Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of

Personal Details:

Name: Helen Holland

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Bristol City Council Labour Group

Comment text:

Bristol Labour Group submission We have concluded that the interests of efficient local government and community identity are best served by seeking to avoid making changes to local government (ward) boundaries where these are coterminous with Parliamentary Constituencies. We therefore propose to leave Parliamentary boundaries entirely un-molested. As such, it is convenient to submit this paper in the format of four chapters, each relating to one of the four Bristol Parliamentary constituencies (Bristol East, Bristol South, Bristol North- West & Bristol West). Bristol is currently composed of 35 two-member wards of widely differing population numbers, and the discrepancies in numbers is forecast to increase greatly up to and beyond 2020. The stand-out issue that becomes apparent after an examination of population maps of Bristol (and therefore a key cause for the current boundary review) is the explosion in population in the central part of the city. Examination of the population projections that are available to us from Bristol City Council indicate that this trend will continue and dramatically increase between now and 2020 and will probably continue beyond then. The reasons for this are: a) intensive redevelopment of city centre areas to include high density housing; b) an aging population and high property prices in suburbs leading to a stagnating population. It has already been determined that Bristol will have the same number of councillors after the boundary review as it has before (70). The requirement to seek electoral equality therefore implicitly demands a redeployment of councillors from other (low density) parts of the city to the much higher density city centre. An examination of population maps of Bristol and of the population projections that are available to us from Bristol City Council indicate that the relative population density in Bristol North-West has declined significantly and is expected to do so further up to 2020 and beyond. This is the only region of the city where large areas (several adjacent wards) have suffered this in the recent past and where there is anticipated to be further such (almost) depopulation in the future. It should further be noted that some wards in Bristol North-West are comparatively affluent and provides little casework load for their councillors (i.e. , , Westbury-on-Trym). We suggest that any redeployment of councillor resources should therefore be from the north-west of the city and towards the centre. No other part of the city offers this sort of opportunity to “free-up” councillors for redeployment elsewhere. For detailed comments, please see attcahed document, Bristol Labour Party Re-warding Submission

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3934 30/09/2014 Bristol Labour Party Re-warding Submission 2014

Introduction

We have concluded that the interests of efficient local government and community identity are best served by seeking to avoid making changes to local government (ward) boundaries where these are coterminous with Parliamentary Constituencies.

We therefore propose to leave Parliamentary boundaries entirely un-molested. As such, it is convenient to submit this paper in the format of four chapters, each relating to one of the four Bristol Parliamentary constituencies (Bristol East, Bristol South, Bristol North-West & Bristol West).

Bristol is currently composed of 35 two-member wards of widely differing population numbers, and the discrepancies in numbers is forecast to increase greatly up to and beyond 2020.

The stand-out issue that becomes apparent after an examination of population maps of Bristol (and therefore a key cause for the current boundary review) is the explosion in population in the central part of the city. Examination of the population projections that are available to us from Bristol City Council indicate that this trend will continue and dramatically increase between now and 2020 and will probably continue beyond then. The reasons for this are: a) intensive redevelopment of city centre areas to include high density housing; b) an aging population and high property prices in suburbs leading to a stagnating population.

It has already been determined that Bristol will have the same number of councillors after the boundary review as it has before (70).

The requirement to seek electoral equality therefore implicitly demands a redeployment of councillors from other (low density) parts of the city to the much higher density city centre.

An examination of population maps of Bristol and of the population projections that are available to us from Bristol City Council indicate that the relative population density in Bristol North-West has declined significantly and is expected to do so further up to 2020 and beyond. This is the only region of the city where large areas (several adjacent wards) have suffered this in the recent past and where there is anticipated to be further such (almost) depopulation in the future.

It should further be noted that some wards in Bristol North-West are comparatively affluent and provides little casework load for their councillors (i.e. Henleaze, Stoke Bishop, Westbury-on-Trym).

We suggest that any redeployment of councillor resources should therefore be from the north-west of the city and towards the centre. No other part of the city offers this sort of opportunity to “free- up” councillors for redeployment elsewhere.

