Castle ward, it would produce electoral variances for Castle and Newnham wards of 23% more and 36% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average, respectively, by 2015.

48 We are persuaded of the need to slightly amend the eastern boundary of Castle ward to reflect more accurately the Council’s proposals and to ensure good electoral equality.

49 We recognise that there are strong local views about the draft recommendations for Castle ward. However, to adopt the Residents’ Association’s proposed boundary between the two wards would result in unacceptably high electoral variances. Furthermore, we have not received an alternative proposal that would resolve this issue as well as ensuring good electoral equality for the wider Bedford area.

50 The Council’s submission included a proposed minor amendment to the south east corner of the Harpur ward, on the boundary with the De Parys ward. It proposed that an

10 area known as The Broadway, a largely commercial area with recent and ongoing housing development, be transferred to Harpur ward due to the distinct nature of housing and premises in the immediate area. The Council argued that the area shared greater community identities and communication links with Harpur ward.

51 In considering our final recommendations, we visited this area and noted that the properties in question seem to have less in common with the neighbouring De Parys ward to the east and share clearer transportation links with Harpur ward. We have therefore decided to adopt this change as part of our final recommendations. The 2015 electoral data shows that it involves moving fewer than 100 electors. This does not change the electoral variance from the figure given in the draft recommendations for the Harpur ward which would remain at 1% more compared with the average for the borough by 2015. The De Parys electoral variances are detailed later in the report in paragraph 71.

52 As a consequence, we have decided to confirm the draft recommendations for central and west Bedford town as final subject to the two minor amendments outlined above. Under the final recommendations, the proposed Castle, Harpur and Queens Park wards would have electoral variances of 4% fewer, 1% more and 9% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

Bedford town north and east 53 This area includes the parish of Brickhill, which forms part of the Bedford urban area. At Stage One the Council put forward proposals for two-member Brickhill, Goldington, De Parys and Putnoe wards which would have electoral variances of 6% more, an equal number, 6% fewer and 5% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the borough average by 2015.

54 The Kempston Conservative association also submitted a proposal during Stage One but we considered that its scheme would not provide strong ward boundaries and the electoral variances produced were also higher than the Council’s proposals.

55 We based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals as we considered they provided the best reflection of community identities in this area while ensuring good levels of electoral equality by 2015. However, we noted that the Council’s proposals did not address the issue of overspill development on the outskirts of Bedford town. We examined a number of alternative warding options, to ward systematically all the overspill development that is currently located in parished areas adjoining the town. In particular, we concluded that it was appropriate for the Spires area of Renhold parish to be warded with the Goldington area of Bedford town. We therefore moved away from the Council’s proposals for this area in our draft recommendations.

56 At Stage Three, the Council made an amendment to its Stage One proposals and recommended that Brickhill ward should include the Ellis Road parish ward that it had originally proposed be incorporated in De Parys ward. This change in the proposals was as a result of further local consultation, and was supported by Brickhill Parish Council. The Liberal Democrat group also proposed this change. The Council cited reasons of effective and convenient local government whilst maintaining that the change would ensure reasonable electoral equality.

11 57 In our draft recommendations, we said that we had not been persuaded by the evidence provided by Brickhill Parish Council that Ellis Road was a distinctive and cohesive part of the Brickhill community. However, having considered the further evidence received at Stage Three and, after visiting the area, we propose that the ward boundary for Brickhill should be changed so that it be coterminous with the parish boundary. We note, in particular, that Ellis road is a cul-de-sac that faces the remainder of Brickhill across a main road and has less direct access into the proposed De Parys ward.

58 Brickhill ward’s projected electoral variance in 2015 would therefore change from 6% (under our draft recommendations) to 8% and De Parys ward would change from -5% to -7%.

