Stoke-25-10-10.Pdf

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and final recommendations 5

Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 8 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 10 Burslem, Tunstall and Chell 11 Hanley and Northwood 14 Stoke and Penkhull 15 South of the A50/A500 16 East of the city 18 Conclusions 21

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 33 Stoke-on-Trent City Council

D Additional legislation we have had regard to 37

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad 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 – for a specific local authority.

This electoral review is being conducted following a direction from the Electoral Commission. The Commission considered it necessary to undertake a review of Stoke-on- Trent City Council in the interests of providing for effective and convenient local government.

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

This review has been conducted as follows:

Stage Stage starts Description

One 20 October 2009 Submission of proposals to the Boundary Committee

Two 12 January 2010 The Boundary Committee’s analysis and deliberation

Three 26 March 2010 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them

Four 14 June 2010 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations

The Boundary Committee proposed a council size of 44 members and a mixed pattern of wards, including single-, two- and three-member wards. The draft recommendations were constructed on the basis of reflecting community evidence received, transport and communication links within the city and visits to the area. In places the draft recommendations reflected the scheme consulted on by the Council. The Boundary Committee divided the city into five distinct areas in order to build a warding pattern. It identified a number of clear breaks or barriers to movement within the city, both natural and man-made, and constructed draft recommendations using these barriers. In two areas these boundaries were crossed in order to improve the levels of electoral equality and access within the proposed wards.

Submissions received

During Stage Three the Commission received 177 representations, with Stoke-on-Trent City Council and a local resident providing city-wide comments. The Council opposed a mixture of single- and multi-member wards across the city and proposed a uniform pattern

1 of 44 single-member wards, on the grounds that electoral arrangements would be easy to understand, consistent across the city (Stoke-on-Trent City Council currently has 20 three- member wards) and provide a level playing field for all candidates at future local elections. The local resident proposed a pattern of 22 two-member wards. We also received representations on specific wards from MPs, city councillors, residents’ associations and local residents. All submissions can be viewed on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk.

Analysis and final recommendations

Electorate figures

The City Council submitted electoral forecasts with a projected increase of approximately 1% within the five-year period 2008–13. The Council provided some details of its methodology in support of the increase. Following changes to the legislation, we must now consider the electorate forecasts five years from the end of the review. The City Council provided forecasts for 2015. While we received some correspondence during stages One and Three regarding the levels of electoral registration in the city, we are satisfied that the City Council’s projections are the best estimate at this time. These have formed the basis of our final recommendations.

General analysis

We have given careful consideration to all the Stage Three submissions received in response to the draft recommendations and are broadly confirming the draft recommendations as final. We note Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s objections to the proposed mixed warding pattern of single- and multi-member wards. However, we do not consider that evidence was received to justify a uniform warding pattern of single- or multi-member wards, particularly given their impact on communities in the city. The City Council proposed some minor amendments to the draft recommendations, some of which we have adopted.

We are also recommending a two-member Great Chell & Packmoor ward, as proposed by a number of residents’ associations during Stage Three, including those covering Chell Area, Brindley Ford Community and Fegg Hayes. Our final recommendations for Stoke-on- Trent are that the Council should have 31 single-member wards, five two-member wards and one three-member ward. Our final recommendations take account of all the submissions received.

What happens next?

We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Stoke-on-Trent City Council. The changes we have proposed must be approved by 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 Stoke-on-Trent City 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 On 10 June 2009 the Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. The review commenced on 4 August 2009. The Boundary Committee wrote to Stoke-on-Trent City Council together with other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals to us on the most appropriate council size for the new council (this is referred to as ‘council size’ throughout this report). The Boundary Committee used the submissions it received to inform its decision on council size. On 20 October 2009 it announced that it was minded to recommend a 45-member council, and invited the submission of proposals on the warding arrangements for Stoke-on-Trent based on 45 councillors. Following the consultation the Committee reduced the council size to 44 councillors as this provided for better electoral equality across the city. The submissions received during this stage of the review informed the Boundary Committee’s Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements in Stoke-on-Trent, which was published on 26 March 2010. It then undertook a further 11-week period of consultation, which ended on 14 June 2010.

2 On 1 April 2010, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee. We have now considered the draft recommendations in the light of the further evidence and decided whether or not to make modifications to them.

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 Stoke-on-Trent?

6 In October 2007, the Stoke-on-Trent Governance Commission was established by the Government to ‘review the governance of Stoke-on-Trent and to inform public debate which will be taking place on the future pattern of the city’s governance’. In its final report to the Government and City Council in May 2008, the Commission made 14 recommendations. It recommended, among other matters, that: ■ The City Council should move to all-out elections, i.e. hold elections once every four years (the council currently elects by thirds, with elections in three years

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 3 out of four). ■ There should be a uniform pattern of single-member wards (the council currently has a uniform pattern of three-member wards). ■ Work should be commenced on building a case for an appropriate council size at an early date (the Council currently comprises 60 councillors).

7 The Commission’s recommendations in relation to electoral arrangements were initially accepted by the City Council. However, following consultation on a move to whole council elections, the City Council failed to pass a resolution to move to such a cycle by the necessary two-thirds majority. The Government was informed of this decision.

8 On 8 May 2009, the then Minister for Local Government announced in the House of Commons that the Government were minded to intervene to make an Order under section 86 of the Local Government Act 2000 specifying a scheme of whole council elections for Stoke-on-Trent City Council from 2011.

9 The then Minister for Local Government also announced that he would ask the Electoral Commission to respond to the Governance Commission’s recommendations referred to in the second and third bullet point above and to direct the Boundary Committee to undertake an electoral review with a view to any new electoral arrangements being implemented in May 2011.

10 The Electoral Commission concluded that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government for the Boundary Committee to conduct an electoral review of Stoke-on-Trent. However, the legislation under which the review is being carried out (referred to above) makes clear that, when conducting such a review, the Boundary Committee must continue to have regard to all the statutory criteria that governs all electoral reviews, as outlined in paragraph 4.

How will our recommendations affect you?

11 Our recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which electoral ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. Your electoral ward’s name may also change.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

12 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. It is responsible for conducting reviews.

