Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Medway Report to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions December 2001 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND © Crown Copyright 2001 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. Report no: 267 ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS page WHAT IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND? v SUMMARY vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3 3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7 4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9 5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11 6 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? 37 APPENDIX A Final Recommendations for Medway: Detailed Mapping 39 A large map illustrating the proposed ward boundaries for the urban area of Medway is inserted inside the back cover of the report. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND WHAT IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND? The Local Government Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament. Our task is to review and make recommendations to the Government on whether there should be changes to local authorities’ electoral arrangements. Members of the Commission are: Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman) Professor Michael Clarke CBE (Deputy Chairman) Peter Brokenshire Kru Desai Pamela Gordon Robin Gray Robert Hughes CBE Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive) We are required by law to review the electoral arrangements of every principal local authority in England. Our aim is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor in an area is as nearly as possible the same, taking into account local circumstances. We can recommend changes to ward boundaries, the number of councillors, ward names and the frequency of elections. We can also recommend changes to the electoral arrangements of parish councils. This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Medway. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY We began a review of Medway’s electoral arrangements on 28 November 2000. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements on 19 June 2001, after which we undertook an eight-week period of consultation. • This report summarises the representations we received during consultation on our draft recommendations, and contains our final recommendations to the Secretary of State. We found that the existing arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in Medway: • in seven of the 35 wards the number of electors represented by each councillor varies by more than 10 per cent from the average for the district; • by 2005 electoral equality is expected to worsen, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average in 13 wards and by more than 20 per cent in two wards. Our main final recommendations for future electoral arrangements (see Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 143–144) are that: • Medway Council should have 55 councillors, 25 fewer than at present; • there should be 22 wards, instead of 35 as at present; • the boundaries of 34 of the existing wards should be modified, resulting in a net reduction of 13, and one ward should retain its existing boundaries; • whole-council elections should continue to take place every four years. These recommendations seek to ensure that the number of electors represented by each district councillor is as nearly as possible the same, bearing in mind local circumstances. • In 19 of the proposed 22 wards the number of electors per councillor would vary by no more than 10 per cent from the district average. • This improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue, with the number of electors per councillor in only one ward, Cuxton & Halling, expected to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average for the district in 2005. Recommendations are also made for changes to parish council electoral arrangements which provide for: • revised warding arrangements for the parishes of Frindsbury Extra and Hoo St Werburgh. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii All further correspondence on these final recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who will not make an Order implementing them before 15 January 2002: The Secretary of State Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Democracy and Local Leadership Division Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Table 1: Final Recommendations: Summary Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map councillors reference 1 Chatham Central 3 Town ward (part); Holcombe ward Large map 2 Cuxton & Halling 1 Unchanged – the parishes of Cuxton and Halling Large map and Map 2 3 Gillingham North 3 Beechings ward (part); Brompton ward (part); Gillingham Large map North ward; Medway ward (part) 4 Gillingham South 3 Brompton ward (part); Gillingham South ward (part); Large map Priestfield ward (part) 5 Hempstead & 2 Hempstead & Wigmore ward (part); Watling Street ward Large map Wigmore (part) 6 Lordswood & 2 Hempstead & Wigmore ward (part); Lordswood ward; Large map Capstone North Dane ward (part) 7 Luton & Wayfield 3 Luton ward; North Dane ward (part); Wayfield ward Large map 8 Peninsula 3 Hoo St Werburgh ward (part – the proposed Central parish Large map ward and the existing East parish ward of Hoo St and Map 2 Werburgh parish); All Saints ward (the parishes of All Hallows, High Halstow, Isle of Grain, Saint Mary Hoo and Stoke); Thames Side ward (part – the parish of Cooling) 9 Princes Park 2 North Dane ward (part); Walderslade ward (part) Large map 10 Rainham Central 3 Hempstead & Wigmore ward (part); Rainham Mark ward; Large map St Margaret’s ward (part) 11 Rainham North 2 Riverside ward; Rainham ward (part) Large map 12 Rainham South 3 Parkwood ward; Rainham ward (part); St Margaret’s ward Large map (part) 13 River 2 Brompton ward (part); Gillingham South ward (part); St Large map Margaret’s & Borstal ward (part); Town ward (part) 14 Rochester East 2 Troy Town ward (part); Warren Wood ward (part) Large map 15 Rochester South & 3 Horsted ward; Hook Meadow ward (part); Town ward Large map Horsted (part); Warren Wood ward (part) 16 Rochester West 2 Troy Town ward (part); St Margaret’s & Borstal ward Large map (part); Warren Wood ward (part) 17 Strood North 3 Rede Court ward; Frindsbury ward Large map 18 Strood Rural 3 Frindsbury Extra & Chattenden ward (the parish of Large map Frindsbury Extra and the proposed West parish ward of and Map A1 Hoo St Werburgh parish); Thames Side ward (part – the parish of Cliffe & Cliffe Woods) 19 Strood South 3 Earl ward; Temple Farm ward Large map LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map councillors reference 20 Twydall 3 Beechings ward (part); Rainham ward (part); Twydall Large map ward; Watling Street ward (part) 21 Walderslade 2 Hook Meadow ward (part); Walderslade ward (part) Large map 22 Watling 2 Priestfield ward (part); North Dane ward (part); Watling Large map Street ward (part) Notes: 1 Map 2 and the large map in the back of the report illustrate the proposed wards outlined above. 2 We have made a number of minor boundary amendments to ensure that existing ward boundaries adhere to ground detail. These changes do not affect any electors. x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Table 2: Final Recommendations for Medway Ward name Number Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number Variance of (2000) electors per from (2005) of electors from councillors councillor average per average % councillor % 1 Chatham Central 3 10,032 3,344 1 10,391 3,464 -1 2 Cuxton & Halling 1 4,099 4,099 24 4,241 4,241 21 3 Gillingham North 3 10,093 3,364 2 10,745 3,582 3 4 Gillingham South 3 10,521 3,507 6 10,995 3,665 5 5 Hempstead & 2 6,635 3,318 0 6,677 3,339 -4 Wigmore 6 Lordswood & 2 6,975 3,488 5 6,980 3,490 0 Capstone 7 Luton & Wayfield 3 9,779 3,260 -2 10,080 3,360 -4 8 Peninsula 3 9,504 3,168 -4 10,036 3,345 -4 9 Princes Park 2 7,181 3,591 8 7,292 3,646 4 10 Rainham Central 3 9,971 3,324 0 10,111 3,370 -4 11 Rainham North 2 7,011 3,506 6 7,147 3,574 2 12 Rainham South 3 10,701 3,567 8 10,703 3,568 2 13 River 2 3,341 1,671 -50 7,006 3,503 0 14 Rochester East 2 6,978 3,489 5 7,146 3,573 2 15 Rochester South & 3 9,799 3,266 -1 10,163 3,388 -3 Horsted 16 Rochester West 2 6,565 3,283 -1 7,086 3,543 1 17 Strood North 3 9,861 3,287 -1 10,347 3,449 -1 18 Strood Rural 3 8,997 2,999 -10 10,401 3,467 -1 19 Strood South 3 10,295 3,432 4 10,517 3,506 0 20 Twydall 3 10,088 3,363 1 10,172 3,391 -3 21 Walderslade 2 7,040 3,520 6 7,128 3,564 2 22 Watling 2 6,808 3,404 3 6,815 3,408 -2 Totals 55 182,274 – – 192,179 – – Averages – – 3,314 – – 3,494 – Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Medway Council.