SOMERSET ELECTORAL REVIEW – County Council’s response LGBCE PROPOSALS 1. Summary of the LGBCE’s proposals: In summary the LGBCE proposals:- • Accept the proposal for 55 councillors but based on 53 divisions therefore providing for two, two member divisions where the LGBCE consider these as the only acceptable option to resolve unique local circumstances • Accept the population projections that accompanied the Council’s proposed scheme • Are defended as reflecting communication links, geographic factors and community identity • Are broadly in line with the Council’s proposals for West Somerset, Sedgemoor and rural South Somerset with some changes which focus on improving electorate equality in comparison with the Council’s proposals • Depart from the Council’s proposals in a number of urban areas, including Frome, Glastonbury, Street, Yeovil, Taunton and Wellington. It is no surprise that some of these areas provided most of the difficulties for the Council in agreeing proposals. • Present almost a total redesign of the Council’s proposed scheme for the Taunton Deane area • Redesign the Council’s proposals for the Frome area, propose a two member division to resolve the Glastonbury / Street problem, and adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal for rural Mendip • Include within the redesign of the Yeovil town area another 2 member division covering the Brympton & Yeovil West area to deal with a specific issue concerning the Brimsmore housing development. • Rename a number of proposed new divisions • In overview, have a detrimental impact on coterminosity with district wards compared to the Council’s proposals. The LGBCE defend this on the key need to balance electorate numbers and the fact that many of the district ward arrangements are out of date and don’t necessarily reflect community interests. The departures from the Council’s proposals are defended by the LGBCE on the basis of achieving a better balance between electoral equality, community identity and facilitating effective and convenient local government. Having compared their departures from the Council proposals, their approach seems to focus very much on ensuring equality of electorate numbers and sometimes at the expense of community identity and facilitating effective and convenient local government. 2. A summary critique of the LGBCE proposals: The Council wishes to make the following observations:- • The LGBCE report in support of their proposals contains little detailed explanation. Initially, there was no detail information provided behind the electorate numbers per division although this was subsequently provided on request. The Council’s view is that sufficient information should be provided by the LGBCE from the outset in support of their proposals so all potential respondees have adequate information available to enable them to provide an informed response. • The on-line maps in support of the proposals are particularly disappointing and hard to access and interpret particularly for parish councils and wider community interests. • The LGBCE must ensure that their technical guidance is clear in terms of what they expect from schemes proposed to them and then must apply it consistently when making their own proposals. For example, they should make clear from the outset that they will have less regard to coterminosity where district ward arrangements are ‘old’ and they should advise councils similarly. • The proposal for 2 member divisions is an interesting development and the Council wasn’t aware that this was an option that it could have proposed. Clarity on this from the commission from the outset on this issue would have been helpful. • It is clear from their proposals that the Commission have toured the area looking at particular local issues but the Council considers that the proposals at a local level reflect the fact that generally speaking the LGBCE do not talk to local communities or interests ‘on the ground’ when they tour. The treatment of Wellington is an example of how geographical layouts of communities do not always reflect long established communities of interest. • Of considerable concern is a perceived lack of consistency in the way the LGBCE have applied their logic from district area to district area. • A particular concern is the impact on community interests in certain areas in order to balance electorate numbers. In some cases in the rural areas the changes from the Council’s proposals move significant geographical areas against community interests for the sake of transferring very small numbers of the electors. • Some of the proposals impact significantly on town and parish council warding arrangements. The County Council has not had time to review these impacts in detail in its response. Our expectation is that local councils will respond direct to your invitation to submit comments. 