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

13 We have now finalised our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Stoke-on-Trent.

14 In conducting this review and recommending new electoral arrangements for Stoke- on-Trent 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 are easily identifiable - the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

15 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on 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.

16 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 for us to consider, 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.

17 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that our recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our 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

18 Prior to and during the initial stages of the review, members and officers of the Committee visited Stoke-on-Trent and met with members and officers of the City Council. The Committee was grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. The Committee received 23 submissions during its initial consultation on council size, and a further 127 representations during Stage One.

19 During Stage Three the Commission received 177 representations, with only Stoke- on-Trent City Council and a local resident providing city-wide comments. The City Council’s submission opposed a mixture of single- and multi-member wards across the city in principle and proposed a uniform pattern of 44 single-member wards. However, no

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 5 evidence was received demonstrating how each of its proposed wards would better reflect communities in the area. The scheme proposed by the City Council did not alter the identified geographical and man-made barriers that the Committee had used in dividing the city into five identifiable areas. It proposed some minor amendments to the boundaries of some single-member wards and provided boundaries for the Council’s proposed single- member wards. The local resident who commented on all the wards across the city proposed a uniform pattern of 22 two-member wards.

20 Additionally, we received representations from MPs, councillors, local organisations and local residents on the draft recommendations. The representations mainly focused on the areas of Hanford & Trentham, Cliff Vale & Stoke, Tunstall, Brindley Ford & Packmoor and Dresden & Florence. Some of the representations supported the draft recommendations, some provided alternate boundaries, some provided a different warding pattern for a particular area and some proposed name changes. Notably, we received very few representations about the areas of Hanley and Northwood and the East of the city.

21 We also undertook a series of direct consultation activities during stage three. A Commissioner and a number of Commission staff spent a total of six days in the city, during which we heard views from councillors, local organisations and members of the public. The views heard verbally during our time in the city have helped us improve our understanding of the city and linkages within it. Although some of the individuals we met responded in writing to the consultation, in fact the main issue we heard about in the city (the proposed three-member ward of Baddeley, Milton & Norton) generated very few written submissions.

22 All the submissions received during all stages of the review may be inspected at both our offices and those of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk .

Electorate figures

23 Stoke-on-Trent currently has 188,014 electors (December 2008). In its initial electoral forecasts Stoke-on-Trent City Council predicted that the electorate would grow by approximately 1%. We considered the City Council’s forecast figures and noted that it was predicting the growth to be spread evenly across the city. While we received some correspondence during stages One and Three regarding the levels of electoral registration in the city, we were content that the estimates provided were the best estimate at that time.

24 Following changes to the legislation, we must now consider the electorate forecasts five years from the end of the review. We wrote to Stoke-on-Trent City Council requesting electorate forecasts for 2015. Having considered these projected electoral forecasts, we remain satisfied that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality, strong boundaries and reflect community identities. We have therefore used them as the basis of our final recommendations.

Council size

25 Stoke-on-Trent City Council currently has 60 councillors. During the Boundary Committee’s initial consultation, it received a number of proposals for council size, ranging

6 from 20 to 80. The City Council proposed a range of 52–56 members, while the Stoke-on- Trent Governance and Transition Board detailed its view of the feasibility of council sizes of 36, mid-40s and 50 councillors. The then Leader of the Council, Councillor Ross Irving, informed the Committee that, while he had voted in support of the City Council’s proposal, in order for a broad council view to be presented, he considered that the conclusions of the City Council’s report better reflect a council size between 46 and 49.

26 Rob Flello MP considered that the City Council required 80 councillors in order for the authority to operate effectively. The representations the Boundary Committee received advocating a council size of 60 and above were argued on the basis of addressing concerns over under-representation. Those respondents were particularly concerned that a reduction in council size would have an impact on the amount of ward work councillors would be able to undertake.

27 The Boundary Committee considered carefully the issue of the appropriate number of councillors for Stoke-on-Trent. It noted the wide range of proposals that were put to it, and the variety of arguments for reducing, increasing and indeed keeping the same council size. On balance, the Committee considered the argument for a council size in the region of mid-40s as having the most evidence to justify it, given the functions and political management structure of the council, and the roles and responsibilities of councillors. Prior to the start of its first consultation on ward boundaries, the Committee announced that it was minded to recommend a council size of 45, and invited proposals for ward patterns based on this number of councillors.

28 The Boundary Committee explained to all parties from the outset of the review that the council size figure adopted at this stage of the review provided context for local stakeholders to submit their views on the wider electoral arrangements and that this council size figure could be slightly adjusted in order to provide for warding patterns that better reflected electoral equality and community identity.

29 In the development of the draft recommendations the Boundary Committee considered carefully the local geography of the city, noting that some areas have a high proportion of the electorate, some a lower proportion of the electorate, some with good transportation links within areas and others without. The Committee initially looked at the development of warding patterns for 45 councillors. It also looked to see whether 44 or 46 councillors would provide for better levels of electoral equality across the entire city.

30 However, having analysed the proposals put to it, and considered the strong natural and man-made boundaries and distribution of electorate across the city, the Committee concluded that 44 councillors allowed for a better fit across the city, and therefore provided for better levels of electoral equality across the city. The Committee’s draft recommendations were therefore based on 44 councillors for Stoke-on-Trent.

31 During Stage Three we received some representations only on the issue of council size. Some advocated an increase from 44, some a reduction and some supported the proposed council size of 44 councillors. We have carefully considered these representations and concluded that the representations do not provide any new evidence to justify a change in the council size, from 44, at this stage. Therefore our final recommendations have been developed based on 44 councillors for Stoke-on-Trent.

7 Electoral fairness

32 Electoral fairness is a fundamental democratic principle, by which each elector in a local authority has a vote of equal weight. Our aim is to make recommendations that provide for electoral fairness, reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

33 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor and use that as our ideal figure. The authority average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the district (188,014 in December 2008 and 189,729 by December 2013) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council – 44 under our final recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our final recommendations is 4,273 in 2008 and 4,312 by 2013. By 2015, the electorate is forecast to rise further to 190,294, with the average number of electors per councillor increasing to 4,325.

