ELECTORAL REVIEW OF BROXBOURNE COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS This document presents the Council’s response to the number of elected councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards proposed by the Boundary Commission. July 2011 Q:\1CEO\ELECTION\BOUNDARIES\BOUNDARY REVIEW 2010\BOUNDARY COMMISSION WARDING SUBMISSION - AUGUST 2011.DOC 1 Introduction In July 2010, the Council was advised by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (referred to as the ‘Commission’) that it intended to carry out an electoral review of Broxbourne Borough. The first stage of the review on the appropriate number of councillors for Broxbourne (referred to as council size) commenced in September 2010. The Commission, in November 2010, indicated it was minded to adopt a council size of 30 as proposed by the Council. The second stage of the review on proposals for new wards based on the council size of 30 members commenced in November 2010 and concluded on 21 February 2011. The last boundary review in the Borough took place in 1998 and established the current 13 ward configuration. Draft Recommendations on New Electoral Arrangements On 24 May 2011, the Boundary Commission published its draft recommendations on the number of councillors and the names, number and boundaries of wards for the Borough. The Commission announced that it had decided to propose a council size of 30 councillors representing 10 wards with a uniform pattern of three member wards across the Borough which was in line with the Council’s response to the first stage of the review. Response of the Council to the Commission’s Draft Recommendations The Council considered the Commission’s draft recommendations on council size, ward numbers and ward boundaries on 26 July 2011. The Council’s formal response to the draft recommendations is that the new electoral arrangements for Broxbourne proposed by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England relating to council size and the number of wards be supported subject to the following specific caveats: East of the A10 That primarily to the east of the A10 (ward numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10) the Commission’s proposals be supported subject to: (a) an adjustment to the boundary between Waltham Cross and Cheshunt South and Theobalds wards in the vicinity of Hedworth Avenue so as the railway line continues as the boundary between the new wards (see Plan 7); and (b) the Commission being advised that the proposals in paragraph 77 (p13) of its report for Cottage Gardens, Church Lane, are misplaced and Church Lane should be the ward boundary between the proposed Cheshunt North and Cheshunt South and Theobalds wards (see Plan 6). West of the A10 That: (c) in light of considerable public disquiet about the Commission’s proposed Goffs Oak and Bury Green ward (ward 4) the Council does not support the 2 Commission’s proposals for the wards to the west of the A10 (ward numbers 4, 5 and 8), which the Council believes do not meet the Commission’s technical criteria on community identity and effective and convenient local government; (d) the Commission be requested to reconsider its proposals for the boundaries for these three wards and replace them with the Council’s proposed warding arrangements submitted during stage one of the review, subject to Lieutenant Ellis Way forming the boundary between the Goffs Oak and Bury Green/Rosedale wards (see Plan 4); and (e) if the Commission are minded to proceed with its proposals, as the residential estate south of the Brookfield Centre (Mylne Close - Brookfield Lane West) is with no logic split between two wards under the Commission’s proposals, under any warding arrangement this residential area and the rest of the residential area south of the Brookfield Centre should all be in the same ward (see Plan 5). In summary for the majority of the new wards proposed for the Borough, the Council supports the Commission’s proposals. However with regard to the area to the west of the A10 in the south of the Borough the Council requests that the Commission substitute its proposals with the warding pattern put forward by the Council during stage 1 of the review subject to point (d) above. The Council’s warding proposals provide for a maximum electoral equality variance of +/- 5% whereas the Commission’s proposals result in wards with a much greater percentage variance. The Council’s proposals are set out on the following plans and maps: Document ‘Plans to accompany the Council’s submission to the LGBCE’ Plan 1 - A comparison of the Council’s original proposals and the Boundary Commission’s proposals. Plan 2 - The Commission’s proposals for wards in West Cheshunt. Plan 3 - The Council’s original proposals for West Cheshunt. Plan 4 – The Council’s revised proposals for West Cheshunt, using Lieutenant Ellis Way as the Goffs Oak and Bury Green/ Rosedale ward boundary. Plan 5 – Changes proposed by the Council to the area near Brookfield Lane West, Cheshunt. Plan 6 - Changes proposed by the Council to the area near Church Lane/Cottage Gardens, Cheshunt. Plan 7 - Changes proposed by the Council to the area near Hedworth Avenue, Waltham Cross. Plan 8 – Overview of changes proposed by the Council, incorporating those at Plans 4, 5 and 7. 