Electoral Review Wealden District Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Electoral Review Wealden District Council Stage Two – Warding Patterns Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (November 2015) Introduction The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body that is responsible for conducting boundary and electoral reviews of principal authorities in England. The Commission is carrying out an electoral review of Wealden District Council in a coordinated process alongside simultaneous reviews of all the districts and boroughs in East Sussex as well as East Sussex County Council. Stage 1 – Council Size On 29th July 2015 the Full Council agreed to propose to the LGBCE that the Council size be reduced to 45 Councillors. On 22nd September 2015, the LGBCE formally confirmed that it was minded to recommend this number. Stage 2 – Ward Boundaries The Commission has now invited proposals on the warding patterns from the Council, interested parties and members of the public with the closing date for submissions set at 30th November 2015. The consultation also relates to the pattern of County divisions as the review relates to both East Sussex County Council and the Districts/Boroughs. Once the Commission has considered all the proposals received during the consultation period it will publish draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for all six Councils in March 2016. These will then be subject to public consultation between March and June 2016. The Commission will then consider the representations and evidence received as part of that consultation and will publish its final recommendations in 2016. The new electoral arrangements for East Sussex County Council are scheduled to come into effect for East Sussex County Council at the county election due to take place in May 2017, for Hastings Borough Council in May 2018, and for Eastbourne Borough, Rother, Lewes and Wealden District Councils in May 2019. Review Criteria In preparing the submission on the new warding patterns for the District, the Council must take account of: Electoral Equality – where each councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others in the District. Community Identities – that the patterns of the wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. Effective local government – that the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. The Commission will also take into account the desirability of ensuring that the County Division boundaries are co-terminus with the new District Ward boundaries. Review Process The process that the Council used to formulate this proposal is set out below; The Overview and Scrutiny Committee re-constituted the original Working Party that worked on the Council size submission to consider the warding patterns taking into account the criteria set by the Commission and also the preference of the Council to have one Member wards. The Working Party had Members from each of the political groups represented on the Council and met to consider the evidence and following consultation with all Councillors made a recommendation to the Committee on the proposed warding patterns. The Working Party was supported by Charles Lant, Chief Executive and Gabriella Paterson-Griggs, Democratic Services Manager. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the report of the Working Party and made a recommendation to Cabinet based on the findings. Cabinet considered the draft submission on 19th November and forwarded its recommendation for consideration at Full Council on 25th November 2015. All Members have been fully involved in determining the proposed Warding arrangements and were able to reach a consensus with the Working Party in the recommendation of the proposal to Full Council. The political groups have worked together to propose Wards which make sense for the electorate and local communities. Members, by virtue of their roles and backgrounds have a very good knowledge of the District, particularly the areas they represent. This proposal is very much a reflection of that local knowledge and seeks to create Wards which provide excellent levels of electoral equality, whilst also maintaining existing community ties. Members in both the urban and rural areas have worked together to ensure each ward represents the local, cultural and cohesive qualities of the areas. Proposal Equality of Representation The Commission has given to each Council the overall framework within which it plans to draw up its recommendations. The information for Wealden is set out in the table below and includes how many electors per councillor the Commission will aim to achieve in its scheme to deliver electoral fairness. It also includes the details for East Sussex County Council. Local 2021 No. of Cllrs Electors per Electors per Increase / Authority Electorate District Cllr County Cllr Reduction Forecast Wealden 130,228 45 2909 8651 -10 East Sussex 15 County Council 431,902 (50 for whole N/A 8651 +1 (Wealden Area) County) The Council has, therefore, worked with the data set out above and its preference for one ward per councillor and is proposing a pattern of 45 wards with one councillor representing one ward. Community Identity and Parishes Covering 323 square miles, Wealden is the largest district in East Sussex. With two-thirds of the district covered by the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the South Downs National Park, as well as 34 conservation areas and over 2,500 listed buildings, Wealden has to place a high value on protecting the countryside. This has all been taken into account by the Working Party when considering the proposed new Wards. Wealden has 39 Parish Councils (including 4 Town Councils) and 3 Parish Meetings within its boundary. The parishes vary considerably in size and it was, therefore, not possible to use the Parish Council boundary lines as the main starting point for the new Wards. However, the whole District is split into Polling Districts which relate to the parishes and existing wards. It was therefore, decided to use these as the main building blocks for proposing the new Wards. As can be seen from the attached proposal plan the divisions of polling districts have been kept to a minimum. Given the criterion of electoral equality, it was evident that some splits would occur due to electoral numbers being too high or too low if some existing polling districts were to be kept whole given the Council’s preference for single member wards. Using their knowledge of the communities within the District, the Working Party in consultation with the local Members, proposed warding arrangements that reflected the community identities and interests of the area whilst ensuring the proposals would deliver electoral equality. In some cases, this meant that several communities needed to be brought together in a single ward, even if they did not share the same strength of community connection. The table at page 6 onwards in this submission provides a summary of the proposed warding arrangements and there is a map for each new Ward showing the proposed new boundaries. New Ward Names In accordance with the LGBCE guidance the proposed Ward names are considered to be distinct and easily identifiable. All Members were consulted and asked to suggest names for the new Wards and these were then deliberated on by the Councillors in the Working Party, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cabinet and Full Council and have been agreed as the most apt names for the areas. Convenient and Effective Local Government The Council operates a system of all out elections every four years. It, therefore, does not need to take into account any arrangements that would be required (such as two or three member wards) if it elected in thirds or halves. The Council as part of its submission on Council size had indicated its wish to move to single member wards. This was supported by the existing Councillors and was mainly due to the fact that with new technology and e- communications it was felt that it was easier to deal with the needs of the constituents. This was the case even in a larger ward area. Also in two and three Member wards it can get confusing for the public as to who their representative is and may lead to duplication of effort on the part of the Councillors. Having single member wards also makes sense for the Parish Councils as they will only need to deal with one District councillor per ward. In some cases, currently, a parish council has to deal with a number of councillors because the parish council area is covered by more than one District ward and there could be up to two/three District Councillors in each ward. The single member ward also fits in with the County Council proposal to have single member divisions. It was one of the reasons behind the Council proposing 45 Councillors at the council size stage of the process so that each County division could be made up of three District wards. Conclusion and Recommendation Following consideration of the information available and the views of the Working Party and Overview and Scrutiny Committee as well as the feedback from all Members it was considered that the District be divided into 45 single member wards. It is, therefore, recommended that the new warding patters for Wealden District Council be as set out in the following table (to be implemented from May 2019): Wealden District Council Proposed Warding Patterns Variance % Forecast Number of above / Ward Name and area covered Electorate Evidence Councillors below 2909 2021 electors Withyham 1 2691 -7% The Ward name represents the main village within the - Blackham ward. The new ward encompasses six existing polling - Withyham districts that fit well together. The hamlets of Groombridge, Blackham and Withyham all form the majority area of - Groombridge Withyham Parish Council.