3. The LGBCE Proposals – Area by Area West Somerset General Council commentary: The LGBCE proposals recognise and reflect the limited options available for change in this area. The only changes that the LGBCE have made to the County Council’s proposals appear to have been made purely on the grounds of balancing the electorate numbers between divisions rather than reflecting community interests or providing for effective and convenient local government. The LGBCE claim to have had regard to coterminosity with district ward arrangements in this area because the ward arrangements were agreed relatively recently but the Council notes that the changes proposed to its proposals reduce coterminosity in order to transfer relatively small numbers of electorate between divisions. Commission’s proposals: Council commentary: • Rural West Somerset - the LGBCE are The LGBCE acknowledges that this increases the size of an already proposing two changes to the Council’s large ED but justifies this on the numbers priority. Their proposal adds a proposals and these are defended on the considerable area of land to the ED for the purpose of adding just 228 to grounds of minimising electoral variances. the electorate. Although large the Council considers that the revised The first proposal is to transfer the parishes of ED remains manageable. Luxborough and Treborough from Dunster ED to Dulverton & Exmoor ED • The second ‘balancing the numbers’ change Likewise the Bicknoller change appears to be just to balance the is to transfer Bicknoller from the Watchet & numbers and worsens coterminosity with the district ward arrangements. Quantocks ED to Dunster. If the LGBCE decide to confirm these new arrangements then the Council would recommend a name change to the ED to reflect the transfer of 2 of the 6 Quantock parishes from Watchet & Quantocks ED to Watchet & Stogursey ED which better reflects the revised geographical spread of the division. Sedgemoor General Council commentary: In the main the Council’s proposals were accepted by the LGBCE. However, the Council has concerns over some of the changes proposed by the LGBCE and the reasons given for them. Commission’s proposals: Council commentary: • Bridgwater town – the only change proposed The justification for this change is to lessen the impact of the bottleneck to the Council’s proposals was to remove the and improve road access but in essence the change achieves neither of bottleneck bringing the two district wards these objectives. In fact the change doesn’t improve road access together within the Bridgwater West ED. Road between the two district wards that make up the ED and reduces access has been improved by the transfer of coterminosity with the newly established district wards. It therefore the Washington Gardens area from Bridgwater seems hard to justify. South to Bridgwater West. This further improves electoral equality. • Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge - the LGBCE The area proposed to be transferred from Highbridge & Burnham South argued that the Council’s proposal on the ED to Burnham North ED goes against the agreement reached between southern edge of the Highbridge & Burnham the 3 local county councillors who were insistent that the current South ED didn’t reflect community identify. boundary between the two divisions reflects local community interests. The LGBCE alternative restores the southern The area chosen for transfer seems quite arbitrary. boundary of the Highbridge & Burnham South ED and instead transfers a residential area to the east of Oxford Street into Burnham North ED. They argue this alternative provides stronger boundaries, improves electoral equality and ensures that the town council is contained within 2 rather than 3 EDs. • Rural Sedgemoor – only two adjustments are This proposal improves coterminosity with the district ward and is clearly proposed by the LGBCE to the Council’s supported by the parish council. The Council therefore has no further proposals for the whole of the rural observations to make. Sedgemoor area. They have responded to representations from Goathurst PC to object to the Council’s proposal to include the parish in the North Petherton ED on the grounds that it would break the parish’s community ties to Enmore. Therefore the LGBCE have proposed including Goathurst in the Cannington ED. • Rural Sedgemoor – the other change is to This change from the Council’s proposals appears to have been done move Chilton Polden parish from King Alfred simply to increase the electorate numbers within the revised Huntspill ED to Huntspill ED simply to improve electoral ED. The change does not reflect local community interests and it equality. reduces coterminosity with the recently revised district ward arrangements. Taunton Deane General commentary: • The LGBCE proposals for the whole of the Taunton Deane area depart from both the County Council and Liberal Democrat Group proposals on the grounds that neither proposal “provided an effective balance between our three statutory criteria”. • This total redesign became inevitable following the changes proposed to the key urban areas of Taunton and Wellington and their proposal acknowledges this. The Council through the work done to develop its own proposals is aware that the treatment of the urban areas within Taunton Deane has significant knock on impacts for the surrounding rural EDs.