Newcastle-under-Lyme Conservatives Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission consultation on warding arrangements for the electoral review of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme December 2016 SUMMARY Having considered carefully the data provided by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and the Commission’s guidance on the proposal of warding patterns, we are minded to propose a pattern of 18 wards for the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, being a mixture of two and three seat wards. In line with the Council’s recent resolution on size and the Commission’s subsequent recommendation, our proposal is for a 44-seat Council. GENERAL PRINCIPLES We believe that our proposal meets each of the Commission’s three criteria of electoral equality; community ties; and convenient and effective local government. We have considered and rejected in some areas a pattern that would include single- seat wards. This is because the Council has at present a mixture of two- and three-seat wards, and we have taken the view that it is not desirable for some electors to be represented by a single member, while others have three. Moreover, having considered it, we are firmly of the view that is very difficult to identify strong, cohesive wards composed of 2,130 electors, which is the quota for a single seat in a Newcastle Borough Council of 44 members total. We believe that this would almost never be appropriate in the urban area, and only possibly desirable for a rural village or group of villages. We have also considered and rejected a uniform pattern of two-seat wards. While we consider that such a scheme is possible, the results from our experimentation suggested that it is less effective, and a uniform 2-seat pattern would reflect community interests less well than a mixture, where we have the flexibility to vary ward sizes. In forming our proposals, we have considered the Borough in three parts. Firstly, the Parish of Kidsgrove being the largest, and most urban parish in the Borough, forms a single, strong unit of community, and we have sought not to create any ward that crosses the boundary of the Town Council area. We believe that this would meet the approval of local people. Secondly, we have taken as a unit the remaining parished area of the Borough. These parishes form a continuous area and we believe that it would be more helpful to construct wards by linking together parishes, than it would to construct wards that include parts of parished areas, and parts of unparished urban Newcastle. 2 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES There are three exceptions. We have chosen to include the Apedale Community Park (unparished) with an Audley ward (parished) because it is currently included with the Halmerend Ward (where it is the only part of that ward that is not within the area of a parish). There are zero electors living in this area. Alternative options exist for it that are neutral with respect to community and electoral equality, and we do not have strong views. There is an area immediately to the east of Keele Parish, that is currently in Keele Ward but outside of the Parish. Again, there are zero electors in this area. Part of this land has, however, been set aside for future development by Keele University, and it would therefore make sense to include the area – or at least that extent of it that is developed – within whatever ward contains Keele. We have chosen to include Knutton (unparished) in a Silverdale ward that is otherwise composed of the area of Silverdale Parish. The present Knutton and Silverdale Ward is an example of a hybrid of parished and unparished areas where there are actually electors living in the unparished part, and we have taken the view that it is preferable to bring Knutton in, rather than leave it out. In this instance, we do have a strong view, which is that the alternatives are weaker than what we have proposed, which we detail below. Thirdly, in drawing up our proposals we have considered the unparished part of the Borough, which is urban and suburban in character, and which, again, forms a single continuous area. In some areas, we have considered that existing ward boundaries are good evidence of community of interest: we have retained them where possible, but have altered an existing boundary where we feel that it is misplaced or poorly- conceived. It has also been necessary to create new boundaries, where electoral equality demands it. CROSS HEATH WARD (2 SEATS) We considered whether it is possible for any of the existing Borough wards to be retained within the scheme for a new Council. Cross Heath is one such ward, that would be viable as a two-seater, however its variance from electoral quota is forecast narrowly to exceed 10% by 2022. For this reason, we propose a Cross Heath ward composed principally of polling districts G0001, G0002, G0003, and G0005. We would transfer the G0004 polling district (containing Sainsbury’s supermarket, Newcastle College, and electors of the Ashfields estate) to a Town ward. The eastern boundary of the current Cross Heath Ward makes what we consider an irregular detour at the junction of Hassam Parade and Hollinshead Avenue. The effect is to include Hassam Parade even numbers 108 to 114, but then to exclude numbers 106 down to 2. Boundaries running behind properties on a street are acceptable, as 3 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES are boundaries that run down the centre of a road, but we object to mixing the two on the same street. We therefore propose to realign the boundary here, so that it runs down the centre of Hassam Parade for its entire length. This entails the transfer of an estimated 109 electors from polling districts C0002 and C0003 into the Cross Heath Ward. Having moved the boundary along Hassam Parade, we have also found it prudent to realign it along Dimsdale Parade West. We propose that the boundary should run along the centre of Dimsdale Parade West, from its junction with Hassam Parade to its junction with the A34 Talke Road. This entails the inclusion of an estimated 88 voters from the A0003 polling district. MAY BANK WARD (3 SEATS) We propose a May Bank seat composed of the current May Bank Ward, plus polling district C0005, which is currently in the Wolstanton Ward. This polling district is in two parts. To the South of Grange Lane, it includes a self-contained estate of homes off Moreton Parade. This is immediately adjacent to the existing May Bank ward boundary. Secondly, the polling district includes Grange Lane itself, and a large, new estate of houses off Great Row View. This neighbourhood is quite separate from the rest of Wolstanton, having been constructed more recently. It is physically separate from Wolstanton, with no access for motor vehicles between the two. The Great Row View estate is fenced off for much of its perimeter. Its residents therefore face towards May Bank, and away from Wolstanton itself. In our view it is therefore an appropriate inclusion in a May Bank ward. WOLSTANTON AND PORTHILL WARD (3 SEATS) Taking into account the areas of what is now Wolstanton Ward that have been transferred out to Cross Heath and May Bank, we find that the core of Wolstanton, plus the area of the Porthill Ward combine to form a single, cohesive unit of correct numbers for a three-seat ward. The current boundary between Porthill and Wolstanton is a thing of great ingenuity, but we are not confident that it is wholly sound. For example, there is a longstanding public right of way, a footpath, that commences at the northeast end of Pitgreen Lane, and passes through the Borough boundary at the A500. This footpath is the current boundary, and it notoriously severs four homes at the foot of St Edmund’s Avenue (which at that end is a cul-de-sac) from the rest of the street. Numbers 73 to 79 St Edmund’s Avenue are therefore in Wolstanton Ward today, but only accessible via a big detour through Porthill Ward. 4 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES From Pitgreen Lane heading West, the current boundary passes behind rows of terraces, rather than down the centre of a street, which is perfectly acceptable, but it is unclear to us why, other than for historical reasons or for purposes of electoral equality, the line is drawn where it is drawn. It has a kink in it that ensures both properties on George Street are placed in Porthill rather than Wolstanton. But those homes are of similar stock to the adjacent homes on Keeling Street (odds 75 to 89) and a more natural, straight line boundary would surely have sufficed. Our view is that given the challenges of dividing this area, producing a clear boundary with clear reasoning, and our stated reluctance to form single-seat wards, the more sensible option is to unite the area. The boundary in the ground is invisible, and we believe that Wolstanton and Porthill can form a practical unit together. At the north boundary of Porthill, we propose a small adjustment to the boundary at Second Avenue. The current boundary makes an irregular approach to bisecting Second Avenue: its shape is such that Porthill residents living on Haven Grove, Beaconsfield and St Lucy’s Drive have to pass through a slice of Bradwell Ward in order to reach the mouth of their estate at Second Avenue. The boundary at this location makes limited sense, and we propose an amendment, such that all properties with an address on Second Avenue fall within the Wolstanton and Porthill Ward.