59 We also noted the proposal of the Council and Brickhill Parish Council to transfer four electors in the St Thomas More School area (located in Clapham parish) into the proposed Brickhill ward. Given the requirement that we must ward parishes where they are divided between borough wards, to this accept this proposal would result in the creation of a parish ward of Clapham with only four electors, to which a parish councillor would need to be allocated. This would not be a viable parish ward and we have therefore decided not to adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

60 Our draft recommendations for Putnoe were broadly based the Council’s Stage One proposals for a two-member Putnoe ward, but with some minor amendments. We proposed that the boundary between Goldington and Putnoe ward be amended to follow the rear of properties on the south side of Putnoe Street and that properties to the east of Haylands Way adjacent to Goldington School be transferred to the Council’s proposed De Parys ward.

61 At Stage Three we received two submissions relating to Putnoe ward. The Council broadly supported the draft recommendations but suggested a minor amendment involving 13 electors being moved into the proposed Goldington ward where the boundary runs to the rear of properties on the south side of Putnoe Street. The Liberal Democrat group made the same proposal. The rationale for the minor amendment was to ensure that the small roads that run off Putnoe Street were wholly contained in a single borough ward.

62 On balance, and having toured the area, we agree that this would ensure a more clearly defined ward boundary and have therefore decided to adopt this minor amendment as final. This would not affect the electoral variances for these wards. In 2015 Putnoe ward would contain an equal number of electors per councillor to the borough average and Goldington would contain 4% more electors per councillor than the average.

63 The Council proposed one further amendment to the proposed De Parys ward at Stage Three. The Council proposed transferring Goldington Middle School from Goldington ward to De Parys ward.

64 We included this school in Goldington ward in the draft recommendations because it we considered that its name was an influential factor in deciding the ward in which it should be located. However, having received submissions from the Liberal Democrat group, and the Council providing several other precedents of schools in the area with names that refer to wards other than the one in which they are located, we have decided that Goldington Middle School should be included in De Parys ward. This makes for a

12 clearer ward boundary and no electors are involved.

65 In respect of Goldington ward, other than the minor amendment discussed above, the Council resubmitted its original proposal to ward the recently built Spires estate with the more rural Renhold parish, of which it is part. The Council stated that the residents are nearer the Salph End area of Renhold, to the north of Bedford town. The Council also stated that the estate is separated from Goldington by a small water course.

66 The Council included in their submission a residents’ survey from the estate. Fewer than 20 electors responded with the majority wanting the area to remain warded with Renhold parish. Conversely, several respondents did state that the areas should now be considered a part of Bedford town although no resident provided substantive evidence to support either viewpoint. The Liberal Democrat group and Renhold Parish Council also opposed the draft recommendations, stating that the Spires estate belongs in a ward with Renhold on the basis of community identities.

67 We recognised that the draft recommendations for this area would be somewhat controversial and so considered carefully the evidence received at Stage Three. We also visited the area. There seemed to be little separating the Spires from the Bedford urban area and the only access to the estate provided a strong and direct link into the Goldington area. We were not persuaded that the Spires estate was an integral part of Renhold parish and also note that a further housing development to the east of the Spires is proposed, reinforcing our view that this area is distinct from the remainder of Renhold parish and shares community interests with the Goldington area.

68 Overall, we consider that the evidence provided for the estate being warded with rural areas to the north was not strong. While there is a water course separating the area from Bedford town, a road bridging the stream and leading out from the estate and into the town is clear and direct. Furthermore, transportation links with the main settlements in Renhold parish are less direct, via Bedford, and it is clear that residents use Bedford for local amenities and facilities.

69 It should be noted that there are two other areas (the Thor Drive area to the east of Goldington, and Woodlands Park, which lie on the periphery between Brickhill and Ravensden parishes) that could be termed overspill development which we have recommended remain warded with more rural areas outside of Bedford town. In terms of ensuring a consistent approach between all these areas it should be noted that the Thor Drive area has more direct communication links with the rural parish of which it is part. Furthermore, it is separated from residential properties in the east of Bedford town by an industrial estate.

