0 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Labour Group Boundary Review Submission 16 April 2018 1 Table of Contents: Covering Letter 2 Summary of the Labour Group’s consultation response 3 The Labour Group’s 2017 Warding Arrangement Submission 4 The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent Group’s 2017 proposals 5 The Labour Group’s Comments on the Draft Recommendations 2018 6 Greater Eston – General Points 7 Greater Eston – The Labour Group’s Revised Proposals 8 Greater Eston – Data 9 South Bank Ward 10 Eston Ward 14 Normanby Ward 15 Teesville Ward 16 Grangetown Ward 17 Ormesby Ward 18 Redcar – General Points 19 Redcar – Data 20 Coatham 21 Dormanstown 22 Kirkleatham 24 Mickledales 25 West Dyke 27 Zetland 28 Marske, New Marske and Saltburn 29 East Cleveland 30 Conclusion 31 Appendix One – Redcar and Cleveland Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015 32 2 Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Deputy Leader of the Council Councillor Christopher Massey, PhD Redcar and Cleveland Leisure and Community Heart Ridley Street Redcar TS10 1TD Email: Via Email: 08 April 2018 [email protected] Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council – Boundary Review Draft Recommendations – Comments from the Labour Group Dear Secretary of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Please find attached maps and a portfolio of evidence from Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council’s Labour Group. We have made comments on the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations across the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland. We have indicated the areas where we agree with the Commission’s findings. In addition, where the Labour Group’s position diverges from the Commission’s we have provided evidence for your consideration. Our proposals maintain electoral equality across Redcar and Cleveland and ensure that each ward has a strong community identity. We have actively engaged with our local communities in formulating this response and have strongly encouraged local groups to also take part in the consultation. Redcar and Cleveland Labour Group is the largest political group on the Council representing 28 members. This number of councillors is more than double any other political group. We are the only political group who have representatives across the three areas of Redcar and Cleveland: Greater Eston, Redcar and East Cleveland. As such, we believe our proposals accurately reflect the views of every community in the Borough and we commend them to the Boundary Commission. Yours faithfully, Dr. Christopher Massey, Deputy Leader of the Council 3 Summary of the Labour Group’s Consultation Response The following proposals and our attached maps reflect the views of the 28 councillors of the Labour Group and give priority to both electoral equality and community identity. We have agreed with many areas of the Boundary Commission’s draft proposals and have no substantive changes to make to the Commission’s proposals for: Ormesby, St. Germains, Longbeck, Satlburn, Loftus, Brotton, Guisborough, Hutton, Belmont, Skelton East, Skelton West or Lockwood. However, we believe the existing distribution of Councillors across the three sub areas of Greater Eston, Redcar and East Cleveland is broadly right. The draft proposal disrupts this arrangement and shifts councillor resource from Greater Eston into Redcar. This has the effect of taking resources from our most disadvantaged wards and giving them to those areas with fewer problems. Our main areas of divergence centre on the wards of South Bank and Dormanstown. We believe that these two wards should not be reduced in size or reduced in councillor numbers. This is because they are both priority wards suffering from significant deprivation1 with services aligned to existing boundaries and councillors working to capacity to resolve multiple complex issues alongside community activists. So we are proposing returning both Dormanstown and South Bank to three member wards. This leads to changes in the boundaries for: Eston, Teesville, Grangetown and Normanby within Greater Eston, and The Ings (West Dyke), Zetland, Coatham, Mickledales and Kirkleatham in Redcar. In all cases we have kept community identity at the centre of our proposals and for this reason we have deleted the Newcomen Ward where our evidence tells us that there is little sense of community identity or place. We have provided detailed maps and evidence below for these proposals. 1 See Appendix One attached at page 32. 