34 Under our final recommendations, there will be only five wards in which the number of electors per councillor will vary by more than 10% from the average across the city by 2015. We lay out the reasons why we consider these imbalances to be justified later in the report. In the remainder of the city, the number of electors per councillor in each ward will vary by less than 10% from the average across the city. Overall, we are satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our final recommendations for Stoke-on-Trent. General analysis

35 During Stage One the Committee received 120 representations. The Committee did not receive a proposal from the City Council and, indeed, only received one city-wide proposal. Having conducted a thorough consultation exercise on a city-wide scheme, the City Council could not reach agreement on it at a full council meeting. However, it did submit the draft of the scheme together with copies of all representations it had received in response to its consultation proposals. While in some areas the Boundary Committee’s proposed draft recommendations reflected, to some extent, the Council’s draft scheme, in many areas they were constructed on the basis of reflecting community evidence received, transport and communication links within the city and visits to the area.

36 Following visits to the city, the Boundary Committee divided it into five distinct areas in order to build a warding pattern. It identified a number of clear breaks or barriers to movement within the city, both natural and man made, and the draft recommendations were based on areas defined by the boundaries. These areas were:

■ the Trentham, Blurton, Longton and Meir Park areas, south of the A50/A500 ■ the east of the city, stretching from the A50 in the south, to Ball Green in the north, east of the Caldon Canal and the disused North Staffordshire railway line ■ Stoke and Penkhull, west of the West Coast Main Line and north of the A500 ■ Hanley and Northwood, north of the A50, east of the West Coast Main Line, and south of Festival Park and Central Forest Park ■ the Burslem, Tunstall and Chell areas in the north-west of the city, west of the disused North Staffordshire railway line and north of Festival Park and Central Forest Park

8 37 While the Boundary Committee sought in principle to build wards within these distinct areas, and use the strong barriers between them, it breached them in two places, in order to improve levels of electoral equality and access within the proposed wards. These were at Ford Green and the Edenhurst Avenue area north of the A50. In a number of the estate-based residential areas within the five discrete areas, the Committee tried to avoid using arbitrary boundaries to divide estates, while recognising that if areas must be split for electoral equality, it was important to reflect communities and access within wards.

38 At Stage Three we received over 170 representations, with only Stoke-on-Trent City Council and a local resident providing city-wide comments. The Council opposed a mixture of single- and multi-member wards across the city and proposed a uniform pattern of 44 single-member wards on the grounds that such electoral arrangements would be easy to understand, consistent across the city (Stoke-on-Trent City Council currently has 20 three- member wards) and provide a level playing field for all candidates at future local elections. No evidence was received detailing how the splitting of our proposed multi-member wards of Baddeley, Milton & Norton, Hanford & Trentham, Birches Head & Central Forest Park, Abbey Hulton and Bentilee & Ubberley would better reflect communities in this area.

39 The scheme proposed by the City Council did not alter the identified geographical and man-made barriers the Committee had used in dividing the city into five identifiable areas. The City Council also proposed a few minor amendments to the boundaries of some single-member wards; these proposed modifications were mainly confined to the Tunstall, Burslem and Chell areas.

40 We also received representations from MPs, councillors, local organisations and local residents on the draft recommendations. The representations mainly focused on the areas of Hanford & Trentham, Cliff Vale & Stoke, Tunstall, Brindley Ford & Packmoor and Dresden & Florence. Some of the representations supported the draft recommendations, some provided alternate boundaries, some provided a different warding pattern for a particular area and some proposed name changes. Notably, the Commission received very few representations about the areas of Hanley and Northwood and the East of the city.

41 We note the comments put forward in response to the draft recommendations and are making some amendments as a result. Our final recommendations are for a pattern of 31 single-member wards, five two-member wards and one three-member ward. We believe our proposals provide good electoral equality while seeking to reflect community identities and interests where we have received such evidence.

Single- and multi-member ward comments

42 At Stage Three we received a variety of comments on the issue of single- and multi- member wards. As mentioned previously, the City Council proposed a uniform pattern of 44 single-member wards. The Transition Board supported the City Council’s proposal and reiterated its preference for single-member wards. The Leader of the Conservative and Independent Alliance Group also wrote in support of a uniform pattern of single-member wards.

43 In our discussions with the City Council and other interested groups and individuals in the city, much was made of the need, as part of this electoral review, for warding

9 patterns that reflected the strong pattern of communities across the area. This is what the Boundary Committee had sought to achieve in its draft recommendations. However, it seemed to us that that the City Council’s 44 single-member ward pattern actually split clear and distinctive communities, with little or no rationale being given in explanation.

44 Further comments were received from across the city arguing for uniform patterns of both single- and multi-member wards. Interestingly, however, many of the arguments heard at consultation events from local organisations and members of the public were in support of multi-member wards, to mitigate against problems that arise if a councillor is unwell, is on the executive, or does not fulfil his or her duties fully.

45 We also received a city-wide proposal for a uniform pattern of 22 two-member wards, and some representations supporting such a pattern. We carefully considered this proposal, which suggested splitting the three-member Baddeley, Milton & Norton ward and joining the Norton area with the Committee’s Bradeley & Chell Heath ward. However, in the absence of community identity evidence, and noting the geographical divide between the two areas, we were not persuaded to adopt this particular two-member ward. Nor do we consider that we could propose a uniform pattern of two-member wards across the city as in other areas of the city we received submissions in support of specific single-member wards. Representations were also received that sought to combine two single-member wards in order to create two-member wards. Finally, a number of local residents argued that as near to the existing pattern of wards should be achieved (i.e. a uniform pattern of three-member wards).

46 When formulating the draft recommendations the Committee noted that this review was not being undertaken following a request from the Council for single-member wards. Stoke-on-Trent City Council had an opportunity to make such a request but did not do so. We have no policy on whether authorities should be represented by single-, two- or three- member wards, nor whether there should be a uniform pattern. Our responsibilities are to make reasoned judgements on how the proposed wards best meet all of the statutory criteria, achieving good levels of electoral equality while reflecting communities and allowing for convenient and effective local government.

47 There is clearly no consensus on this issue within Stoke and we have developed a final recommendations scheme on the basis of the criteria to which we must have regard. While we have heard principled arguments for uniform patterns of wards – both in favour of single- and multi-members – we have not had evidence on a ward-by-ward basis as to how the resultant wards reflect the communities within them. Our final recommendations include one-, two- and three-member wards throughout the city.

