Political group submissions to the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough

council electoral review

This PDF document contains 8 submissions from political groups.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that

page, please scroll through the document.

1

Fuller, Heather

From: dianne Sent: 07 August 2014 12:29To: Reviews@Subject: Electoral Review of Doncaster MBC: Draft RecommendationsAttachments: BoundaryCommission140807.doc; Boundary_Commission140804.docx

Hello   Please see the attached documents, which I have also to sent to you by post, and which I hope you will consider.   Many thanks   Dianne Williams Secretary of Bentley LP Branch     

By the end of the 19th century, Bentley was still largely a rural village on the outskirts of Doncaster. This was dramatically changed by the siting of a new colliery at the end of the century employing 1,700 workers. The colliery transformed the village into a small township, resulting in large developments of residential estates, shops, a cinema and a recreation park being created. Bentley Colliery had its own football team which still exists today, and they reached the 3rd qualifying round of the FA Cup in the 1956/57 season. There was also a colliery cricket team, again which still exists today.

The growth of the township was recognised when in 1911, a separate Urban District of Bentley with Arksey Council was constituted with a council headquarters in the village centre at Cooke Street, Bentley. This was abolished after 1st April 1974, due to the Local Government act 1972, and was amalgamated into Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC). Under the creation of DMBC, Bentley had two electoral wards, Bentley Central and Bentley North Road.

The draft boundary recommendation, is for a ward comprising most of the former Bentley Central and a small part of Bentley North Road, with an electorate only numbering enough for two councillors. Meanwhile most of the remainder of Bentley is added to Scawsby and Cusworth, which has no joint affinities with each other, to provide ward of three councillors. Ironically, the proposed number of electors per councillor is almost identical for the year 2019, with 4,365 electors for Cusworth and Scawthorpe (Scawthorpe can be seen as an extension of Bentley and the proposal also includes a large section of Bentley itself in the West End of Bentley), with 4,343 electors for Bentley.

Bentley provides many of the facilities for its hinterland, and even in the reduced ward, and not counting Arksey and Toll Bar, it has a multitude of shops and services, for example:

6 churches and religious buildings, 2 doctor’s surgeries, I health centre, 2 dentists, 1 optician, 3 post offices, I petrol station, 2 motor car repairs, 1 motor cycle repair, 2 bicycle shops, 1 mobility shop, 8 hairdressers, 3 salons, 3 supermarkets/convenience stores, 9 fast food take aways, 1 restaurant, 5 cafes, 4 public houses, 1 trophy shop, I horticultural centre, 1 florist, 1 frozen food store, 2 funeral directors, 1 gymnasium, 2 furniture stores, 1 bank, 1 model shop, 2 greetings card shops, 1 pet shop and 1 electrical appliance shop, and a number of working men’s clubs, a large public park and pavilion, and a library which is possibly the largest one outside of the central library in Doncaster.

Additionally, Bentley Railway Station which is approximately 4 minutes walk from the centre of Bentley under the Boundary Commission proposals, would be located in the Scawsby and Cusworth Ward.

The community and voluntary sector in Bentley is strong, and the Bentley Area Community Partnership (BACuP) is the umbrella organisation which brings together on a monthly basis, representatives of organisations across the wider Bentley area. There are an estimated 35

organisations representing sport, cultural interests, allotment holders, craft clubs, care in the community, faiths and religious groups.

Bentley Park and Pavilion are facilities associated with the growth of Bentley as a mining community in the earlier part of the 20th century. These historical amenities have been the subject of £2.7 million, Heritage Lottery, ‘Parks for People’ investment which will be of considerable benefit to Bentley for decades to come.

BACuP organises the annual Bentley Bonanza, an event held in Bentley Park and Pavilion, where most of the organisations support as stall holders, stewards or performers. This event attracts up to 2,500 people of all ages. Other activities include the annual bonfire night firework display, which attracts over 3,000 people from across the wider Bentley area.

The only youth centre in Bentley is the My Place Centre, which stands adjacent to the park and Pavilion, and this is a multi-million pound Government funded centre opened in 2013, to serve the wider Bentley area.

In view of the above, we are hopeful that you would consider incorporating all of Bentley together with its hinterland, which is part of wider Bentley, to form a three member ward and reducing Scawsby and Cusworth to a two member ward (comprising mainly Scawsby and Cusworth).

