Councillor submissions to the Lincolnshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2 Lincolnshire County Personal Details: Name: Mark Allan E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Lincolnshire County Council Comment text: Dear LGBCE, As the County Councillor for the Sleaford Division, I have the following comments to make on the proposed boundary changes that affect the Division that I represent a LCC and Sleaford Town: 1. The splitting of the cohesive urban Sleaford Holdingham Ward into two arbitrary new Wards to provide appropriate nos of electors – presumably primarily for the new LCC Ruskington and Cranwell Division - is entirely counter to the “A good pattern of divisions” criteria that LGBCE indicate that they are aiming to achieve. A split of the form proposed does not satisfy any of the community identity ones and, indeed, appears counter to all of them. 2. The creation of a new single Sleaford and Quarrington and Mareham Ward and its allocation to the new Sleaford Rural LCC Division is again contrary to the Community Identity criteria but more importantly creates dire local democracy issues at a Town Council election level. The consequences of what is proposed with a single Sleaford and Quarrington Ward – rather than the current Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham Wards – with the proposed 8 Town Councillors means that each TCllr will represent an electorate of around 5,500 and at elections, if considering standing as an independent, will find the cost and campaigning implications too great to go forward. The only candidates that could consider campaigning in a single Ward of this size will be those with a Political Party backing. This new Ward must be split into two - Sleaford Quarrington and Sleaford Mareham, as it is now and for the same good reasons that it is split into two now. 4/5 TCllrs should be allocated to Sleaford Quarrington and 3TCllrs to Sleaford Mareham. This will not affect the proposed LCC Divisional arrangements for Sleaford Rural but will address what will otherwise create a significant local democracy issue. 3. It seems entirely obtuse that only 2 TCllrs (a loss of one) are proposed in Sleaford Westholme (electorate 1,845) whilst 2 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Holdingham (electorate 1,000), 3 TCllrs remain in Sleaford Navigation ( a similar electorate at 1,873) whilst 8 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham (electorate 5,374) (but see the comment in para 2 above ). Either Sleaford Westholme is being hard done by or Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham is being too favoured. It is clear that Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Moor Should be joined for Town Council elcections, as they will be for a District Council election, returning 3 TCllrs. The T Cllr arrangements should be based on the current boundaries and clearly can be so irrespective of the changes being proposed for the LCC divisions: Sleaford Quarrington – 4 Sleaford Mareham - 3 Sleaford Westolme – 3 Sleaford Castle – 2 Sleaford Navigation -3 Sleaford Holdingham and Moor – 3 4. The proposed boundary changes should deal with a long standing issue in Sleaford. A significant part of the town’s population on the eastern side of the town and a part of urban Sleaford are only some 4/500m from the town centre and clearly use all of the town’s facilities yet are placed in the Kirby- la - Thorpe Parish area with some half mile of rural space between this part of urban Sleaford and Kirby- la -Thorpe village. This part of Sleaford is closer to the Town centre and its amenities than most other areas of the town and t is completely wrong that they are attached to a rural parish. Yours sincerely, Cllr Mark Allan County Councillor for the Sleaford Division Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7430 09/02/2016 Mayers, Mishka From: mark allan Sent: 07 February 2016 15:47 To: reviews Subject: FW: Lincolnshire boundary review Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP 06.02.2016 Dear Sirs, Re: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL; DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The splitting of the cohesive urban Sleaford Holdingham Ward into two arbitrary new Wards to provide appropriate nos of electors – presumably primarily for the new LCC Ruskington and Cranwell Division ‐ is entirely counter to the “A good pattern of divisions” criteria that LGBCE indicate that they are aiming to achieve. A split of the form proposed does not satisfy any of the community identity ones and, indeed, appears counter to all of them. 2. The creation of a new single Sleaford and Quarrington and Mareham Ward and its allocation to the new Sleaford Rural LCC Division is again contrary to the Community Identity criteria but more importantly creates dire local democracy issues at a Town Council election level. The consequences of what is proposed with a single Sleaford and Quarrington Ward – rather than the current Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham Wards – with the proposed 8 Town Councillors means that each TCllr will represent an electorate of around 5,500 and at elections, if considering standing as an independent, will find the cost and campaigning implications too great to go forward. The only candidates that could consider campaigning in a single Ward of this size will be those with a Political Party backing. This new Ward must be split into two ‐Sleaford Quarrington and Sleaford Mareham, as it is now and for the same good reasons that it is split into two now. 4/5 TCllrs should be allocated to Sleaford Quarrington and 3TCllrs to Sleaford Mareham. This will not affect the proposed LCC Divisional arrangements for Sleaford Rural but will address what will otherwise create a significant local democracy issue. 3. It seems entirely obtuse that only 2 TCllrs (a loss of one) are proposed in Sleaford Westholme (electorate 1,845) whilst 2 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Holdingham (electorate 1,000), 3 TCllrs remain in Sleaford 1 Navigation (a similar electorate at 1,873) whilst 8 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham (electorate 5,374) (but see the comment in para 2 above). Either Sleaford Westholme is being hard done by or Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham is being too favoured. It is clear that Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Moor Should be joined for Town Council elcections, as they will be for a District Council election, returning 3 TCllrs. The T Cllr arrangements should be based on the current boundaries and clearly can be so irrespective of the changes being proposed for the LCC divisions: Sleaford Quarrington – 4 Sleaford Mareham ‐ 3 Sleaford Westolme – 3 Sleaford Castle – 2 Sleaford Navigation ‐3 Sleaford Holdingham and Moor – 3 4. The proposed boundary changes should deal with a long standing issue in Sleaford. A significant part of the town’s population on the eastern side of the town and clearly a part of urban Sleaford is only some 400 to 500m from the town centre. The residents of this area clearly use all of the town’s facilities yet are placed in the Kirby‐ la ‐Thorpe Parish area with some half mile of rural space between this part of urban Sleaford and Kirby‐ la ‐Thorpe village. This part of Sleaford is closer to the Town centre and its amenities than most other areas of the town – other parts of Sleaford in the own boundary area are 4 to 5 kilometres away from the town. It is completely wrong and against all the criteria being used or the review that this part of Sleaford is not a part of the town and is attached to a rural parish. The Town Council boundary needs extending to the east to include this urban part of Sleaford that has now existed for 20+ years and which is clearly a part of the Town and which would more clearly satisfy the Community Identity criteria set out by LGBCE that sits behind the boundary review. Yours Sincerely Mark Allan County Councillor Mark Allan Lincolnshire County Council, Sleaford Division 2 Consultation re Boundary changes for Lincolnshire County Council Response re Boston Borough divisions by Cllr Alison Austin I would have preferred that the number of councillors representing the Borough of Boston had remained at 7, because of the sizeable “hidden” electorate within the Borough who have not engaged with the electoral system and failed to register. This is in the main due to the large number of migrants from Eastern European countries now resident in Boston, many of whom do not speak English well but in particular live in rented accommodation and move frequently. As a Borough Councillor I am well aware of the number of properties within my ward at which there are no registered electors, but most of which contain at least two adults from EU countries. I recognise that this is a matter for Boston Borough Council to resolve but these “hidden” residents and their families require the time of a councillor and put great demand on council services, just as much as those who are registered. I accept that in the light of the overall reduction in the number of Councillors at the County Council, the number must reduce to 6. I am happy with the actual boundaries of the 6 (six) proposed divisions but wish to object strongly to their naming by the Boundary commission. My argument is set out below: Overall there appears to have been arbitrary selection of communities within the divisions to form their names.