Electoral arrangements

48 This section of the report details the representations we have received, our consideration on them, and our final recommendations for each area of Stoke-on-Trent. As detailed earlier, we have divided the city into five areas and the following areas of the authority are considered in turn:

■ Burslem, Tunstall and Chell ■ Hanley and Northwood ■ Stoke and Penkhull

10 ■ South of the A50/A500 ■ East of the city

Burslem, Tunstall and Chell

49 In this area of the city the draft recommendations were for 11 single-member wards. These wards were loosely based on the scheme consulted on by the Council during Stage One, as the Boundary Committee altered the boundaries of their proposed Tunstall ward in order to achieve better electoral equality and improve access within wards.

Goldenhill & Sandyford

50 During Stage One the Boundary Committee received two submissions that specifically commented on this area. One was supportive of the City Council’s proposed boundary but suggested a ward name change. The other suggested that the southern boundary of this ward be moved further north, in order that the areas around the Summerbank School would be in the Tunstall ward. The Boundary Committee did change the southern boundary of this ward but not to the extent that electors in the Summerbank School area were included in the Tunstall ward, as this changed the level of electoral equality in this ward to an unacceptable level.

51 During Stage Three we received submissions from Joan Walley MP and a number of local residents who proposed changes to the proposed Tunstall ward which would impact on Goldenhill & Sandyford ward. Respondents proposed that Bond, Newfield, Smith Child and Hardy streets should be included in the proposed Tunstall ward as they were all part of the Summerbank community which, in turn, was part of the Tunstall community. These points were also made forcefully to officers from the Commission at a roundtable event in the area. However, the inclusion of all these electors in the Tunstall ward would worsen the variance from 5% more electors to 12% more electors than the city average by 2015. The Goldenhill & Sandyford ward would improve, from 6% more to 1% fewer electors than the city average by 2015.

52 We have carefully considered these representations and the resulting levels of electoral equality. While we have some sympathy for the arguments made, in light of the limited evidence received we were not persuaded to adopt this modification as we consider that insufficient community evidence was provided. We were also concerned not only about the effect this change would have on electoral equality but also the possible impact on neighbouring communities outside of the Summerbank community. On balance, and in light of the evidence received, we confirm the draft recommendations for this area as final.

Great Chell, Brindley Ford & Packmoor

53 During Stage One the Boundary Committee received some representations about the Chell, Brindley Ford and Packmoor areas which were mainly supportive of retaining the existing three-member ward that covered these areas. The Committee did not recommend a multi-member ward for these areas, as the representations received were more focused on the principle of single- and multi-member wards rather than providing evidence relating to the statutory criteria. The Committee therefore proposed a single- member Brindley Ford & Packmoor ward and a single-member Great Chell ward.

11 54 For the proposed Brindley Ford & Packmoor ward the Committee considered that the two settlements of Packmoor and Turnhurst were geographically separate from the surrounding settlements, and noted that they could only be accessed via Turnhust Road to the A527, or from the edge of the city in the north, via Brindley Ford. The Committee considered that there was no scope for moving electors into this ward while still ensuring good access within the ward and providing good boundaries. The proposed Great Chell ward ensured that housing estates within this area were not arbitrarily split from one another.

55 During Stage Three we received representations from a number of residents’ associations, including those covering Chell Area, Brindley Ford Community and Fegg Hayes, commenting on the wards covering those areas. They argued that the amalgamation of these two wards, forming a two-member ward, would better meet the criteria. All the residents’ associations provided good evidence of community identity, including local amenities and services, and commented on the transport link between the two areas. They took the view that these communities are linked via the A527 rather than being accessed via Turnhurst Road.

56 We have carefully considered the evidence provided by the residents’ associations and are persuaded that a two-member ward covering Brindley Ford & Packmoor and Great Chell would better reflect those communities while also improving electoral equality in the area. This ward will be named Great Chell & Packmoor and would have 4% fewer electors, per councillor, than the city average by 2015.

Tunstall

57 During Stage One the Council consulted on a Tunstall ward, which at 15% more electors than the city average by 2015 would have a high level of electoral inequality. In order to address the level of electoral equality in the Tunstall ward consulted on by the Council, the Boundary Committee altered the proposed boundaries. It also received other representations about this ward, including one from Queensland Residents’ Association. The representations proposed boundaries for a Tunstall ward which would have too high a level of electoral inequality. The Committee acknowledged that the Tunstall area contained too many electors and that it would not be able to propose a Tunstall ward that included all of the communities that associated with the area. It therefore proposed a Tunstall ward that achieved a reasonable level of electoral equality, provided for easily identifiable boundaries and where possible kept similar communities together.

58 During Stage Three we received few submissions on the proposed Tunstall ward. Those received mainly argued for the proposed change discussed under the Goldenhill & Sandyford section (paragraphs 50–2). In light of this we have decided to confirm the draft recommendations for Tunstall ward as final.

Little Chell & Stanfield, Bradeley & Chell Heath, Burslem Park, Burslem Central, Cobridge, Ford Green & Smallthorne and Sneyd Green

59 During Stage One the Boundary Committee received a number of representations about these wards. Some respondents considered the merits of multi-member wards covering these areas; particularly a two-member ward covering the Burslem Central and

12 Cobridge area. The representations again focused more on the principle of single- and multi-member wards rather than evidence relating to the Committee’s criteria. The Committee also received a representation from Newford Residents’ Association which proposed a ward for the Ford Green and Smallthorne area, some of which it adopted in proposing a Ford Green & Smallthorne ward.

60 During Stage Three the Council proposed some minor boundary amendments to the wards of Little Chell & Stanfield, Burslem Park, Burslem Central, Cobridge, Ford Green & Smallthorne and Sneyd Green. In relation to the Boundary Committee’s proposed Little Chell & Stanfield ward the Council suggested that the southern boundary of this ward run the other side of Haywood Road. Stanfield Residents’ Association also supported this amendment as they informed us that this change would maintain in a single ward the area covered by the association.

