tCI Comment:
Boundary changes have a long and relatively complicated set of rules about how they must be consulted upon. Last year, we saw the Northern Irish case of Re Patrick Lynch, in which the claimant challenged the decision of the NI Boundary Commission to refuse to consider major proposed changes at a second-stage consultation. It wasn’t the first challenge we’ve seen, at the more local level we saw Breckland District Council challenging (what was then) the Boundary Committee on local government changes not too dissimilar to these in Stoke. As an experienced and frequent consultor, we wouldn’t expect the Boundary Commission to make any mistakes, but even when you are a frequent consultor, you should make sure to keep alert and keep your skills up to date.
Article:
Councillors have backed proposals to redraw Stoke-on-Trent’s political map for the second time in a decade.
The Local Government Boundary Commission is carrying out a review of Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s wards due to some having too many or too few electors.
A cross-party working group of councillors has come up with revised set of boundaries for the city, which would see hundreds of residents moved to different wards, meaning they could be represented by different councillors after the next elections in 2023.
Most councillors voted in favour of the proposals at a special meeting of the full council. But the Labour group abstained, with group leader Jane Ashworth saying they would come up with their own set of proposals.
The council’s plan will now be submitted to the Boundary Commission, which will consider all proposals before coming up with a final set of draft recommendations for public consultation.
The biggest changes proposed in the council’s plan are in the centre of the city, due to Hanley Park & Shelton ward having 44 per cent fewer electors than the average – the biggest variance in Stoke-on-Trent.
The current Penkhull & Stoke; Springfields & Trent Vale; and Boothen & Oakhill wards would be replaced with Stoke; Penkhull; Oakhill, West End & Boothen; and Royal Stoke & Trent Vale. To give Hanley Park & Shelton more electors, the ward would be expanded to include parts of Etruria & Hanley and Joiners Square.
Changes are also proposed elsewhere in the city, such as reducing the size of Abbey Hulton & Townsend and turning it into a single-member ward.
Councillor Dan Jellyman, a member of the working group, said that the proposals would mean every ward’s electorate would be within seven per cent of the average of the city.
The council’s proposals for new wards
This is a summary of the council’s proposals for new wards, as set out in the report to full council:
A – Eastern Area
In general terms there was a deficit of electors in the eastern area. In order to address this, our proposal involves reducing Abbey Hulton Ward to a single member. Moving Bucknall to combine with Eaton Park Ward and moving Townsend to combine with Bentilee and Ubberley Ward. A polling district at the lower tip of Bentilee and Ubberley Ward was moved to Meir Hay to achieve elector equality.
The additional councillor was moved to B – Western Area to address the excess of electors in this area.
B – Western Area
This area around Stoke had the highest and lowest variances in the city, Hanley Park and Shelton had a deficit of electors whereas the other surrounding wards had a positive variance. In order to address this, electors were moved from Etruria and Hanley, and Joiner’s Square Wards, into Hanley Park and Shelton.
A new single member ward was created to cover the area of Stoke Ward and the areas covered by Hartshill and Basford, Penkhull and Stoke, Boothen and Oakhill and Springfields and Trent Vale was reduced accordingly. The new ward was extended to include Stoke Station and adjacent terrace housing in order to help reduce elector fluctuation in Hanley Park and Shelton Ward.
In order to ensure that Etruria and Hanley was within tolerances, the area of Cliff Vale was added to Hartshill and Basford Ward.
C – Southern Area
In the southern area there was an excess of electors in Hanford and Trentham and Blurton West and Newstead Wards. This was addressed through moving electors from west to east and on doing so, refocussing Blurton West and Newstead Ward on Trentham Lakes and Newstead areas, reuniting Blurton into a single ward and then amending the boundaries of Hollybush and Longton West Ward and Broadway and Longton East Ward to accommodate the excess voters and create a ward focussed on Hollybush and Broadway respectively. Dresden and Florence Ward received the area of Goms Mill.
Similarly, boundaries have been amended to enable equalisation in Meir South, Meir Park, Meir North and Weston Coyney Wards.
D – Northern Area
In general terms the north of the city had less variance, and changes in this area were only made to smooth out electoral variances and improve boundaries to aid community identity.
These changes include moving electors from Goldenhill and Sandyford to Tunstall, the equalisation of variances in Bradeley and Chell Heath, Little Chell and Stanfield and Burslem Park and moving electors from Burslem Central to Moorcroft.
E – Wards which did not require change
A central block of wards Baddelely, Milton and Norton, Ford Green and Smallthorne, Sneyd Green, Birches Head and Central Forest Park, Fenton West and Mount Pleasant, Fenton East, Sandford Hill did not in the main require any significant changes and only minor boundary changes were applied along the lines of community identity where required.
He said: “It is incredibly difficult to get the wards equal size, while at the same time trying our best to keep communities together, and fixing issues dating back to the 2011 boundary review.
“There’s no guarantee that the proposals will be accepted by the Boundary Commission, but I believe the working group has done a really good job here. Each ward is as close to being equal as possible, they’re all within plus or minus seven per cent of each other, which is a really good achievement. We’ve also kept a majority of community identities together, and in some instances we’ve enhanced them.”
Ms Ashworth told the council that while she appreciated the work that had gone into drafting the proposals, she felt there were still problems with them.
She said: “I know this work has been done with a fair hand, but there are issues that have arisen which I simply can’t support.
“For example, in Burslem Central, where I live, the separation of the St Johns area from Burslem and into Moorcroft doesn’t fit with one of the requirements of the Boundary Commission, which is to preserve the integrity of natural communities. That part of Burslem Central is old Burslem, and the people who live there see themselves as very much as part of Burslem.”
Boothen and Oakhill Labour councillor Andy Platt said he felt the proposal to extend the new Stoke ward across the A500 into Shelton, ‘makes no sense at all’.
Independent councillor Randy Conteh, who also sat on the working group, said they had done their best to respect the borders between communities, but that it had been a constant balancing act.
He said: “The members know the difficulty we had as a group to get everything right. Unfortunately if we follow natural barriers, like the D-road or the River Trent, we have to think about the numbers, and one of the most common phrases we heard is the ‘ripple effect’. If you make any movement in one area of the city it can have a ripple effect to the other side of the city.”
Article originally appeared on Stoke on Trent live.
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case