70 As regards the Woodlands Park area, while it only has a direct road link with the urban Brickhill area, it cannot be accommodated in the proposed Brickhill ward without creating an electoral variance of 20%. In short, to incorporate all the areas of overspill in urban wards would have required us to disregard all locally generated proposals and adopt an entirely Commission-generated warding pattern for Bedford town. We therefore consider that including the Spires development in our proposed Goldington ward provides the best reflection of the statutory criteria. We therefore confirm the draft recommendations for this area as final.

13 71 Under our final recommendations, the proposed Brickhill, Goldington, De Parys and Putnoe wards would have electoral variances of 8% more, 4% more, 7% fewer and an equal number of electors per councillor respectively to the average for the borough by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

Bedford town south 72 At Stage One the Council proposed three two-member wards in this area. Its proposed wards (Cauldwell, Kingsbrook, and Newnham) would have electoral variances of 7% more, 5% more and 7% fewer electors per councillor respectively, than the average for the borough by 2015). The Council used the A421 by-pass as the southern boundary of its proposed Kingsbrook ward. The Council also proposed warding an area in the north east of Eastcotts Parish (to the north of the by-pass) in its proposed Kingsbrook ward. Proposals for this area were also received from the Conservative group and a local resident.

73 We based our draft recommendations for this area on the Council’s proposals with some modification. As noted above, the Council proposed using the A421 Bedford by-pass as the southern boundary of its proposed Kingsbrook ward. In doing so, three areas of the adjoining parished area would need to be incorporated in the proposed ward. Two of these three areas contain no electors and would not provide for viable parish wards. We therefore proposed that the southern boundary of the proposed Kingsbrook ward run in a westerly direction to the High Road junction adhering to the existing parish boundary. The built-up area of Eastcotts parish to the west of this junction would be located in Kingsbrook ward, as proposed by the Council.

74 At Stage Three, the Council proposed that we revisit and adopt its Stage One proposal. While the Council has made it clear it intends to conduct a community governance review to resolve any perceived anomalies relating to the parish boundaries in this area, it would still require us to create parish wards that would not secure effective and convenient local government. Even if we were in a position to put forward such changes, it would not be appropriate for us effectively to prejudge the outcome of any future review by the Council. Moreover, there would be no guarantee that, following consultation, the Council would implement revised parish boundaries that would adhere to our recommended borough wards.

75 We received a submission from Councillor Mingay (Newnham ward) regarding the renaming of wards. The councillor proposed that Newnham ward be named Newnham Priory and also proposed renaming Kingsbrook and Cauldwell wards based on the fact that the landmarks after which these wards are named are no longer within the wards or no longer exist. The councillor suggested renaming them Fenlake ward and Bunyan ward respectively. We considered that the ward naming was already satisfactorily clear and were not persuaded that this evidence alone, was sufficient to justify changing the proposed ward names.

76 Under our final recommendations, the proposed Cauldwell, Kingsbrook and Newnham wards would have electoral variances of 7% and 5% more and 9% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

14 Kempston 77 The parish of Kempston lies to the south west of Bedford town and is contiguous with the Bedford urban area. At Stage One, the Council proposed three single-member wards (Kempston North, Kempston South and Kempston West) and a two-member Kempston Central & East ward. The Council’s proposed wards would have electoral variances of 2% fewer, 5% more, 4% more and 8% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015.

78 At Stage One we also received a submission from Kempston Town Council, as part of the Council’s consultation process, and a representation by the Kempston Conservatives which, as discussed earlier, put forward alternative warding arrangements for the Bedford urban area.

79 We based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals for this area, with one amendment. We noted that the proposed southern and western boundaries of the Council’s proposed wards adhere to the recently completed extension to the Bedford by- pass. As with the south of Bedford town, this would appear to require the creation of parish wards with few or no electors. We therefore recommended that ward boundaries in this area adhere to existing parish boundaries and put forward a minor modification between the proposed Kempston Central & East and Kempston South wards to ensure the boundary adheres to the rear of properties in this area.

