Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Rother in East Sussex Report to the Secretary of State for the Transport, Local Government and the Regions August 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: 254 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 29 APPENDIX A Final Recommendations for Rother: Detailed Mapping 31 A large map illustrating the proposed ward boundaries for Battle and Bexhill-on-Sea is inserted inside the back cover of this 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 and town councils. This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the district of Rother in East Sussex. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY We began a review of Rother’s electoral arrangements on 25 July 2000. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements on 20 February 2001, after which we undertook an nine- 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 Rother: • in 18 of the 26 wards the number of electors represented by each councillor varies by more than 10 per cent from the average for the district and seven wards vary by more than 20 per cent; • by 2005 this situation is expected to worsen, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average in 18 wards and by more than 20 per cent in nine wards. Our main final recommendations for future electoral arrangements (see Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 105-106) are that: • Rother District Council should have 38 councillors, seven fewer than at present; • there should be 20 wards, instead of 26 as at present; • the boundaries of 25 of the existing wards should be modified, resulting in a net reduction of five, and one ward should retain its existing boundaries; • elections should continue to take place every four years. The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that, in future, each district councillor represents approximately the same number of electors, bearing in mind local circumstances. • In one of the proposed 20 wards the number of electors per councillor would vary by more than 10 per cent from the district average. • An improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue with the number of electors per councillor in 19 wards expected to vary by no more than 10 per cent from the average for the district in 2005. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii Recommendations are also made for changes to parish and town council electoral arrangements which provide for: • revised warding arrangements and the redistribution of councillors for Battle parish. All further correspondence on these final recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who will not make an Order implementing them before 17 September 2001. The Secretary of State Department of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Local Government Sponsorship 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 Battle Town 2 the proposed Marley and Watch Oak parish wards Map 2 and of Battle parish large map 2 Brede Valley 2 the parishes of Brede, Udimore and Westfield Map 2 3 Central 2 part of Central ward Map 2 and large map 4 Collington 2 part of Collington ward Map 2 and large map 5 Crowhurst 1 the parishes of Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst Map 2 and and Penhurst and the proposed Telham parish large map ward of Battle parish 6 Darwell 2 the parishes of Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Map 2 and Mountfield and Whatlington and Netherfield large map parish ward of Battle parish 7 Eastern Rother 2 the parishes of Camber, East Guldeford, Map 2 Icklesham, Iden and Playden 8 Ewhurst & 1 Ewhurst and Sedlescombe parishes Map 2 Sedlescombe 9 Kewhurst 2 part of Collington ward; part of St Marks ward; Map 2 and part of St Stephens ward large map 10 Marsham 2 Fairlight, Guestling and Pett parishes Map 2 11 Old Town 2 part of Old Town ward; part of St Michaels ward; Map 2 and part of Sidley ward large map 12 Rother Levels 2 Beckley, Northiam, Peasmarsh and Rye Foreign Map 2 parishes 13 Rye 2 unchanged - Rye parish Map 2 14 Sackville 2 part of Sackville ward; part of Central ward; part Map 2 and of St Michaels ward large map 15 St Marks 2 part of St Marks ward; part of Collington ward; Map 2 and part of St Stephens ward large map 16 St Michaels 2 part of St Michaels ward; part of Old Town ward Map 2 and large map 17 St Stephens 2 part of St Stephens ward; part of Old Town ward; Map 2 and part of St Marks ward large map 18 Salehurst 2 the parishes of Bodiam, Hurst Green and Salehurst Map 2 & Robertsbridge LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map councillors reference 19 Sidley 2 part of Sidley ward; part of Old Town ward Map 2 and large map 20 Ticehurst & 2 Etchingham and Ticehurst parishes Map 2 Etchingham Notes: 1 Bexhill-on-Sea is unparished. 2 Map 2 and Appendix A, including the large map in the back of the report, illustrate the proposed wards outlined above. x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Table 2: Final Recommendations for Rother Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number of Variance of (2000) of electors from (2005) electors from councillors per average per average councillor % councillor % 1 Battle Town 2 3,665 1,833 3 3,875 1,938 6 2 Brede Valley 2 3,704 1,852 4 3,758 1,879 2 3 Central 2 3,756 1,878 6 3,839 1,920 5 4 Collington 2 3,607 1,804 2 3,701 1,851 1 5 Crowhurst 1 1,938 1,938 9 1,952 1,952 6 6 Darwell 2 3,708 1,854 5 3,795 1,898 3 7 Eastern Rother 2 3,590 1,795 1 3,820 1,910 4 8 Ewhurst & 1 1,847 1,847 4 1,916 1,916 4 Sedlescombe 9 Kewhurst 2 3,840 1,920 8 3,833 1,917 4 10 Marsham 2 3,240 1,620 -9 3,283 1,642 -11 11 Old Town 2 3,061 1,531 -14 3,608 1,804 -2 12 Rother Levels 2 3,605 1,803 2 3,753 1,877 2 13 Rye 2 3,225 1,613 -9 3,290 1,645 -10 14 Sackville 2 3,611 1,806 2 3,662 1,831 0 15 St Marks 2 3,713 1,857 5 3,696 1,848 1 16 St Michaels 2 3,704 1,852 4 3,875 1,938 6 17 St Stephens 2 3,261 1,631 -8 3,526 1,763 -4 18 Salehurst 2 3,229 1,615 -9 3,337 1,669 -9 19 Sidley 2 3,908 1,954 10 3,952 1,976 8 20 Ticehurst & 2 3,200 1,600 -10 3,313 1,657 -10 Etchingham Totals 38 67,412 – – 69,784 – – Averages – – 1,774 – – 1,836 – Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Rother District Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND xi xii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1 INTRODUCTION 1 This report contains our final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the district of Rother in East Sussex.