4 The Labour Group’s first Warding Arrangement Proposal 2017 The aim of the Labour Group’s initial proposal to the Boundary Commission and this further response to the consultation report New Electoral Arrangements was and is to ‘keep the number of electors population are all within the tolerance thresholds stipulated by the LGBCE.’2 We recognise that whilst our previous submission met the ‘main rules’ of the commission, our evidence base could have been improved. We had hoped that our mapping exercise on its own, which was undertaken from scratch over a number of days, would showcase our local knowledge and the robustness of our plans. However, in light of the comments of the Commission that the Labour Group provided ‘limited supporting evidence’ we have now prepared this detailed narrative which we believe provides the additional evidence you need to support our new proposals. Our new proposals continue to ensure that that ‘each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members in the authority’ and that ‘ward patterns reflect community identities.’3 We feel that the weight of the Labour Group’s proposals due to the large number of Councillors our Group represents should be noted during the Commission’s consultation phase. It should be noted that the 28 councillors of the Labour Group are by far the largest number on Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council.4 Most importantly, the Labour Group is also the only political group which has representatives in each of the three areas of Redcar and Cleveland: Greater Eston, Redcar and East Cleveland. Our councillors know their wards and their communities and as our Group has substantially more representatives than any other and has representation in each of the three geographic regions of the Borough, we believe we can accurately reflect ‘the interests and identities of local communities.’5 2 Labour Group, ‘Boundary Review – Redcar and Cleveland BC – Submission from Borough Council Labour Group’, 29 November 2017, p.1. [http://s3‐eu‐west‐ 2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/37002/LabourGroup‐PG‐RandC‐2017‐12‐ 04_Redacted.pdf] 3 Local Government Boundary Commission for England, How to Propose a Pattern of Wards [http://s3‐eu‐west‐ 2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25694/Proposing‐new‐wards‐guidance‐2015‐08‐04.pdf] 4 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, ‘Political Composition’, [http://www.redcar‐ cleveland.gov.uk/rcbcweb.nsf/web+full+list/2bf7a46764e2f0d880256c330035abd9] 5 LGBCE, How to Propose a Pattern of Wards. 5 The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent Group’s first Warding Arrangement Proposals 2017 We strongly contend that the supposed ‘similarity’6 between the proposals from other groups you received was not a reflection of unanimity but was the result of these political groups using the same template prepared by Council officers as their starting point. From this template only a few changes were made by each group, and the supportive evidence received from the Independent Group and Conservative Group was limited. Whilst the Liberal Democrat Group entered a detailed submission, their map still did not differ greatly from either the Conservative or Independent Group’s. In effect, by choosing to largely base the ‘draft recommendations on elements of the Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat group proposals’,7 the Commission – in the view of the Labour Group – is proposing to adopt new ward boundaries that were never intended to be anything but a starting point for deliberation by the political groups. These boundaries were not discussed with members, nor was there any rationale for them beyond a very basic numerical calculationhas effectively implemented the view of one council officer, with only minor amendments, and not the view of the majority of councillors on Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. Clearly, the Labour Group’s ‘significantly different proposals’ were not aligned with the other groups because we did not use this officer template.8 Therefore we have again submitted an independently created map. This time, however, we have accepted many areas of the Boundary Commission’s findings based on our community knowledge and engagement across the Borough and our deep understanding of the issues our residents face, as the only group with representation in all three geographic areas. It is these important issues, that were never taken into account in that starting point map, that inadvertently appear to have had such an influence on the draft proposals. 6 LGBCE, New Electoral Arrangements, p. 6. 7 Ibid., p. 7. 8 Ibid., p. 6. 6 The Labour Group’s Comments on the Draft Recommendations 2018 In light of the comments made in the draft recommendations, the Labour Group below have provided an evidenced based, rational argument to go along with our mapped submission. This is intended to supplement the attached maps. Our comments on the draft recommendations and our maps meet the Boundary Commission’s three criteria. Firstly, they ‘deliver electoral equality’ because all wards are within the 10% threshold of electors per councillors.9 Secondly, they ‘reflect the interests and identities of local communities’ because they actively engage with and reflect upon the needs of local groups. Finally, they ‘promote effective and convenient local government’ because they maintain equality and representation across the three geographical areas of Redcar and Cleveland. We are not seeking through our consultation response to completely redraw the new map the Commission has produced for Redcar and Cleveland. We have reflected on the new arrangements and accepted many of the Commission’s proposals as both fair and sensible.