Bristol East

Stockwood

Stockwood ward is undersized and the population projections that are available to us from Bristol City Council indicate that this situation will worsen between now and 2020.

We therefore submit that in the interests of electoral equality it would be appropriate to transfer a limited area and population from West ward to Stockwood.

We suggest that some or all of the following roads be transferred: Ellesmere Road, Kew Walk, that part of West Town Lane to the West & South of the Brislington Brook water course and those parts of Hither Bath Bridge and Lanes End not already part of Stockwood (and also to the West & South of the Brislington Brook water course). This would also correct anomalies regarding the identity of these and surrounding communities and their inclusion or non-inclusion in voting areas of different or similar characteristics.

It will remain a two-member ward.

Brislington West

See Stockwood, above.

Brislington East

No changes proposed.

St George West

No changes proposed.

St George East

No changes proposed.

Hillfields

No changes proposed.

Eastville

No changes proposed.

Frome Vale

No changes proposed.

Bristol South

There is a requirement for changes to existing ward boundaries to ensure Electoral Equity, however these need to be sensitive to the very powerful community traditions which exist within south Bristol. It is often argued that Bristol is a collection of villages pretending to be a city – this is reflected in strong local identity in south Bristol.

The individual ward recommendations, which are based on the population projections provided by Bristol City Council for 2020, are:

Hengrove

Remains entirely unchanged. The ward as it is presently configured will provide Electoral Equity in 2020. It is bordered by several main roads, which act as physical barriers to communities.

Filwood

The present ward will be undersized by 2020. Therefore there is a requirement to add additional population. The existing main road boundaries to the south and west will be maintained as they act as physical barriers. To the north the communities of the Marksbury Road council estate currently in Windmill Hill will be added to the ward, to the east those living up to and including Salcombe Road will also be added. Filwood will lose the non-council built houses off Redcatch Road (Beckington and Winfield Roads) to Knowle ward. The residents of these roads have a much closer identity with those living on the eastern side of Redcatch Road.

Knowle

Knowle ward will be undersized by 2020. Therefore there is a requirement to add additional population. The southern boundary will be the main road which acts as a physical barrier. To the west some roads would move to Filwood ward and some gained as described above. The northern boundary will be extended to include the post war housing south of St Johns Lane plus the Victorian houses of upper Totterdown and lower Knowle. The existing eastern boundary will remain and this will ensure Electoral Equity

Windmill Hill

The boundary of Windmill Hill ward will move north to the Avon New Cut along York Road, restoring a part of the ward which was removed in a previous re-warding. The boundary would continue along Bedminster Parade and East Street – ensuring that Windmill Hill City Farm is reunited with the ward from which it takes its name. There are several residential development sites in this area which have existing planning consent.

Southville

The development of significant numbers of new flats in recent years and further planned development means that Southville ward has to be reduced in size considerably. Along with the loss of the homes south of East Street and the Avon New Cut to Windmill Hill, and the redbrick homes west of Duckmoor Road will be transferred to Bedminster ward. The community of Bower Ashton, on the fringe of the city, is physically distant from the rest of Southville and has many commonalities with . To ensure Electoral Equity the area currently in Bedminster ward west of Cannon Street, north of British Road and east of South Street would move also move to Southville. Bedminster (possibly renamed Bedminster and Ashton)

Like Southville, Bedminster has grown significantly and further development is planned. Alongside the changes described above Bedminster would lose the communities south of the main railway line around Bedminster Road to ward, this would include roads close to Parson Street School. The renewed and growing community in and around West Street would remain in Bedminster.

Whitchurch Park (possibly renamed and Whitchurch)

By 2020 will be undersized, it is currently the southern boundary of the City of Bristol. The is no sensible option to expand east or north into , therefore it must expand into the area surrounding Wilmott Park and north to Hengrove Way currently in Hartcliffe Ward.

Hartcliffe (possibly renamed Withywood and Headley Park)

To replace areas lost to Whitchurch Park ward Hartcliffe expands to the west to include the roads in the Four Acres estate. This means that all of the area known as Withywood will be within one electoral ward. This community has long had more cultural and social links to the rest of the Withywood part of Hartcliffe ward rather than the communities of Bedminster Down and Uplands.