Bentley – 3 member ward comprising polling areas of, MB, MC, NA, NB, NC, ND, NE, NF, NG and TM.

2013 – 12,583 (electorate)

2019 – 12,704 (electorate)

Scawsby and Cusworth comprising polling areas of, MA, ME, MF and MG.

2013 – 8,982 (electorate)

2019 – 9,077 (electorate)

This proposal would not affect the remainder of the Doncaster proposals and would leave both wards meeting the criteria of plus or minus 10% of the mean.

We hope that you will please consider our proposal as we feel that the draft recommendations completely break up many of the communities of Bentley.

1

Fuller, Heather

From: Jonathan Wood Sent: 10 August 2014 22:59To: Simon Keal Boundary Commission; Reviews@Subject: Conservative Group Consultation Response to initial boundary proposalsAttachments: Response to Boundary Commissions Proposals 10Aug14.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Completed

Dear Simon Please find attached a letter containing my response to the commission's initial boundary proposals. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely Jonathan Wood Conservative Group Leader Doncaster Met Borough Council

- 1 -

Office of the Conservative Group LeaderMember Services

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough CouncilCivic OfficeWaterdaleDoncasterDN1 3BU

10th August 2014

Reviewing Officer - DoncasterLocal Government Boundary Commission for EnglandLayden House76-86 Turnmill StreetLondonEC1M 5LG

Dear Commissioner

Consultation Response – Doncaster Ward Boundary Proposals

I write in response to your initial proposals concerning new ward boundarieswithin the Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster.

As you may recall the Conservative Group respectfully submitted an alternateproposal to the “endorsed” Labour Group proposal at a meeting of FullCouncil.

As outline in Council’s alternative submission we remain gravely concernedabout the artificial and forced coalescence of rural and urban communitiesacross the Borough.

Accepting variance within your voter/councillor tolerance ratio, theConservative Group remains committed to avoid ing the creation of electoralwards where voter numbers override important community links and servicedelivery mechanisms.

In our original submission, equity of representation was addressed with thesuggestion that all wards should have an equal number of Councillors. Westill believe this should be the case although whether that is one, tw o, or threeis immaterial.

Whilst the creation of equal councillor wards may present its own challenge tothe Commission, the importance of equality of representation betweendifferent communities can not be underestimated . Although it may be easy to

- 2 -

suggest voters numbers per councillor may be similar across the borough, thescenario where one community has three serving councillors, and another(perhaps its neighbour) only one is simply inequitable. A better attempt tocreate communities of equal representational influence must be the goal.

To consider anything otherwise condemns the borough to it currentinadequacies including a likely requirement for further intervention.

The group is mindful of one example which has been repeated to us manytimes:

A result for a party in one community might deliver the single councillor in thatsingle councillor ward, however in a larger community all three partycandidates from one party will be elected. Voters supporting any secondparty in the larger ward will be unrepresented even where their total numbermight significantly exceed that required to elect a single councillor in a singleseat ward. Overwhelmed by a simple majority they will have norepresentation in any of their three councillors, however if they had not beenartificially combined they would have a councillor that represented their voice.Equality of ward representation by the same number of councillor across theborough is imperative.

Furthermore, elections in single seat wards will only e ver be a sideline eventto polls in larger three seat wards, voter disaffection, disinterest , and the beliefthat they don’t count being an obvious result.

Any proposal which suggests ward sizes represented by councillors varying insize from one to three will be scattered with examples of inequality. Thegroup would particularly draw your attention to the inequality proposed for thewards of Tickhill, Stainforth and Skellow all with a proposed single councillorrepresentation.

Finally on this point it would be easy to see the dom inance that a largercommunity will have through voting rights on council committees that aremeant to serve all residents based on proportionality. One could easilyenvisage three councillors from a community sitting on the same committeedelivering a planning decision in favour of their community with prejudiceagainst a smaller neighbour with only a single councillor representing it .

In response to your initial proposals we would ask that the C ommissionrevisit its recommendations to specifically address the concern thatwards should be of equal councillor size, and certainly no singlecouncillor wards.