3 Supporting Information for Council’s Position (a) Waltham Cross and Cheshunt South and Theobalds The Commission’s warding proposals in the south of the Borough depart from the use of the railway line to delineate between the new Waltham Cross and Cheshunt South and Theobalds wards in the Hedworth Avenue area. The Commission is asked to continue with the line of the railway as the boundary in this area which will result in nearly 300 electors in the new Cheshunt South and Theobalds ward being transferred to the new Waltham Cross ward. The electoral numbers have no significant effect on the average variances of the respective wards. (b) Cheshunt North and Cheshunt South and Theobalds The Commission’s proposals set out in paragraph 77 of its report for Cottage Gardens, Church Lane, are considered to be misplaced. The entrance to the cul- de-sac of Cottage Gardens is off Church Lane. It is no different to the (much larger) cul-de-sac of Hobbs Close 50 metres to the east, similarly off Church Lane. Church Lane should be the ward boundary between the proposed Cheshunt North and Cheshunt South and Theobalds wards to provide the appropriate delineation between the wards. There is no material effect on electoral representation from this suggestion. (c) West Cheshunt The Council has noted the Commission’s concerns (p11, 12) over the Council’s warding pattern are expressed in broad terms. The Commission suggest that its proposed modifications in West Cheshunt would “… better reflect apparent communities, provide improved transport links within wards and provide clearer boundaries …”. The Council respectfully submits there is no factual evidence to substantiate these points in the Commission’s documentation. Moreover, the factors identified by the Commission have little to do with warding and the relevant criteria. 1 The Commission’s reference to public transport links The Borough’s transport networks are a ‘given’, and are not affected by the warding arrangements. The dominant transport ‘desire lines’ and routes in the Borough are north-south. East-west desire lines and routes are much weaker. The flows of travellers from Goffs Oak and from Bury Green to transport ‘nodes’ and ‘hubs’ are dominated by either this north- south pattern, or by the destinations outside the Borough altogether. The east-west routes through the areas of Bury Green and Goffs Oak are through routes which serve a wider areas than these wards. Bus routes follow the principal road network. These converge on Cheshunt Old Pond and Waltham Cross bus station. Only the 242 bus route can be said to link the areas of Bury Green and Goffs Oak together. The two areas of Goffs Oak and Bury Green look to different train stations on different rail routes from London termini: Bury Green looks to Cheshunt whereas Goffs 4 Oak looks to Cuffley Station. Thus, the Council considers that transport routes and ‘nodes’ do not support the Commission’s proposal. 2 Community make up and identity Goffs Oak and Bury Green are two different communities. The Commission’s proposed wards do not reflect community identities as perceived by residents themselves, or as made manifest in the geography of the areas. The Government’s own analysis of the 2008 Place Survey sees Bury Green as completely different from Goff Oak. In socio- economic terms, the resident population of the two areas are very different from each other. Car ownership rates, population characteristics and other aspects of the index of relative social deprivation differ also. The Bury Green ward was specifically identified by the Government following the 2008 Place Survey as an area where perceptions about crime and anti-social behaviour, the role of the family, perceptions about young people, levels of volunteering and community engagement, and its views about living in the locality were at odds with the national and Hertfordshire averages. As a result, Government funding via the Connecting Communities initiative was provided to support the ward. There has been a muted response from Bury Green residents to this electoral review for the very reasons which led to the Government’s Connecting Communities project to stimulate community engagement and community self- confidence in Bury Green: there is not yet as cohesive internal sense of community in Bury Green as there is in Goffs Oak. Specifically as a result of this programme, a local residents’ association has been formed, reinforcing the particular identity of the Bury Green area.