Bishopsworth

In order to retain Electoral Equity whilst this ward loses the Four Acres estate this is compensated for by the addition of parts of the existing Bedminster ward. One side of Parson Street is already in Bishopsworth ward and there are strong educational links between the rest of that area and Bedminster Down School.

Bristol North-West

The principal task in Bristol North-West is to find a way to reduce the number of councillors in the constituency area without a significantly adverse impact on electoral equality, so that any excess of councillors can be redeployed to central Bristol (that is, Bristol West).

An examination of population maps of Bristol and of the population projections that are available to us from Bristol City Council indicate that the relative population density in Bristol North-West has declined significantly (compared to the rest of the city) and is expected to do so further up to 2020 and beyond.

This is the only region of the city where large areas (several adjacent wards) have suffered this relative fall in population in the recent past and where there is anticipated to be similar such (almost) depopulation in the future.

The changes to the electoral map that this will require involve the transfer of large areas (entire polling districts) from one ward to another, though this is ameliorated by the fact that areas of such size tend to have distinctive characteristics in and of themselves and consist of contiguous communities.

Horfield

No changes proposed.

Lockleaze

No changes proposed.

Avonmouth

Avonmouth possesses a large area (more than half of the area of the ward) that is predominantly commercial and industrial in nature.

We propose that Polling Districts C, D & F be stripped from Avonmouth Ward and added to Ward. This would reduce the population of Avonmouth by a little more than half. Avonmouth would become a single-member ward.

Kingsweston

Kingsweston would gain three polling districts (See Avonmouth, above) but lose its own Polling District D to Stoke Bishop Ward and becoming (perhaps) a 6-polling district ward; a net gain of 2 polling districts. Kingsweston would remain a two-member ward, being somewhat undersized at present.

Henbury

No changes proposed beyond the name. Many locals desire the name to be “ & ”.

Southmead is currently somewhat undersize. We propose that it gain a polling district from the Westbury-on-Trym ward (WoT’s Polling District D, see below) so as to justify remaining a two- member ward.

Stoke Bishop

We propose that Stoke Bishop gain a polling district from Kingsweston ward (see Kingsweston, above) ; Stoke Bishop is currently undersized and has a population that creates less casework for its representatives than might be considered the norm in a city like Bristol. Stoke Bishop will remain a two-member ward.

Alternative Henleaze/Westbury-on-Trym Proposals

We have 2 alternative proposals that we suggest for Henleaze & Westbury-on-Trym wards. We have no preference for either above the other.

The first (option A) produces two unequal sized wards of respectively 2 members and 1 member; the second (option B) produces a single large 3-member ward. Both proposals would we believe satisfy the needs of electoral equality.

OPTION A

Westbury-on-Trym

Westbury-on-Trym is currently undersized with a population that creates less casework for its representatives than might be considered the norm in a city like Bristol.

We propose that Polling District D be transferred to Southmead Ward and that Polling District C be transferred to Henleaze Ward.

This will result in a much reduced Westbury-on-Trym Ward, requiring a single member to service its needs.

Henleaze

Henleaze is currently undersized with a population that creates less casework for its representatives than might be considered the norm in a city like Bristol.

We propose that Henleaze gains a polling district (Westbury-on-Trym’s Polling District C, see above).

OPTION B

Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze wards are currently undersized, both having populations that create less casework for their representatives than might be considered the norm in a city like Bristol.

We propose that Westbury-on-Trym Polling District D be transferred to Southmead Ward.

We further propose that the remainder of these two wards be merged to produce a single Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze Ward of sufficient size to merit three councillors to service it.

The adjustments proposed in this Chapter (reduction of Avonmouth Ward and either option A or option B for Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze) can be seen to release 2 councillors that are on balance currently under-utilised. These may be redeployed to Central Bristol (see Bristol West chapter).

Bristol West

Some wards in Bristol West are currently very large in population terms; Cabot, and Lawrence Hill wards being particular cases in point.

