Councillors submissions to the Lichfield District Council
This PDF document contains 3 submissions from Councillors.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between
Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.
From: Egan, HelenSent: 25 July 2014 09:49To: Cooper, MarkSubject: FW: Lichfield Electoral ReviewAttachments: Revised boundary for Fazeley and Bourne Vale.pdf
Hi Mark, Please see sub below for Lichfield. Regards, Helen
From: Glen Mynott Sent: 25 July 2014 01:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: Lichfield Electoral Review Dear Sir/Madam Response to the Boundary Commission Draft Recommendations in Lichfield District Council by Glen Mynott, Councillor for Fazeley I generally support the Boundary Commission proposals for reform of the District Council Wards and agree that the number of Councillors should be reduced to 47 and that the arrangements proposed for Lichfield City and Burntwood Town are appropriate. In the rural areas it is, however, noteworthy that two of the more deprived Wards, namely Fazeley and Armitage & Handsacre, are also those with the highest level of under-representation. This is unfortunate given the additional casework generated for Councillors over and above that generated by the more affluent rural wards and I would like to see this under-representation reduced. However, in the Rural North Wards, the level of uncertainty in the projected future population of Armitage & Handacre is such that it is difficult to see practical alternatives to the Commission proposals without severe disruption to community ties. Accordingly, I support, with some reluctance, the Commission proposals for the time being and look forward to a future review when the outlook is more settled. The situation in the Rural South Wards is different and I would like the Commission to adopt the following proposals in order to provide more equal representation for Fazeley Ward, whilst preserving the basic structure of the Commission proposals and at the same time preserving or improving on the equitable balance of electorates and community cohesion. I would like to propose the transfer of approximately 300 electors from the Mile Oak area of Fazeley Ward to Bourne Vale Ward. These electors are those along the south of Sutton Road from Burleigh Drive, including those living in the Gainsborough Drive Estate together with the scattered rural population to the west of Sutton Road. The Gainsborough Drive estate is a relatively modern and affluent development and along with the large detached houses on Sutton Road has little in common with the older semi-detached houses to the north of Burleigh Drive. These properties to the south of Burleigh Drive have very little connection with the rest of the Fazeley Ward and have, in many ways, more in common with the village of Drayton Bassett to the east. This suggested transfer clearly has knock-on effects which need not disturb the basic structure of the Commission’s proposals whilst securing some important changes from those proposals in respect of community cohesion and equality of representation.
Accordingly, I would like to see the following amendments to the Commission’s proposals: 1. transfer the settlement of Shenstone Wood End to the proposed Ward of Little Aston with Stonnall. This
settlement is in close proximity to Little Aston and, in any event, has little connection with Bourne Vale 2. transfer the settlement of Little Hay back to Shenstone Ward, with which it has an historical affinity not
present with Bourne Vale 3. transfer the Civil Parish of Swinfen & Packington (Polling Districts VA & VB) from the proposed
Whittington & Streethay Ward back to its original home of Bourne Vale Ward. The Commission’s proposed transfer of this Parish does appear to be a balancing exercise and to reverse this will have a similar effect on my proposed Bourne Vale Ward without adverse consequences for the proposed Whittington & Streethay Ward.