80 At Stage Three the Council again proposed that ward boundaries in this area adhere to the by-pass. As stated above, we remain of the view that this would not secure effective and convenient local government and are therefore not persuaded to adopt this proposed amendment as part of our final recommendations.

81 We also received a submission from Shan Hunt (an Honorary Alderman of Bedford Borough) suggesting a two-member ward combining our proposed Kempston West and Kempston South wards. However, we are not persuaded we have received sufficient evidence to justify this proposal.

82 We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final. Under our final recommendations, Kempston Central & East, North, South and West wards would have electoral variances of 8% fewer, 2% fewer, 7% more and 1% more electors per councillor respectively than the borough average by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

Bedford Borough rural

Rural south west 83 At Stage One, the Council proposed a single-member Wootton ward which would be coterminous with the parish of the same name. The Council also proposed a single- member Kempston Rural ward comprising the parishes of Turvey, Great Denham, Stagsden and Kempston Rural.

84 We considered that the Council’s proposals would provide good electoral equality and therefore adopted them as part of our draft recommendations (subject to ensuring that our proposed ward boundaries adhered to the existing parish boundary between Kempston Rural and the Kempston urban area). Under our draft recommendations, the

15 proposed Wootton and Kempston Rural wards would have electoral variances of 9% and 4% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015.

85 At Stage Three, the Council supported our draft recommendations but proposed that the boundary between Kempston West and Kempston Rural be amended to run coterminously with the by-pass. However, this again would result in the creation of unviable parish wards.

86 Great Denham Parish Council, located in the proposed Kempston Rural ward, argued that they were not a rural parish and provided detailed evidence in support of shared links with the urban wards of Queens Park, Kempston North and Kempston West. They also argued that the River Ouse acts as a strong geographical boundary to the west, separating the parish from the other communities in our proposed Kempston Rural ward. Great Denham’s electorate is expected to significantly increase between now and 2015 and the parish council stated that they had developed good working relationships with Bromham and Biddenham parish councils to the north. As discussed in detail below, Bromham, Biddenham and Harrold parish councils supported the draft recommendations.

87 We recognise that Great Denham Parish Council has provided some evidence to support its links with more urban areas to the east and north. However, the parish is bounded by the Bromham and Biddenham communities to the north, which form a cohesive borough ward and we note that both of these parish councils supported the draft recommendations. Furthermore, the urban Kempston and Bedford areas cannot viably accommodate the expanding Great Denham without having a significant consequential effect on electoral equality and the wider warding arrangements for the Bedford urban area.

88 While noting the concerns of Great Denham Parish Council, we have decided that the draft recommendations provide the best balance between the statutory criteria for the rural south west area and therefore confirm them as final.

89 Under our final recommendations, the proposed Wootton and Kempston Rural wards would have electoral variances of 9% more and 4% more per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

Rural south and east 90 We based our draft recommendations for this area on the Council’s proposals for three single-member wards of Eastcotts, Wilshamstead and Elstow. Under our draft recommendations, Eastcotts, Wilshamstead and Elstow wards would have electoral variances of 5%, 13% and 5% more electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015.

91 We moved away from the Council’s proposals for the Great Barford and Renhold areas. The Council had proposed a single-member Renhold & Ravensden ward and a single-member Great Barford ward comprising Cardington, Cople, Willington and Great Barford parishes. We considered that the Council’s proposals for a single-member Great Barford ward would not reflect communication and transport links in this area, with Great Barford having no direct access with the other three parishes in the proposed ward. Furthermore, given our recommendation that the Spires estate of Renhold parish be

16 warded with the Bedford town area, we put forward a two-member ward comprising the Council’s proposed Great Barford ward and including Ravensden parish and the more rural parts of Renhold parish.

