SUBMISSION TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FURTHER ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL DISTRICT COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Background Information The District Council’s cross‐party Further Electoral Review (FER) Working Party met on three occasions following the publication of the Draft Recommendations on 15th October 2013 in order to prepare a draft Council response. The Working Party subsequently submitted a proposed response before the Full Council at its meeting on 17th December 2013. At the Full Council meeting the proposed response was agreed, by 39 votes to 4 votes against, with no abstentions, as the basis for the Council’s submission in respect of the Draft Recommendations. Electorate Projection Figures The Council welcomes the Commission’s acceptance that the electorate forecasts for 2019 are the best available at the present time and have been used to form the basis of its Council size and warding proposals in the Draft Recommendations. Council Size The Council welcomes and supports the Commission’s Draft Recommendations which accept the Council’s proposal to increase the Council size from 38 to 39 Members in order to provide equality of representation to both the west and the east of the River Trent, thereby eliminating the need for wards which cross the river. General Analysis The Council notes the comments of the Commission on the Council’s previous submission and acknowledges that it had focussed on the identities and interests of local communities and on effective and convenient local government to a greater extent than on the provision of equality of representation. Whilst the Council believes that this was more in accordance with the wishes of its communities, it understands and accepts why the Commission felt it necessary to make a large number of proposed changes in order to improve electoral equality. The Council supports the majority of the Commission’s proposed external ward boundaries. However, it is not able to support the large number of multi‐member/multi‐parish wards believing that these will not provide convenient local government. The Council understands that many of these will not be supported by many of the parishes concerned. Whilst the Council believes multi‐member wards can be supported in urban areas, in particular Newark and Ollerton, the Council urges the Commission to propose them elsewhere only in wholly exceptional circumstances or where there is no viable alternative. Accordingly, the Council supports the majority of the proposed external boundaries for the single and multi‐member wards. However, it does strongly recommend that the Commission’s proposals for multi‐member wards in Collingham and Southwell should be changed into single member wards. The Council is also proposing an alternative solution for the multi Member Ollerton / Rainworth North and Bilsthorpe / Rainworth South and Blidworth Wards which, it believes, will find greater community support, provide an improved warding scheme and result in even better equality of representation. In addition the Council is also proposing changes to the proposed warding arrangements in Newark. The following paragraphs set out the Council’s specific proposals in respect of the Draft Recommendations. Newark (Beacon, Bridge, Castle and Devon) The Draft Recommendations proposing nine Members for the whole of Newark is supported. However, the Council is concerned that the proposed mix of one, two and three Member wards does not produce ward boundaries that reflect or maintain local ties and interests. In consequence, the District Council has worked closely with Newark Town Council on a joint proposal which has been agreed by both the District Council and unanimously by the multi‐ party Town Council. The Council proposes alternative arrangements that, whilst similar to its previous submission, accepts and builds upon the Draft Recommendations’ observations about community identity and the need for clearly identifiable boundaries. It notes the Draft Recommendations proposed co‐terminosity with the County Division boundaries in places. However, the Council notes that these are likely to change as a boundary review of the County Council has been initiated recently. Accordingly, the Council believes that community ties and shared interests should take precedence over the transient convenience of shared ward and division boundaries. Castle Ward The Council believes that Castle should remain a two Member ward. Rather than acting as a natural divide, as the Draft Recommendations imply, the River Devon and Devon Park actually unite Hawton Road and the roads to its west with Farndon Road and its surrounding area by providing a shared recreational and leisure facility, with allotments and the Thomas Mann sports ground and with robust footbridges over the river to provide ease of access. Both areas are also within the Christ Church primary school catchment area, unlike the Hawtonville estate to the east of Hawton Road. That part of