61 In relation to the Committee’s Burslem Park ward, the Council proposed three changes which would alter its boundaries with the adjacent wards of Burslem Central, Cobridge and Ford Green & Smallthorne. The Council proposed that Arthur Cotton Court and Port Vale Court on Hamil Road to be incorporated in the Burslem Central ward, and that the boundary be altered at the roundabout between the Burslem Park, Cobridge and Ford Green & Smallthorne wards. We have carefully considered these minor amendments and have decided to adopt them as part of our final recommendations.

62 So far as the Council’s proposed amendment to Sneyd Green was concerned, we were unable to find identifiable ground detail to which we could tie its proposed boundary, as we are required to do by statute. Given that, we have decided to confirm the draft recommendations for the Sneyd Green ward as final.

63 We also received representations from Newford Residents’ Association and Smallthorne Village Residents’ Association, both of which proposed a minor boundary change to the Committee’s proposed ward of Ford Green & Smallthorne. The change would not affect any electors. The residents’ associations proposed that the boundary should run through the greenway in the north-west of the ward in order that councillors in two wards have shared responsibility for the tidiness of the greenway (which, we heard, is a significant issue locally). We were persuaded that such a change would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and have decided to adopt it as part of our final recommendations. The new boundary is shown on Map 2.

64 We also received representations regarding the ward name of Cobridge. Some proposed this ward be called ‘Moorcroft’ after the local pottery and some ‘Sneyd Green Village’ due to its historical connotations. We carefully considered both these name changes and have decided that Cobridge ward should be renamed Moorcroft.

65 We therefore recommend some minor boundary changes to the draft recommendations for the following wards: Little Chell & Stanfield, Burslem Park, Burslem Central, Ford Green & Smallthorne and Sneyd Green, which would result in variances of 4% more, 7% fewer, 1% more, 6% more and 10% fewer electors than the city average by 2015, respectively. These changes were proposed by the Council, and do not significantly affect electoral equality. We did not receive any other comments on the wards in this area and therefore confirm the Bradeley & Chell Heath ward as final.

13 66 In light of the evidence received during Stage Three we recommend nine single- member wards and one two-member ward covering this area. We consider these wards provide for good levels of electoral equality, reflect community identity and have identifiable boundaries. Table C1 (on pages 33–36) provides details of the electoral variances of our final recommendations for this area. Our final recommendations are shown on maps 1, 2 and 3 accompanying this report.

Hanley and Northwood

67 The Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations for this area were for four single-member wards and one two-member ward. During stages One and Three we received few representations in relation to this area of the city. At Stage Three the Council expressed a mixture of support and opposition to the draft recommendations.

Birches Head & Central Forest Park

68 The Council proposed that this two-member ward be split into two single-member wards. We carefully considered this proposed change. However, in our view, the splitting of this ward would result in an arbitrary boundary which splits communities and worsens electoral equality. We have therefore decided against adopting the proposal as part of our final recommendations.

Etruria & Hanley

69 The Council also proposed a minor boundary amendment to this ward, supported by Joan Walley MP. The proposal was for the flats situated between Union Street and Potteries Way to be located in the Etruria & Hanley ward. Councillor Clarke also submitted evidence in support of this change. Councillor Clarke stressed that this community has more in common with those situated in the Etruria & Hanley ward than the Birches Head & Central Forest Park ward.

70 We sought clarification from officers at the City Council on the number of electors expected over a five-year period in this area, as it contains three medium-rise blocks. The figures have been confirmed and would result in the Etruria & Hanley ward having a variance of 8% more electors and the Birches Head & Central Forest Park ward having a variance of 1% more electors, per councillor, than they city average by 2015. In light of the evidence we received in relation to community linkages the residents of the three blocks have with the Etruria & Hanley area, and the low impact on electoral equality, we have decided to adopt this amendment as part of our final recommendations.

Joiner’s Square, Hanley Park & Shelton and Fenton Park & Mount Pleasant

71 During Stage Three we received few representations about these wards. Those received were mainly supportive of the Committee’s proposed boundaries but suggested changes to the ward names. Four different ward names were proposed for Fenton Park & Mount Pleasant ward: Fenton & Mount Pleasant, Fenton West, Fenton West & Mount Pleasant and Heron Cross & Mount Pleasant. We have carefully considered the area covered by this ward and agree it should be renamed Fenton West & Mount Pleasant. We confirm the draft recommendations for the Joiner’s Square ward and Hanley Park & Shelton ward as final.

14 72 Our final recommendations for the wards in this area of the city are outlined in Table C1 on pages 33–36 of the report, and are shown on large maps 1 and 3 accompanying the report.

Stoke and Penkhull

73 The area is bordered by the strong barriers of the West Coast Main Line to the east and north; the A500 dual carriageway to the south; and the edge of the city to the west. Given the strength of these boundaries, the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations for this area did not breach them, despite the higher numbers of electors per councillor that result in the four wards that cover this area. The Committee noted that the warding pattern consulted on by the City Council also sought to reflect these easily identifiable boundaries. We do not propose to alter these boundaries as part of our final recommendations.

74 In this area of the city the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations were for four single-member wards. At Stage Three the Council supported the Committee’s proposals in general but suggested renaming Cliff Vale & Stoke ward as Hartshill & Basford; as detailed below, we also received over 35 representations supporting this name change proposal. Very few representations were received in regard to the other wards, apart from some representations that provided for a different boundary for the Stoke & Penkhull ward.

Cliff Vale & Stoke

75 During Stage Three we received a large number of representations proposing that this ward name be changed. We received representations from Councillor Conteh, Hartshill & Harpfield Residents’ Association, Friends of Hartshill Park and more than 30 members of the public who all submitted evidence explaining why the name of the Cliff Vale & Stoke ward should be changed to Hartshill & Basford. Councillor Conteh included a petition signed by 202 individuals from 154 households. The evidence received provided details of these communities being the largest in the proposed ward and that the ward was predominantly centred on these communities. Given the strong support, we have decided that Cliff Vale & Stoke ward be renamed Hartshill & Basford.

Penkhull & Stoke

76 During Stage One the Committee received representations arguing that the Penkhull Garden Village area (a conservation area) should be included in the Penkhull ward in its entirety. Under the Committee’s draft recommendations, this area was included in the Penkhull & Stoke ward. We received general support for this recommendation and are confirming it in our final recommendations.