The second element on which we would provide comment is based on themany critical differences in which rural and urban communities accessservices and resources administered thro ugh local arrangements.

- 3 -

In relation of your proposal to divide rural communities in the northwest of theborough (under current arrangements called Sprotbrough), we see nocommunity based reason to take the northern half of the ward and place itwith Adwick. Your decision to do this seemed to rest on the assertion fromBrodsworth and Pickburn Parish Council. This decision would fundamentallydivide it from its natural partners in Sprotbrough to its south. The arbitrarynature of dividing scattered rural communities currently combined and placinghalf of them with Adwick has caused much unrest in those communities.Many residents having complaine d bitterly that the clerk of that parish counciloverstepped their mark in the comments you received.

The villages of Marr, Hickleton, Brodsworth, Hampole, Skelbrooke, Claytonand their minor hamlets have concrete links with High Mel ton, Barnburgh,Harlington Adwick-upon-Dearne and Sprotbrough village. All of who’sresidents see Sprotbrough as the focal village within the rural landscape.

But beyond historical links between these rural places the people of thesevillages share numerous modern day service s in the same way, very differentto any approach in planned industrial settlements buil t up around the coalindustry in places like Adwick during the early twentieth century .

Within rural villages access to doctors, community groups, childcare, transportand all manner of modern life revolves around a principle of self engagementand forged relationship with people is similar circumstances. The plannedapproach favoured by many in mining communities is unwelcome. To forcerural villagers into coalescence with Adwick has already caused muchconcern.

Beyond all else, the A1 motorway also places a formidable physical barrierbetween Doncaster’s urban expansion (Adwick) and rural communities.

It is the groups belief that the Sprotbrough Ward could actually be enhanced(and meet the voter/councillor ratio for three councillors) with the addition ofthe village of Cusworth.

Like its rural counterpar ts to west, Cusworth is itself a rural communitydominated by a stately home housing the Doncaster’s country park museumand “surrounded by landscaped parklands and typifying architecture,landscape history, wildlife, exhibitions, rural events and outdoor activities.”1

Also noteworthy Sprotbrough and Cusworth already have a combined ParishCouncil which has seen shared local administration for the two communitiesfor many years. The Parish Council maintains recreation facilities sharedbetween both communities and hosts numerous events annually which drawparticipants from all the surrounding rural villages. 2

The Group’s recommendation to the Commission is that theSprotbrough Ward remain largely unchanged as it has been for sometwenty years with the addition of its absent community partnerCusworth to complete the ward and provide the additional voternumbers to create a “within variance” three member ward .

- 4 -

Our third point of feedback concerns the market town of Bawtry and thecommission’s proposal to combine it with Rossington based on therecommendation from the Council’s Labour Group and sitting Labour MP’s.

Although it might appear endorsed as a recommendat ion from Council, thereality is far from something so agreeable or simple. Similar to the actcondemning Tickhill to a single councillor representation, combining Bawtrywith Rossington silences a clear majority that have been critical ofDoncaster’s Members of Parliament for some years.

The Commissions decision to accept their recommendation, and base it onelectoral equality through voter numbers should be review with independentinput. The advice you have been given is simply incorrect.

The settlement typifies a rural market town linear in nature along the route ofthe original Great North Road . Its community affinity being towardneighbouring rural settlements in the immediate east – Tickhill - and west -Austerfield, Auckley and Finningley.

Service delivery in its broadest form such as doctors, dentists, healthcare,transport, shopping, libraries, playgroups, church groups, education and infact almost every facet of life is divided and separate from the former miningcommunity of Rossington.

The difference in these communities is fundamental, and like so many otherrecommendation contained with Council’s submission manipulated merely toenhance one party’s total dominance in Doncaster political landscape.

Our recommendation is to review the deci sion to place Bawtry withRossington, and consider Bawtry placed with piers like Tickhill orFinningley. Retaining it with Tickhill and other rural populations wouldalso help to alleviate the creation of a single se at ward in Tickhill.

On behalf of the Conservative Group I would like to express our thanks to theCommission in advance for what will be a thoughtful, considered and sensitiveapproach to what will always be a difficult exercise when realigning ward.

Doncaster dominance by one party has caused deep divisions in pa st whichhas resulted in comprehensive failings,3 corrupt practice,4 and intervention.Significant issues for any to consider when looking from afar.