The stand-out issue that becomes apparent after an examination of population maps of central Bristol (and therefore a key cause for the current boundary review) is the explosion in population in the central part of the city. Examination of the population projections that are available to us from Bristol City Council indicate that this trend will continue and worsen dramatically between now and 2020 and this will probably continue beyond then.

The figures reveal that no amount of “tinkering” with ward boundaries can accommodate this massive increase in population in Cabot, Ashley and Lawrence Hill on the existing electoral map so general is the increase in central Bristol. Indeed, it is clear that nothing short of adding a new ward to the map will do.

We propose the addition of a new two-member ward to the centre of Bristol (Bristol Central?) on the North bank of the river Avon, sandwiched between Cabot and Lawrence Hill wards, immediately to the South of Ashley ward and sharing boundaries with (and elbowing aside) all three.

Clifton

We propose that Clifton ward should cede territory to Cabot along its southern boundary as far north as Hopechapel Hill and Ambra Vale East. To compensate for this loss Clifton should annexe that part of Clifton East ward that is south of and includes Richmond Hill.

It will remain a two-member ward.

Clifton East

We propose that Clifton East should cede territory to Clifton ward that is south of and includes Richmond Hill. To compensate for this loss, Clifton East should encroach into the northern part of Cotham ward perhaps as far south as Kensington Rd and all the way to the current Redland boundary.

It will remain a two-member ward.

Redland

We propose that Redland’s eastern boundary with Bishopston ward move east as far as Fenton and Beauchamp roads. The Redland/Cotham boundary remains unchanged. Ashley ward will encroach into Redland as far as Effingham Road & Belmont Road.

It will remain a two-member ward.

Bishopston

We propose that the western boundary of Bishopston ward move east as far as Fenton and Beauchamp roads. It is currently slightly oversized. It will remain a two-member ward.

Cotham

We propose that Cotham cede territory to Clifton East ward as far south as Kensington Rd and all the way to the current Redland boundary. It should be compensated by encroaching into Cabot ward as far south as Charlotte Street and Tankards Close, as far east as Montague Hill.

It will remain a two-member ward.

Cabot

We propose that the eastern boundary of Cabot ward should move westwards to accommodate the delivery of Bristol Central ward. Cabot should encroach into Clifton ward as far north as Hopechapel Hill and Ambra Vale East. Cabot ward will cede ground to Cotham ward as far south as Charlotte Street and Tankards Close, as far east as Montague Hill. The eastern limit of Cabot ward should be a north/south line running from (approx.) Somerset St to Wapping Rd.

It will remain a two-member ward.

Ashley

The southern limit of Ashley ward where it abuts Bristol Central ward should be Ashley Rd. The and Lawrence Hill boundaries remain unchanged. Ashley ward will encroach into Redland as far as Effingham Road & Belmont Road. The Cotham boundary remains unchanged.

It will remain a two-member ward.

Bristol Central

We propose the addition of a new two-member ward to the centre of Bristol (Bristol Central?) on the North bank of the river Avon, sandwiched between Cabot and Lawrence Hill wards, immediately to the South of Ashley ward and sharing boundaries with( and elbowing aside) all three.

The western limit of Bristol Central ward should be a north/south line running from (approx.) Somerset St to Wapping Rd. The northern limit of Bristol Central ward should be Ashley Rd. The eastern limit of Bristol Central ward should follow the existing Ashley/ Lawrence Hill boundary as far as Wellington Rd or James St, then southwards to Midland Rd, Kingsland Rd, Day’s Rd. and St Philips Causeway to the River Avon.

Lawrence Hill

We propose that the western boundary of Lawrence Hill ward move eastwards to accommodate the delivery of Bristol Central ward and that it (LH) encroach on the southern flank of Easton ward. The western limit of Lawrence Hill ward should follow the existing Ashley/ Lawrence Hill boundary as far as Wellington Rd or James St, then southwards to Midland Rd, Kingsland Rd, east to Day’s Rd. and St Philips Causeway to the River Avon.

It will remain a two-member ward. Easton

We propose that Easton ward give up some of its territory from its southern boundary over its full width to accommodate the displaced Lawrence Hill ward, perhaps as far north as Church Rd. All other boundaries are unchanged.

It will remain a two-member ward.