77 During Stage Three a member of the public suggested a minor change to the north- east boundary of this ward, using Elenora Street as a boundary, as they understood the whole area was included in the future regeneration of Stoke town centre. We sought clarification from the City Council to ensure that the whole of this area had been designated as a redevelopment area, and understand that this is the case. The proposed modification would improve electoral equality in Hartshill & Basford ward from 10% more to

15 7% more, but worsen it in Penkhull & Stoke from 8% more to 10% more electors than the city average by 2015. On balance, we considered that the proposed modification uses a more appropriate boundary, keeps the identified regeneration area in one ward and does not significantly worsen electoral equality. We are therefore adopting this modification as part of our final recommendations.

Springfields & Trent Vale and Boothen & Oak Hill

78 During Stage One the Committee did not receive any representations about these wards. The Committee’s draft recommendations were for wards that provided good access, did not arbitrarily split communities and had reasonable levels of electoral equality. During Stage Three we received no representations about these wards other than general support from the City Council. We have therefore decided to confirm the draft recommendations for these wards as final.

79 Table C1 (on pages 33–36) provides details of the electoral variances of our final recommendations for this area. Our final recommendations are shown on maps 1, 3 and 4 accompanying this report.

South of the A50/A500

80 In this area of the city the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations were for seven single-member wards and one two-member ward.

Hanford & Trentham

81 During Stage One the majority of representations received by the Boundary Committee focused on the Meadow Lane Estate in Trentham. The representations argued that the Meadow Lane Estate should be included in a ward with the Trentham area, and informed the Committee of historical, geographical and community factors in support of respondents’ views. This was in response to the City Council’s consultation, which placed the Meadow Lane Estate in a ward with the Blurton area to the east, in order to achieve good levels of electoral equality.

82 The Committee received evidence informing it that the West Coast Main Line was the appropriate boundary for the Trentham ward, and that children in the Meadow Lane Estate attend the Ash Green Primary School and Trentham High Secondary School. It also received evidence that residents of the Meadow Lane Estate used local amenities in Trentham and some argued that the Trent and Mersey Canal – used as a boundary under the City Council’s consultation proposals – was actually a focal point for the Trentham area.

83 Having visited the area, the Committee considered that the railway line did indeed form a stronger and more identifiable boundary than the canal. Having carefully considered this and the strong community identity evidence put to it, the Committee recommended a two-member ward covering the Hanford and Trentham communities, even though it would result in a variance of 14% more electors per councillor than the city average by 2015. This, the Committee felt, was an acceptable variance given the strong evidence it had received about community identities and linkages in the area.

16 84 During Stage Three we received 58 representations in support for this ward from local residents. However, consistent with its wish for a uniform pattern of single-member wards, the City Council proposed splitting the two-member Hanford & Trentham ward into two single-member wards: Hanford & Trentham and Trentham Ley. On the boundaries proposed by the City Council these wards would have variances of 9% more and 19% more electors than the city average by 2015, respectively. The Council did not provide any detailed community evidence in support of this split apart from noting that its boundaries followed that of the area covered by a residents’ association – Ash Green & Pacific Road. A local resident argued that if this ward was to be split into two single-member wards then it was vital that all of the residents’ association’s area was in the same ward.

85 We have carefully considered the Council’s proposal and judge that it does not better meet the statutory criteria than the two-member ward proposed under the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations. Indeed, the Council’s modification worsens electoral equality. We also note the large number of representations received from members of the public in support of the draft recommendation – albeit focused on retaining the Meadow Lane Estate in Hanford & Trentham. We note that the two-member ward ensures that all of the Ash Green & Pacific Road Residents’ Association is kept in the same ward. We have therefore decided to confirm the draft recommendations for a two-member Hanford & Trentham ward as final.

Blurton East and Blurton West & Newstead

86 During Stage One the Committee received few representations on this area of the city. It proposed two single-member wards covering the Blurton area that kept similar communities together, provided for easy access within the wards and had good levels of electoral equality. In its draft recommendations, the Committee specifically asked for views on whether a two-member ward covering the whole of the Blurton area would better reflect the statutory criteria.

87 During Stage Three we did not receive any representations informing us that the Blurton area would be better represented by a two-member ward. However, the City Council proposed a minor amendment to the two single-member wards. It suggested that the Blurton West & Newstead ward should take in Garsdale Crescent and Fallowfield. This amendment improves electoral equality in both wards, with Blurton West & Newstead improving from 6% fewer electors to 2% fewer electors and Blurton East improving from 6% more electors to 1% more electors than the city average by 2015, respectively. The Council’s proposed modification would also provide for a better boundary. In light of the evidence received we have decided to adopt this modification as part of our final recommendations.

Hollybush & Longton West

88 At Stage One the Committee did not receive any proposals for ward boundaries for this area. Under its draft recommendations it proposed a single-member ward that did not cross the A50/A500, had a good level of electoral equality, kept similar communities together and had good internal access. During Stage Three we received one submission on this ward from the Council, which supported the ward. We therefore confirm the draft recommendations for this ward as final.

17 Dresden & Florence, Normacot, Lightwood and Meir Park

89 At Stage One the Committee received a number of representations which argued that any ward covering the Dresden & Florence area should include Sutherland Avenue and Southland Avenue. After visiting the area, the Committee reflected these views in its draft recommendations for this ward. During Stage One the Committee received few other submissions on the wards in this area.

90 During Stage Three we received two submissions from Dresden & Florence Residents’ Association. The initial representation supported the proposed Dresden & Florence ward, while the second representation proposed an amendment to the ward. The residents’ association argued that the ward should incorporate all of the New Florence Housing Estate on Highland Drive. We have carefully considered this proposal but cannot adopt it as part of the final recommendations – the amendment would result in electoral equality in Normacot ward worsening from 8% fewer electors to 17% fewer electors than the city average by 2015, and we consider that insufficient evidence has been received to justify such a level of electoral inequality.