Whilst political outcome can never be within the Commission’s considerationwe would urge extreme caution in accepting any recommendations within theCouncil’s official submission. Co-ordinated by the total dominance andintimidating behaviour of one party, we would be happy to share documentaryevidence that this has been at the exclusion of all oppositionrecommendations and coordinated by Labour councillors with undeclaredprejudicial interests.5

- 5 -

Yours sincerely

Jonathan WoodLeader of the Conservative Group

Footnotes/References:

1. Taken from Doncaster Borough Council websiteIntro to Cusworth Hall - http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Cusworthhall

2. http://www.sc-pc.co.uk/3. http://archive.audit-

commission.gov.uk/auditcommission/pressoffice/pressreleases/Pages/201004doncastermetropolitanboroughcouncil.aspx.html

4. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/mar/13/uknewshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7606755/Doncaster -council-branded-dysfunctional-as-Government-urged-to-intervene.html

5. Recommendations accepted by the Commission from B rodsworth Parish Councilregarding Pickburn and Brodsworth being integrated into Adwick. The Clerk to thisParish Council responsible for the letter is a serving Labour Councillor. BrodsworthVillage and Pickburn residents having no knowledge of what was done in their name.The Commission accepted recommendation from a local Member’s of Parliamentwho’s husband serves as a Doncaster Councillor and benefits directly from thatrecommendation.

1

Porter, Johanna

From: Egan, HelenSent: 05 August 2014 15:03To: Porter, JohannaSubject: FW: boundary reviewAttachments: LGBCE Labour Group response.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Hi Jo,  Please see sub below for Doncaster.  Regards, Helen  

From: Knight, Pat (councillor) [ Sent: 05 August 2014 14:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: boundary review  

Hi Please find attached the Doncaster Labour Group Submission to the Boundary Commission. Please can you acknowledge receipt of this important document so I can report to our group that it was received ok. Kind regards Pat Pat Knight Councillor for the Hatfield Ward & Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Secretary for the Labour Group

  ******************************************************************************************** Transmitted by Doncaster Council. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If, you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, disseminate, forward, print or copy all, or part of its contents to any other person and inform me as soon as possible.

Doncaster Council Labour Group Response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England Draft

Recommendations The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is carrying out a review of electoral arrangements in Doncaster. The first part of the review considered Council size – the number of Councillors that are required for the Council to carry out its governance and scrutiny functions. The LGBCE have adopted a Council size of 54 as part of their draft recommendations. The consultation that is currently underway considers the LGBCE’s recommended warding arrangements to accommodate the revised number of Councillors. In summary, the Labour Group suggested amendments are

1. The village of Austerfield should be moved from the proposed Finningley ward into the new Bawtry ward.

2. Within the outer boundary of the new Balby South & Warmsworth, and the new Edlington wards,

a. Warmsworth should be joined with Edlington to form a 3 member ward. b. Balby South would then become a 2 member ward.

3. The boundary between Norton & Askern, and Skellow wards should be removed to form a three member ward.

4. The whole of Edenthorpe should be included in one ward. This would reflect community boundaries and the strength of feeling of local residents.

5. The Skanska area should be moved from Scawthorpe/Cusworth into the Bentley ward.

Map 1 shows an outline of the wards that the Labour group is suggesting be amended. More detail on the suggestions is given on the following pages.

Map 1: Borough Map Proposals

1. Austerfield

The LGBCE have asked for submissions, relating to community identity and effective and convenient local government, about whether the parish of Austerfield should remain in the proposed Finningley ward or moved into the proposed Bawtry ward. The Labour Group has agreed that Austerfield parish should be moved into the Rossington & Bawtry ward as:

It is felt that the residents of Austerfield feel a greater community identity with the market town of Bawtry, than with the dispersed settlements that make up the rest of the Finningley ward.

There is a short, direct route between the two settlements. Austerfield has a ribbon development pattern which flows south and then west along the A614 to almost meet Bawtry.

Residents of Austerfield use Bawtry as their natural centre for shopping, schools, library, post office and churches.

The relatively small number of electors in Austerfield would not adversely affect the electorate ratio of the Bawtry ward.