92 At Stage Three eight submissions were received in relation to the proposed Elstow ward. The Council broadly supported the arrangements in the rural south but proposed minor amendments to the Kempston South boundary with Elstow to follow the southern by-pass and the boundary between Eastcotts and Kingsbrook wards. However, this would involve creating parish wards with few or no electors.

93 Elstow Parish Council supported the draft recommendations. The remainder of the submissions proposed alternative warding arrangements for combining Elstow and Wilshamstead, and Stewartby and Wootton parishes in two single-member wards. Reasonable evidence was provided for shared community interests and communication links between Elstow and Wilshamstead parishes but no proposal was received which could satisfactorily improve on the draft recommendations without a significant detrimental impact on electoral equality. If, as several representations proposed, Stewartby was warded with Wootton then this ward would have an electoral variance of 42% more by 2015.

94 One submission received concerned the new Wixams Estate that is being developed in Wilshamstead parish. Wilshamstead Parish Council commented that the draft recommendations were acceptable in the short- to medium-term but that electoral equality will become imbalanced towards the latter stages of the five-year forecast period. The variance for Wilshamstead ward moves from 30% fewer in 2008 to 13% more by 2015.

95 We recognise that, in the long term, electoral variances will inevitably grow in areas of development. However, we consider that the five-year electorate forecast provided by the Council has provided the best estimate that can reasonably be made at this time as to electorate growth in the medium term. Based on the information available at this stage, we consider that the draft recommendations provide the best balance between the statutory criteria and, therefore, confirm them as final.

96 The Council resubmitted its Stage One proposals for the eastern rural area of Bedford. The Council’s proposed single-member Renhold ward would also include the Spires Estate for reasons discussed earlier in the Bedford town north and east section of this report. Its proposed Renhold ward received support from Ravensden Parish Council and Renhold Parish Council. The Parish Councils cited evidence of shared community identities, the geographical boundaries of the A421 and the River Ouse as justification not to be included in a larger two-member Great Barford ward.

97 While noting the evidence received at Stage Three, we consider that a two-member Great Barford ward remains the most sensible warding arrangement. In particular, we remain concerned about the issue of access and communication links of the alternative approach. Under the Council’s proposed Great Barford ward there would be no direct access between Great Barford parish and other rural parishes to its south such as Willington and Cople. They are only connected by a narrow strip of land which is itself bisected by a waterway with no significant crossing points. On balance, therefore, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

17 98 Under our final recommendations, the proposed Eastcotts, Wilshamstead, Elstow and Great Barford wards would have electoral variances of 5% more, 13% more, 5% more and 5% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

Rural North 99 We based our draft recommendations for this area on the Council’s proposals, which had been consulted on locally and had a measure of support. The Council had proposed a single-member Harrold ward which would comprise the parishes of Carlton & Chellington, Harrold, Odell, Podington and Wymington. The Council also proposed a single-member Riseley ward comprising the parishes of Thurleigh, Bletsoe, Riseley, Melchbourne & Yielden, Dean & Shelton, Swineshead and Pertenhall. These proposed wards would have electoral variances of 8% more and 11% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015.

100 The Council also proposed a single-member Sharnbrook ward comprising the parishes of Milton Ernest, Felmersham, Sharnbrook and Knotting & Souldrop and a single- member Wyboston ward which would comprise the parishes of Bolnhurst & Keysoe, Little Staughton, Wilden, Colmworth, Staploe, Wyboston, Chawston & Colesden, Roxton and Little Barford parishes. These proposed wards would have electoral variances of 7% more and 3% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. While it was acknowledged that the electoral variance for the proposed Riseley ward was relatively high, the Council stated that it contains a number of sparsely populated and rural communities near the northern boundary of the borough which makes it more difficult to minimise electoral variances.

101 At Stage Three, the Council made no further proposals for the rural north and only two further submissions were received for this area. Dean & Shelton Parish Council supported the recommendations for the Riseley ward.

