Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation on the proposed electoral arrangements for Wealden Submission by Wealden District Council (June 2016) This document is the Council’s response to the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBCE) Consultation on the proposed new electoral arrangements of Wealden District Council. In consultation with all Members the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the Commission’s draft recommendations and recommended a draft response to Full Council via Cabinet. Full Council approved the response at its meeting on 18th May 2016. In making the recommendations to the Commission the Council also requests that any changes made to District Ward boundaries be reflected in the relevant East Sussex County Division boundaries to ensure co-terminosity continues. The following tables detail Wealden District Council’s response to the LGBCE’s draft proposals for each District Ward. Response to LGBCE Draft Recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Wealden District Council No Variance Ward name Description (LGBCE) Detail (LGBCE) Wealden DC Response of Cllrs 2021 Buxted 1 -4% This ward comprises the We did not receive any submissions The Council agrees with the LGBCE parish of Buxted, excluding directly regarding this ward. We consider recommendations for this ward. the Coopers Green area in the far that the district-wide proposals in this area south-west. provided for good adherence to the statutory criteria, and therefore have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations. Danehill & 1 -10% This ward includes the parish We received one submission relating to The Council is seriously concerned Fletching of Danehill, the parish of Fletching this ward. This submission related to the by the Boundary Commission’s excluding Shortbridge, and the rural parish of Fletching and requested that the proposal to extend the ward western part of the Forest Row parish. boundary of the parish be amended. boundary to include the Shortbridge However, this is outside of the scope of area of Fletching Parish. this review. One of the district-wide schemes in this area included a very small It is aware that for the Uckfield West area of the parish of Fletching in the and Isfield District Ward to be proposed Uckfield West with Isfield ward; achieved part of Fletching Parish however, the area included by the Council would need to be included and it formed an unviable parish ward of fewer notes the Commission’s view that than 100 electors. To improve both the the small part of Shortbridge in the boundaries of the parish ward and the Council’s proposal was not viable as access in the proposed Uckfield West with a new parish ward for Fletching Isfield ward, we propose to include the Parish. Shortbridge area of Fletching in the ward to the south, removing it from the proposed The locality of Piltdown (which Danehill & Fletching ward. Subject to this includes Shortbridge) is very much a amendment, we are proposing this ward as defined community, having a vibrant part of our draft recommendations. Residents’ Association that works very closely with the local District Ward members as well as the Parish Council to achieve a number of projects that benefit the area as a whole. The Council is concerned that splitting Piltdown across two District Wards to the extent that is proposed Response to LGBCE Draft Recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Wealden District Council No Variance Ward name Description (LGBCE) Detail (LGBCE) Wealden DC Response of Cllrs 2021 would lead to confusion amongst the electorate, who associate themselves much more closely with the rural area of Fletching than the urban area of Uckfield. It would also lead to duplication of effort by groups such as the Residents’ Association who would now have to deal with District Councillors from two different wards. The Council therefore requests that the Commission give serious consideration to the following options (in order of preference): 1. The ward boundary originally proposed by Wealden be adopted and a Community Governance Review undertaken before the next District/Parish elections to move the small part of Fletching Parish in with Isfield Parish, thereby creating a District Ward that does not create any parish wards (other than in the town of Uckfield which is currently warded). This would remove the unviable parish ward of Fletching Parish. 2. The ward boundary originally proposed by Wealden be adopted - keeping the community of Piltdown together in one ward outweighs creating a small ward of Fletching parish. 3. A detached ward be created for Uckfield West and Isfield using Response to LGBCE Draft Recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Wealden District Council No Variance Ward name Description (LGBCE) Detail (LGBCE) Wealden DC Response of Cllrs 2021 the parish boundary of Isfield as one part and the Uckfield West proposed boundary as the other part of the Ward. This would enable the parish of Fletching to not be warded at all, thereby not creating any unviable parish wards. The Council is aware that a detached ward is not a preferred option but does feel that in this case it merits consideration in order to not split the cohesive community of Shortbridge and Piltdown into different District Wards. Forest Row 1 7% This ward includes the town of We received one submission directly The Council agrees with the LGBCE Forest Row, south of the railway line regarding this ward, which asked for an recommendations for this ward. and east of Kidbrooke Park. amendment to the district boundary; however, this is outside the scope of this review. The proposed district-wide scheme proposed by the member of the public included Forest Row as part of a large two- member ward encompassing much of the surrounding rural area. However, we consider that in this area, a single- member ward is the best fit for Forest Row and that the ward proposed by the other district-wide scheme provides for good adherence to the statutory criteria. We are therefore confirming it as part of our draft recommendations. Response to LGBCE Draft Recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Wealden District Council No Variance Ward name Description (LGBCE) Detail (LGBCE) Wealden DC Response of Cllrs 2021 Frant & 2 -4% This ward comprises the We received one submission specifically Although the Council was aiming for Wadhurst parish of Wadhurst, the parish of Frant relating to this ward, requesting that the single member wards it agrees with (excluding the Eridge Green area to parish and ward boundaries for the parish the Commission that combining the the north-west), and the northernmost of Wadhurst remain contiguous; however, two proposed single member wards part of the parish of Mayfield & Five this would result in an unacceptably high in this area is the most appropriate Ashes. variance of 38%. One of the district-wide solution. proposals for this area put forward two wards – Frant & Wadhurst North and Wadhurst Central & South. However, these two single-member wards had electoral variances of -25% and 17% respectively, which are too high. The scheme also put forward a boundary between the two wards which split the Wadhurst community. The two-member ward put forward by the member of the public as part of his district- wide scheme comprised the entirety of both the Frant and Wadhurst parishes. Having considered the alternative options available, we consider that combining the proposed single-member wards in this area provides the best adherence to the statutory criteria and is representative of the communities in the area. Whilst we acknowledge the desire for single-member wards across the district, we consider that a two-member ward is the most appropriate solution in this area and are therefore proposing it as part of our draft recommendations, with the name Frant & Wadhurst. Response to LGBCE Draft Recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Wealden District Council No Variance Ward name Description (LGBCE) Detail (LGBCE) Wealden DC Response of Cllrs 2021 Hadlow 1 -6% This ward comprises the We did not receive any submissions The Council agrees with the LGBCE Down & parish of Hadlow Down and the directly regarding this ward. We consider recommendations for this ward. Rotherfield southern part of the parish of that one of the district-wide proposals in Rotherfield. this area provided for good adherence to the statutory criteria, and therefore have included this ward as part of our draft recommendations. Hartfield 1 1% This ward comprises the We received one submission relating to the The Council accepts that the School parish of Hartfield, the northern rural Withyham parish, part of which falls within Lane area of St John’s be included area of Forest the proposed Hartfield ward, requesting in the Hartfield Ward rather than the Row parish, and the southern part of that the entire Withyham parish remain in Crowborough St John’s Ward. Withyham parish one ward. However, in order to construct a Note: It is possible that a warding pattern that fulfils the statutory Governance Review will be criteria, we are unable to maintain requested by the Town Council in Withyham within one ward. Having relation to the School Lane area. considered alternative options, the district- wide scheme in this area provides for good adherence to the statutory criteria. We propose one change to the proposed Hartfield ward. In order to avoid the creation of an unviable parish ward in the south-east of the ward, we propose including the School Lane area in the Hartfield ward rather than in the Crowborough St Johns ward. Subject to this minor amendment, we are including this ward as part of our draft recommendations. Maresfield 1 9% This ward contains the entire We did not receive any submissions The Council agrees with the LGBCE parish of Maresfield.