Both Austerfield and Bawtry share longstanding ties, lying close to the River Idle. Bawtry is a former port, which provided employment and transport for the market town and the farms of Austerfield.

2. Warmsworth & Edlington

Within the outer boundary of the new Balby South & Warmsworth, and the new Edlington wards,

a. Warmsworth should be joined with Edlington to form a 3 member ward. b. Balby South would then become a 2 member ward.

The Labour Group agrees with the submission from Edlington Town Council that they should be included in a ward with Warmsworth. The working group’s proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the adjoining areas.

Map 2: Balby South & Edlington Warmsworth Split

Although the eastern boundary of the Warmsworth parish adjoins Balby, the working group feels that the community links with Edlington outweigh this. Earlier submissions to the LGBCE have noted the transport links and shared services between Warmsworth and Edlington. As well as the secondary school catchment area, the Roman Catholic Parish of St Mary’s and its school includes both settlements. The strong community ties lead to organisations working closely together. It is common for parish councillors and community volunteers to be active in community groups in both villages.

By contrast, although geographically adjacent to Balby, Warmsworth does not share its community identity, services or schools. Although Warmsworth may seem to be an undefined extension to the Doncaster conurbation of which Balby is a part, it has throughout history been a distinct and independent community. It appears in the Domesday survey of 1086 and in John Marius Wilson's Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales 1870-72 as "a parish, with a village, in

Doncaster district”. The current conservation area is dominated by the Grade II* listed Warmsworth Hall which dates from 1701.

The parish church of St Peter's, the White Church, is a 1940s construction on a site which has had a church for 700 years. The parish bell tower is located on the other side of the motorway, on Glebe Street. The motorway which opened in 1961 divided the church from most of its parish. The White Church is strongly associated with Warmsworth, as are a number of roads to the South of the petrol station close to the roundabout, which this submission proposes to include in the same ward as Warmsworth.

For these reasons, Warmsworth should not be viewed as a continuation of Balby. Rather it simply happens to have some housing of a similar period adjacent to Balby, a mainly a 20th century urban development, and is a distinct historical settlement.

3. Norton, Askern and Skellow

The boundary between Norton & Askern, and Skellow wards should be removed to form a three member ward. The Labour Group believes that single member wards should only be proposed in exceptional circumstances. They feel that convenient and effective local government is best enabled by having a small team of councillors in a ward, who can work together and support each other in serving their constituents. The LGBCE has proposed a two member ward of Norton and Askern, and a single member Skellow ward. The Labour Group feels that there is sufficient community identity and links between the settlements in the two proposed wards, that they could easily be combined into a single three member ward. As there would be no changes to the proposed external ward boundaries, there would be no detrimental effect on the rest of the borough.

4. Edenthorpe The whole of Edenthorpe should be included in one ward. This would reflect community boundaries and the strength of feeling of local residents. The Labour Group is aware of the strength of public feeling that has been expressed against the proposal to divide Edenthorpe between two wards; we feel that it should retain its identity as a whole community. It is felt that the ensuing correspondence to the LGBCE provides a sufficient level of community evidence, from residents, to enable a reconsideration of the proposal.

5. Bentley

The Labour Group proposal is to move the estate adjacent to the Skanska plant from Scawthorpe & Cusworth ward into the Bentley ward. The community directly adjacent to the Skanska plant (commonly known as Cementation) is distinct from the proposed Cusworth and Scawthorpe Ward. The estate is made up of a mixture of private and social housing, and has more links to Bentley Town Centre than the terraced housing along Watch House Lane

(commonly known as Bentley West End). As such the estate is more likely to identify with the Bentley Ward as residents access their health services, recreation, and shopping from the Town Centre which is close by. The total number of residents in the highlighted area totals 519 electors on the 2013 electoral role. This would increase the proposed Bentley Ward to 9130 electorate (4565 per councillor) and reduced the proposed Cusworth and Scawthorpe ward to 12435 electorate (4145 per councillor) based on the 2013 register. The change would place the Cusworth and Scawthorpe ward -1% from the electoral quota, and the Bentley Ward +9% which is within the tolerances set out under the boundary review process.