102 Bolnhurst & Keysoe Parish Council voiced some concern regarding the proposal to re-ward them in Wyboston ward instead of Riseley ward. They considered they shared identities with communities in the proposed Riseley ward and noted they had developed the Police Joint Action Group with other communities in the Riseley area. We acknowledge the concerns expressed by the parish council. However, we are not persuaded that we have received sufficient supporting evidence to move away from our draft recommendations for this area.

103 On the basis of the submissions received at Stage Three, we have decided to confirm the draft recommendations for this area as final. Under our final recommendations, the proposed Harrold, Riseley, Sharnbrook and Wyboston wards would have electoral variances of 8% more, 11% fewer, 7% more and 3% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

Rural west 104 Our draft recommendations for this area were based on the Council’s proposals. The recommendations were for a single-member Bromham & Biddenham ward and an Oakley ward comprising the parishes of Oakley, Pavenham and Stevington. These

18 proposed wards would have electoral variances of 7% fewer and 2% fewer electors per councillor respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. We also adopted the Council’s proposed Clapham ward which would be coterminous with the parish of the same name and have an electoral variance of 9% by 2015.

105 At Stage Three, Bromham Parish Council and Biddenham Parish Council both supported the draft recommendations. Pavenham Parish Council objected to the draft recommendations to ward Pavenham with Oakley parish on the grounds that Oakley is more urbanised.

106 The strength of this submission, that Pavenham or Stevington parishes would be inadequately represented under the proposals, was not, in our opinion, persuasive. Furthermore, we note the poor electoral equality that would result from transferring Pavenham parish to an adjoining ward.

107 On balance, we are of the view that it is not possible to re-ward the Oakley area without a wider re-warding of the rural west and north of the borough . Given this, and noting that other submissions have been received supporting our draft recommendations, we intend confirming them as final.

108 Under our final recommendations, the proposed Bromham & Biddenham and Oakley wards would have electoral variances of 7% fewer and 2% fewer electors per councillors respectively than the average for the borough by 2015. The final recommendations for this area are shown on the large maps accompanying this report.

Conclusions

109 Table 1 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2008 and 2015 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2008 2015

Number of councillors 40 40

Number of electoral wards 27 27

Average number of electors per councillor 2,906 3,083

Number of wards with a variance more than 10% from the average 10 2

Number of wards with a variance more than 20% from the average 20

19 Final recommendation Bedford Borough Council should comprise 40 councillors serving 27 wards, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

110 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

111 During Stage One, some parishes requested changes to parish electoral arrangements where these were not as a consequence of our proposed district warding arrangements. Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Bedford Borough Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

112 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we proposed consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Kempston and Renhold.

113 The parish of Kempston is currently divided into four wards returning 12 members: Kempston East ward (returning four members), Kempston North ward (returning three members), Kempston South ward (returning four members) and Kempston West (returning one member).

114 As a result of our proposed borough ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Kempston parish.

Final recommendation Kempston Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, representing four wards: Kempston Central & East ward (returning six members), Kempston North ward (returning two members), Kempston South ward (returning two members) and Kempston West ward (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on large maps accompanying this report.

115 The parish of Renhold is currently divided into two parish wards and is served by nine parish councillors: Renhold North ward (returning six members) and South West ward (returning three members). As a result of our proposed borough ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Renhold parish.

20 Final recommendation Renhold Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, representing three wards: Renhold North ward (returning five members), South West ward (returning two members) and The Spires ward (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on large maps accompanying this report.

21 22 3 What happens next?

We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Bedford Borough Council. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements for the Council to be implemented at the next elections for Bedford Borough Council in 2011.

23 24 4 Mapping

Final recommendations for Bedford Borough Council

The following maps illustrate our proposed ward boundaries for Bedford Borough Council:

Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for Bedford Borough Council.

Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed wards in the west of Bedford town and Kempston area.

Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed wards in the east of the Bedford town area.