91 In the remainder of this area we received few submissions and are not recommending any boundary changes to the Committee’s draft recommendations for the Normacot, Lightwood and Meir Park wards. However, having considered proposals made by the City Council and others, we recommend some ward name changes for the Normacot and Lightwood wards. The Council proposed that the Normacot ward should be renamed Lightwood North & Normacot, to better reflect the communities the ward covered. In addition, the City Council and Councillor Brian suggested that Lightwood ward be renamed Meir South as this was also a better reflection of the communities within the ward. We have carefully considered these representations and recommend that the Normacot ward be renamed Lightwood North & Normacot and the Lightwood Ward be renamed Meir South. Subject to these changes, we have decided to confirm as final the draft recommendation for wards in this part of the city.

92 Table C1 (on pages 33–36) provides details of the electoral variances of our final recommendations for this area. Our final recommendations are shown on maps 1 and 4 accompanying this report.

East of the city

93 At Stage One the Boundary Committee received few representations on this area of the city. When formulating its draft recommendations, the Committee’s approach to this geographically diverse and less population-dense part of the city was to divide it into three clearly-defined areas: the Meir/Meir Hay/Sandford Hill area (north of the A50 and south of the Adderley Green area); the Ubberley/Bentilee/Berry Hill/Townsend/Abbey Hulton area in the centre of the eastern area (south of Woodhead Road); and the remainder north of Woodhead Road (covering Milton/Baddeley Green/Norton/Ball Green).

94 In its draft recommendations, the Boundary Committee acknowledged that not breaching the strong geographic boundaries to the south and west of this eastern area resulted in over-representation in the central part of the area. However, it considered that breaching those boundaries, resulting in wards that combined parts of the separate areas, would not reflect the communities or transportation links in this part of the city.

18 Meir, Weston Coyney, Longton East, Meir Hay, Sandford Hill and Fenton

95 During Stage Three we received very few submissions about these wards. We received a representation from Woodfarm Residents’ Association which argued that the Weston Coyney and Meir wards should be joined to form a two-member ward, without providing sufficient evidence on how this would better reflect community identity. We also received a representation from Councillor Coleman who suggested changes to the Longton East and Meir wards. This change centred on the Broadway community in the Longton East ward being taken into the Meir ward – Councillor Coleman stated that the Broadway community was more closely associated with the Meir community. Although we considered this change we cannot recommend it, as electoral equality in the resultant Longton East ward would worsen to an unreasonable level of 30% fewer electors than the average for the city.

96 In light of the limited evidence received we are not recommending any boundary changes for these wards. However, we do recommend some changes to ward names. The Council and members of the public proposed that the Meir ward be renamed Meir North, as this was more identifiable and a better reflection of the area it covered. We are adopting this as part of our final recommendations. The Council also suggested that the Longton East ward should be renamed Broadway & Longton East. In light of this representation, and the one from Councillor Coleman discussed above, we have decided to adopt this name change. We also received three suggested name changes to the Fenton ward: Fenton & Fenpark, Fenpark & Foley and Fenton East. In light of the representations received we have decided that Fenton ward should be renamed Fenton East.

Bentilee & Ubberley/Abbey Hulton/Berry Hill

97 During Stage Three the Council proposed splitting the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendation for a two-member Bentilee & Ubberley ward into two single-member wards: Bentilee North and Bentilee South, with levels of electoral equality of 12% fewer electors and 10% fewer electors than the city average by 2015, respectively. We have carefully considered the Council’s submission and boundary it proposed. We considered that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating how the Council’s two single-member wards better reflect community identity. We also considered that the Council’s proposed boundary was arbitrary, running close to the Bentilee Neighbourhood Centre. Having visited the area, we consider that this Neighbourhood Centre is a focal point for both of the Council’s proposed single-member wards. We have therefore decided to confirm the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendation for a two-member Bentilee & Ubberley ward as final.

98 The Council also proposed splitting the two-member Abbey Hulton ward into two single-member wards: Bucknall & Townsend and Abbey Hulton, with levels of electoral equality of 12% fewer and 10% fewer electors per councillor than the city average by 2015, respectively. Although we considered that the boundary proposed by the Council was marginally less arbitrary than that proposed for the Bentilee & Ubberley wards, we received no evidence suggesting how the splitting of the two-member Abbey Hulton ward would better meet the statutory criteria, in particular providing for a better reflection of community identity. We have therefore decided to confirm the boundaries of the two- member Abbey Hulton ward as final.

19 99 We received a representation from a member of the public proposing that Abbey Hulton ward be renamed Townsend & Abbey Hulton, as they considered this was a better reflection of the communities the ward covered. In light of the representation received, and following a visit to the area, we have decided that Abbey Hulton ward should be renamed Abbey Hulton & Townsend.

100 Finally in this area, the Council suggested that Berry Hill ward be renamed Eaton Park, as this was the main residential estate in the ward. In light of the representation received we have decided that Berry Hill ward should be renamed Eaton Park.

Baddeley, Milton & Norton

101 At Stage One the Boundary Committee received few representations about these areas. Having carefully considered a number of different options, the Committee found that it could not achieve reasonable levels of electoral equality with one- or two-member wards without arbitrarily dividing the communities of Norton-in-the-Moors, Milton and Baddeley Green. It therefore proposed a three-member Baddeley, Milton & Norton ward as part of its draft recommendation and invited representations on whether a different warding pattern would be more appropriate for the area and if so, what that pattern should be.

102 The Committee’s draft recommendations for this ward generated significant comments at consultation events and a number of media articles, all criticising the geographic size of the ward, and the supposed lack of community identity between the three main villages within it. However, we received only four written objections or counter- proposals during Stage Three.

103 The Council proposed splitting the Committee’s draft recommendation for a three- member Baddeley, Milton & Norton ward into three single-members wards. Representations were also received from Joan Walley MP, who asked that we reconsider the three-member ward, and from Councillor Salih, who supported a single-member ward for the Norton area.

104 We received one further representation from a local resident, who gave support to the three-member ward, on the basis that it united an ancient parish and brought together three villages with similar mining histories and identities.

105 During our analysis of the submissions and deliberation on this ward, we again considered whether the three-member Baddeley, Milton & Norton ward could be broken down into smaller wards that might better meet the statutory criteria. We carefully considered the Council’s proposal but judged that there was insufficient evidence on how these single-member wards better reflected community identities and interests.