the current Magnus ward bounded by Barnby Gate, Sherwood Avenue, Bowbridge Road, Beech Avenue, north of Devon Road and Windsor Avenue has a close and shared relationship with the town centre rather than with the Hawtonville area to the south. By retaining Hawton Road and the roads to its west and by incorporating the area set out above, this would create a two member Castle ward that would better and more properly reflect community links around shared amenities, schools and long‐standing ties. Devon Ward In consequence, the Council proposes that Devon should remain a two Member ward. The current western and southern boundaries would be retained but the southern boundary would be extended to the dismantled railway and run north to Bancroft Road. The boundary would then run west beyond Bancroft Road and north to the rear of Bromley Avenue then east on the back of Clumber Avenue, The Crescent and then along Beech Avenue, north of Devon road and Windsor Avenue. The Council considers that this proposal better reflects and unifies the distinctive Hawtonville community rather than extending the ward boundaries into adjoining areas with which it has no affinity or existing ties. Bridge The Council proposes that a two member Bridge ward would be bounded by the bridges over both the River Trent and the East Coast Mainline and would reconnect communities around the shared amenities in the Northgate area of Newark. Its northern boundary would extend down to Trent Bridge and then eastwards via Beastmarket Hill and Kirkgate, along the north of the market square, Bridge Street, Barnby Gate, to its junction with Sherwood Avenue. It would then follow the backs of houses on Friary Road and Sleaford Road – similar to the Draft Recommendations proposal to use the backs of houses on Lime Grove as a boundary in a different context – essentially to reflect different primary school catchment areas, before rejoining the current ward boundary at the East Coast Mainline railway bridge. Beacon A three member Beacon ward would now have a western boundary that would extend down Lime Grove across to the Sustrans route returning northwards to London Road, before turning east along the boundary between Newark and Balderton. It would also retain the 95 electors from the Coddington West parish ward. Maps of the proposed boundaries for these Newark Wards will be sent with this submission. In summary these alternative proposals which are supported by the Town Council would create:‐ A 3 Member Beacon Ward with a 0% variance A 2 Member Bridge Ward with a ‐4% variance A 2 Member Castle Ward with a 1% variance A 2 Member Devon Ward with a ‐7% variance The Council’s proposal would have an impact on Newark Town Council ward boundaries which would require adjustment. In terms of the future electoral arrangements for the Town Council the Council would recommend 6 Members for Beacon, 4 for Bridge, 4 for Castle and 4 for Devon. Balderton (Balderton North and Coddington and Balderton South) The Council supports the Draft Recommendations in respect of these two wards. Collingham The Draft Recommendations propose a 14 parish, 2 Member ward. However, the Council feels that there are no links or common identities / interests between the 10 parishes to the north of Collingham which, going north look increasingly to Tuxford and Lincoln for amenities (especially for secondary schools) and the 3 parishes to the south of Collingham, which look to Newark for amenities. Although the current ward is also 2 Member, the proposed addition of the 3 southern parishes will increase the already evident difficulty of providing effective local government. Accordingly, the Council proposes that the ward be split into 2 single Member wards by dividing Collingham parish to form a Collingham North and Meering Ward and a Collingham South and Winthorpe Ward with the 10 parishes to the north and the 3 to the south respectively. Historically, Collingham had two ecclesiastic parishes. Whilst it is not possible to use these former parish boundaries to achieve equality of representation, an easily identifiable boundary within Collingham could run along the middle of the High Street (North) leading into Besthorpe Road to the Parish of Besthorpe boundary. This proposal would:‐ Retain two councillors to share representation for Collingham (a parish that, with a 2019 projected population of 2364 – a ‐2% variance ‐ could, in other circumstances, be a single Member ward in its own right). Have a single, identifiable and accountable councillor to represent each of the other parishes, thus providing effective local governance. Better reflect the common identities and ties of the 10 parishes to the north and the 3 parishes to the south of Collingham. Provide an equality of representation broadly comparable to that proposed in the Draft Recommendations. The variance figures for the proposed Collingham North and Meering Ward would be ‐8% and ‐7% for the Collingham South and Winthorpe Road which compares to the ‐7% variance proposed in the Draft Recommendations.