25 26 Appendix A

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive character Beauty) and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Boundary Committee The Boundary Committee for England was a committee of the Electoral Commission, responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Boundary Committee’s functions were assumed by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in April 2010

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral Commission An independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. Its aim is integrity and public confidence in the democratic process. It regulates party and election finance and sets standards for well-run elections

27 Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Local Government Boundary Commission The Local Government Boundary for England (or LGBCE) Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee for England in April 2010

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 10 National Parks in England are areas of protected countryside; further details can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

28 Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town Council’

Parish (or Town) Council electoral The total number of councillors on any one arrangements parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Committee for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

29 Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town Council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

30 Appendix B

Code of practice on written consultation

The Cabinet Office’s Code of Practice on Written Consultation (November 2000) (http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/servicefirst/2000/consult/code/_consultation.pdf) requires all government departments and agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, are encouraged to follow the Code.

The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 January 2001, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed.

31 Table B1: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s compliance with Code criteria

Criteria Compliance/departure

Timing of consultation should be built into the We comply with this planning process for a policy (including requirement. legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about We comply with this what questions, in what timescale and for what requirement. purpose.

A consultation document should be as simple We comply with this and concise as possible. It should include a requirement. summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

Documents should be made widely available, We comply with this with the fullest use of electronic means (though requirement not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals. . Sufficient time should be allowed for We consult at the start of the review and considered responses from all groups with an on our draft recommendations. Our interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard consultation statges are a minimum minimum period for a consultation total of 16 weeks.

Responses should be carefully and open- We comply with this mindedly analysed , and the results made requirement. widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

Departments should monitor and evaluate We comply with this consultations, designating a consultation requirement. coordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.

1 b

)

(

)

(

T A Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Bedford Borough Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Ward name Number of Electorate electors per from Electorate electors per from councillors (2008) councillor average % (2015) councillor average %

13 Kempston Central & East 2 5,398 2,699 -7% 5,678 2,839 -8% 14 Kempston North 1 3,009 3,009 4% 3,009 3,009 -2% 15 Kempston Rural 1 2,723 2,723 -6% 3,218 3,218 4% 16 Kempston South 1 3,251 3,251 12% 3,288 3,288 7% 17 Kempston West 1 2,862 2,862 -2% 3,122 3,122 1% 18 Kingsbrook 2 6,369 3,185 10% 6,482 3,241 5% 19 Newnham 2 5,626 2,813 -3% 5,640 2,820 -9% 20 Oakley 1 3,007 3,007 3% 3,021 3,021 -2% 21 Putnoe 2 6,136 3,068 6% 6,141 3,071 0% 22 Queens Park 2 5,572 2,786 -4% 5,602 2,801 -9% 23 Riseley 1 2,704 2,704 -7% 2,737 2,737 -11%

34 able C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Bedford Borough Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Ward name Number of Electorate electors per from Electorate electors per from councillors (2008) councillor average % (2015) councillor average %

24 Sharnbrook 1 3,281 3,281 13% 3,301 3,301 7% 25 Wilshamstead 1 2,032 2,032 -30% 3,470 3,470 13% 26 Wootton 1 3,328 3,328 15% 3,369 3,369 9% 27 Wyboston 1 2,952 2,952 2% 2,990 2,990 -3% Totals 40 116,246 – – 123,307 – – Averages – – 2,906 – – 3,083 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Bedford Borough Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number

35 36 Appendix D

Additional legislation we have considered

Equal opportunities

In preparing this report we have had regard to the general duty set out in Section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to the need to:

■ eliminate unlawful racial discrimination ■ promote equality of opportunity ■ promote good relations between people of different racial groups

National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Broads

We have also had regard to:

■ Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as inserted by Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the Park’s purposes. If there is a conflict between those purposes, a relevant authority shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park.

■ Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an AONB, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of the AONB.

■ Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act (as inserted by Section 97, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the Broads, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes of the Broads.