106 In particular, we considered that the Council’s proposed Baddeley Green ward, which linked parts of the south of the village of Norton with parts of the north of Baddeley Green, did not in any way reflect these communities. Notably the Baddeley Green ward would include the Norton County Primary School, but not the centre of Norton village. In our view, this proposed ward served to illustrate the difficulty the Committee had in coming up with any alternative single- or two-member ward options when formulating its draft recommendations. Nor do we consider that we can adopt the Ball Green & Norton ward proposed by the Council, as it splits the centre of Norton village.

20 107 Our experience of hosting a drop-in consultation event in the centre of Norton led us to conclude that if a single-member ward for the Norton area were recommended, it should include the local school, Norton County Primary. We consider that a boundary south of the school would provide an identifiable boundary for the ward and keep similar communities together. However, we are unable to recommend this larger ward for Norton as it would result in significant levels of electoral inequality, with a variance of over 20% more electors than the city average by 2015.

108 We also carefully considered whether it would be possible to propose a ward that combined all of the Norton community with the Milton community in a two-member ward, with a single-member ward covering the Baddeley communities. However, we did not receive any evidence to suggest this would better reflect communities. Accordingly, in the absence of such evidence, there appears to be no suitable alternative that better reflects the criteria than the three-member Baddeley, Milton & Norton ward. In the circumstances, we have decided to confirm the draft recommendation as final.

109 Table C1 (on pages 33–36) provides details of the electoral variances of our final recommendations for this area. Our final recommendations are shown on maps 1, 2, 3 and 4 accompanying this report.

Conclusions

110 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 44 44

Number of wards 37 37

Average number of electors per councillor 4,273 4,325

Number of wards with a variance more than 10% from the average 75

Number of wards with a variance more than 20% from the average 00

Final recommendation Stoke-on-Trent City Council should comprise 44 councillors serving 37 wards, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

21 22 3 What happens next?

111 We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Stoke-on-Trent City 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 which will come into force at the next elections for Stoke-on-Trent City Council, in 2011.

23 24 4 Mapping

Final recommendations for Stoke-on-Trent City Council

112 The following maps illustrate our proposed electoral ward boundaries for Stoke-on- Trent City Council:

Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed wards in Stoke-on-Trent – North.

Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed wards in Stoke-on-Trent – Central.

Sheet 4, Map 4 illustrates the proposed wards in Stoke-on-Trent – South.

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.

32 Appendix C

Table C1: Final recommendations for Stoke-on-Trent City 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 %

Burslem, Tunstall and Chell 1 Goldenhill 1 4,170 4,170 -2 4,591 4,591 6 & Sandyford 2 Great Chell 2 8,161 4,081 -5 8,328 4,164 -4 & Packmoor 3 Tunstall 1 4,269 4,269 0 4,525 4,525 5 4 Little Chell & Stanfield 1 4,431 4,431 4 4,503 4,503 4 5 Bradeley 1 4,052 4,052 -5 4,072 4,072 -6 & Chell Heath 6 Burslem Park 1 4,006 4,006 -6 4,009 4,009 -7 7 Ford Green 1 4,304 4,304 1 4,564 4,564 6 & Smallthorne 8 Burslem Central 1 4,226 4,226 -1 4,381 4,381 1 9 Moorcroft 1 4,041 4,041 -5 4,039 4,039 -7 10 Sneyd Green 1 3,983 3,983 -7 3,873 3,873 -10

33 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Stoke-on-Trent City 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 %

Hanley and Northwood 11 Etruria & Hanley 1 4,307 4,307 1 4,660 4,660 8 12 Birches Head & 2 8,699 4,350 2 8,779 4,390 1 Central Forest Park 13 Joiner’s Square 1 3,651 3,651 -15 4,273 4,273 -1 14 Hanley Park 1 4,709 4,709 10 4,700 4,700 9 & Shelton 15 Fenton West 1 4,576 4,576 7 4,425 4,425 2 & Mount Pleasant

Stoke and Penkhull 16 Hartshill & Basford 1 4,747 4,747 11 4,632 4,632 7 17 Penkhull & Stoke 1 4,793 4,793 12 4,759 4,759 10 18 Springfields 1 4,747 4,747 11 4,636 4,636 7 & Trent Vale 19 Boothen & Oak Hill 1 4,465 4,465 4 4,676 4,676 8

South of the A50/A500 20 Hanford & Trentham 2 9,855 4,928 15 9,845 4,923 14 21 Blurton West 1 4,224 4,224 -1 4,244 4,244 -2 & Newstead

6 8

9 8

1 7 4

6 1 9

- -

- - -

2 7

8 3

3 9 2

4 5 9

8 8

4 6

6 1 7

5 1 2

0 9

9 9

2 0 1

0 8 7

, ,

, , ,

4 3

3 3

4 4 4

)

2 7

8 3

3 9 2

4 5 9

8 8

4 6

6 1 7

5 1 2

0 9

9 9

2 0 1

0 8 7

, ,

, , ,

4 3

3 3

4 4 4

(

c g

6 0

8 7

1 1 2

5 9 3

- -

o -

t 5

i 3

e r

p o

2 9

7 9

5 8 1

0 7 2

s i

1 5

1 7

4 0 9

8 5 1

0 8

9 9

2 8 1

0 6 8

, ,

, , ,

4 3

3 3

4 3 4

4 4 4

)

2 9

7 9

5 8 1

0 7 2

1 5

1 7

4 0 9

8 5 1

0 8

9 9

2 8 1

0 6 8

, ,

, , ,

4 3

3 3

4 3 4

4 4 4

(

1 1

1 1 1

h e

)

u r

o a

S P

r r

l o

i i

e e

(

H &

L & M M

M W B & M S F

6 7

8 9 0

1 2 3

2 2

E 2 2 3

3 3 3 Table C1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Stoke-on-Trent City 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 %

34 Bentilee & Ubberley 2 7,657 3,829 -10 7,654 3,827 -12 35 Eaton Park 1 3,902 3,902 -9 3,836 3,836 -11 36 Abbey Hulton 2 7,658 3,829 -10 7,650 3,825 -12 & Townsend 37 Baddeley, Milton 3 13,944 4,648 9 13,703 4,568 6 & Norton Totals 44 188,014 – – 190,294 – – Averages – – 4,273 – – 4,325 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

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

36 Appendix D

Additional legislation we have had regard to

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.

37 38 39