Appendix 2 Response to Boundary Review Consultation from West Sussex County Council West Sussex County Council has considered Chichester District Council’s Electoral Review 2016 Consultation Document and has agreed the following response to the consultation questions and also made some general comments regarding the proposals. Question 1: We agree that Shopwhyke Lakes should be included in Oving ward. Question 2: We agree that Chichester City should be dealt with as a separate unit and that district ward boundaries should not cross the city boundary. Question 3: Our preference is for option 2, with a single-member ward for Sidlesham (comprising the village and the northern edge of Selsey) and a three- member ward for the core community of Selsey. The proposed County Council division puts Sidlesham in with the Witterings, so it will be better for a single member Sidlesham district ward to be 100% within the County Wtterings division. Question 5: On balance, our preference is for option 2. We acknowledge that whilst the western end of East Wittering/Bracklesham Bay is within West Wittering Parish, residents are oriented to the community facilities of East Wittering. Question 6: No view Question 7: In general, we have a preference for single member wards; however we recognise in this case that owing to the variance a two-member ward is preferable. Question 8: In our view, either option is preferable to a ward that is over 15% above the norm. On balance, our preference is for option 1, as this would keep the defined community of Fishbourne intact. Question 9: our preference is for Westbourne as the ward name. Question 10: We suggest ‘Goodwood’ as a more appropriate alternative ward name. the Goodwood estate is right across this ward and is preferable to a village at one end of the proposed ward. Question 11: In our view the community connections for residents of Elsted & Treyford and Trotton with Chithurst lie to the west. Question 12: No view Question 13: In our view, Heyshott should be included in the Easebourne Ward as it is a largely rural settlement and also as Midhurst will continue to experience considerable development pressure. This would provide better co-terminosity with the County Division. General Comments: We note with concern the proliferation of wards spanning county division boundaries. A greater number of district wards than we are comfortable with will have their territory divided between two county councillors. We recognise that this is in part inevitable given the 25% reduction in the number of district councillors; however we strongly feel that a simultaneous, whole-county review would have produced a more sympathetic result, to the benefit of all our residents. This is particularly the case given that the County Council is currently in the later stages of its own review and Horsham and Crawley are also scheduled for review in the near future. We are aware that a pilot whole-county review of both districts wards and county divisions is currently underway in East Sussex and, pending successful completion, we hope that this will be adopted as standard practice in future. .