Map 3: The ‘Skanska’ area

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

        

2

Any views or opinions expressed belong solely to the author and do not necessarily represent those of Doncaster Council, Doncaster Council will not accept liability for any defamatory statements made by email communications. You should be aware that under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000 the contents of this e mail may have to be disclosed in response to a request. All e-mail communication containing personal/sensitive information received or sent by the Council will be processed in line with the Data Protection Act 1998. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. However no guarantees are offered on the security, content and accuracy of any e-mails and files received. Be aware that this e-mail communication may be intercepted for regulatory, quality control, or crime detection purposes unless otherwise prohibited. *********************************************************************************************

Review Officer

Doncaster Review

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England

26th July 2014

Dear Sir,

Re: - Doncaster MBC Ward Boundary Changes. Balby South with Warmsworth.

The revised boundary for the Balby area and the creation of two Balby Wards that of

Hexthorpe and Balby North with Balby South with Warmsworth has been discussed within

the Labour Party Balby Branch. I write in the capacity of Vice-chair of the branch.

Reading the Commission’s criteria that establish the new ward boundaries, the Labour Party

Balby Ward’s observations are as follows: -

1. Transport links, the main road A630 takes the majority of traffic and public service

vehicles. This is the main artery for Warmsworth, Edlington and Balby, which

straddle the A630.

2. With a view to community groups Warmsworth and Edlington have much more in

common than they do with Balby. Warmsworth has a Parish Council and Edlington

has a Town Council. Each, therefore, have a stronger empathy between them with

social groupings based upon each area and very much intermixing. In consequence

both Edlington and Warmsworth have very little to do with Balby’s social structure.

The community of Edlington and Warmsworth is strengthened by the fact of the

school children attending the same schools and they do not attend the schools within

the Balby area.

3. The community facilities utilised by the community of Warmsworth and Edlington

centre upon Edligton’s shopping area. There is also the market area, banks and

religious worship that bring the community together. The A1 (M) is a barrier to the

people of Balby.

4. The minor link road, Tenter Lane, which runs over the A1 (M) between Warmsworth

and Balby, is a tenuous link to say the least. That such a connection makes for a

stronger community between Warmsworth and Balby is erroneous. Rather the

stronger link lies between Edlington and Warmsworth.

5. With respect to the respective Parish/Town Councils. It is well known that

Warmsworth and Edlington have a greater affinity to each other. Balby would, on the

other hand, be less inclined to support a Parish council even a neighbouring one.

6. Edlington and Warmsworth have far more shared interests than would Warmsworth

and Balby. To re iterate the differences lay in the local community activities, good

relationships between the school children, their shopping and leisure areas.

Notwithstanding their shared interest in maintaining their respective Parish and Town

Councils.

We accept that should the commission reconsider the Balby area’s boundaries. It will mean a

re shuffle for other ward boundaries to balance the present and future electorate around the

number of councillors required for each ward.

Never the less this is what Balby Branch Labour Party is asking.

Yours sincerely

John Healy

Vice-chair Balby Branch Labour Party.

Doncaster District

Personal Details:

Name: Mick Andrews

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: UKIP Doncaster Branch

Comment text:

In our original submission we (UKIP Doncaster Branch) proposed that no changes be made to

existing boundaries in the current 21 Doncaster wards, and that savings be made by reducing

the current three councillors in every ward to two. This was proposed on the basis that,

particularly in a Council with an elected mayor and cabinet, there is significantly less work for

non-cabinet councillors to do and that, irrespective of the variation in the number of ward

voters, two councillors per ward would more than suffice. For no obvious reason your published

proposals are to increase the number of wards to 22 while changing the number of councillors

per ward from 3 to anything from 1 to 3, depending on the number of voters within the new

boundaries. It is unclear to us, for example, who "takes up the slack" in a one councillor ward

if the incumbent is ill or otherwise unavailable. Also you have managed to outrage most of the

residents of Edenthorpe by proposing, again for no clear or obvious reason, that their

community be severed - with a substantial part being amalgamated with Armthorpe ward. As

the local group that has been formed to oppose this change have very forcefully pointed out,

there are no historical, cultural or service links between these two communities and they see

this change as arbitrary and unnecessary. We agree wholeheartedly with these arguments and

fully support their opposition to the dismemberment of their cohesive community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Page 1 of 1Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

30/06/2014https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3497