4. transfer the scattered rural part of Shenstone Ward lying to the west of the railway line to the proposed
Ward of Hammerwich and Wall to achieve greater equality of representation for both Wards. (See maps 3 & 4)
These proposed changes will result in forecast electorates with variances as follows: Fazeley 3895 1947 3.6% Bourne Vale 1982 1982 5% Little Aston & Stonnall 4094 2047 9% Shenstone 2030 2030 8% Hammerwich & Wall 3793 1896 1% Whittington & Streethay 5243 1748 -7% As all of these are within the 10% tolerance and achieve a greater equality of representation for the relatively deprived Ward of Fazeley, with its enhanced casework demands for its councillors, whilst at the same time preserving the basic structure proposed by the Commission and improving community cohesion, particularly in Shenstone Wood End. I would like to recommend these alternative proposals to the Commission. NB The total projected electorate for these proposed Wards is 21037 whereas the Commission’s projection is for 20985 - 52 fewer. This is because I have split three Polling Districts across the piece (KC, UC and UB) and so have relied on estimated figures from Lichfield District Council for these splits. As the variance between the figures is trivial we believe that the slight difference in projections will make no effective difference to the outcomes in each Ward. I have attached a map of the proposed Bourne Vale ward and its boundary with Fazeley ward. Thank You Best Wishes Glen Mynott Councillor for Fazeley Lichfield District Council
© Crown Copyright. Lichfie ld District Council. Licence No : 100017765. Dated 2014
Drawing Prepared by: Gareth Thomas - GIS Manager
Coordinate System: British National GridProjection: Transverse MercatorDatum: OSGB 1936False Easting: 400,000.0000False Northing: -100,000.0000Central Meridian: -2.0000Scale Factor: 0.9996Latitude Of Origin: 49.0000Units: Meter
Document Name: Labour Group_Defrag
District Council HouseFrog LaneLichfieldStaffs
WS13 6YYTelephone: 01543 308000
Councillor Steven G Norman
Unsurprisingly I write to support the Minority Labour Group’s submission on the draft recommendations for Lichfield District for 2015.
1. Unlike North West Leicestershire Lichfield District has not opted for single member wards – to my disappointment so I hope you will allow me again to refer to the 2006 report by the Electoral Commission into single versus multi member wards. This was unable to come up with a firm conclusion as there were both advantages and disadvantages in both urban and rural settings so I hope that the Labour Group’s proposal, which is in the main, in agreement with the Commission’s will reject the proposed single member ward for Stonnall put forward by some. The current proposal to make a two-member ward with the current Little Aston makes for more equal electoral fairness.
2. Our proposal for Fazeley Ward, with the proposed transfer of approximately 300 electors from the Mile Oak area to Bourne Vale Ward – and the knock on effects of this has, in my view, (and it should be noted that it was not members of the Labour Group that carried out most of this work – but residents) produced the equality of number that the Commission seeks.
3. I understand and support the proposals for the Burntwood and Lichfield urban areas and also support Councillor Susan Woodward’s suggestion of the prefix “Burntwood” for each of the wards in Burntwood Parish. You will recall that I alluded to the Burntwood Town Council’s Town Strategy in my earlier submission and this suggestion, if supported, would go some way to help us with that and without the need for a calculator!
4. Thank you for the detailed consideration you have given to all the suggestions and
proposals – even when I have disagreed and look forward to going through all this again in 2024? 2026?
Councillor Steven Norman Leader, Lichfield District Council Labour Group Member for Summerfield Ward, Burntwood
Local Government Boundary Commission
Lichfield District Review
From: Woodward, Susan (County Cllr) <email@example.com>Sent: 26 July 2014 16:45To: Reviews@Subject: Draft Recommendations - Lichfield District Council
As County Councillor for Burntwood North Division, I write in support of the draft recommendations for the Burntwood area of Lichfield District.
I believe that they fulfil as far as possible the 3 main criteria of equality in terms of numbers of electors, community identity and political efficiency/effectiveness. I trust that the overriding criterion of electoral equality will be applied elsewhere across the District so that urban areas are not relatively under-represented in comparison to rural areas.
You will be aware that the town of Burntwood was created under a local government reorganisation during the 1970s, bringing together the former villages of Chase Terrace, Chasetown, Boney Hay and Burntwood. Over the intervening years, while wanting still to preserve the “village” identities and place names, it has been difficult to get all outside agencies (eg Government departments such as the DWP, Police etc) and even local residents to understand that we are one town. In view of this and in the hope of promoting the “one town” identity, I should be grateful if consideration could be given to naming the wards within the town with the prefix of Burntwood ie Burntwood Chasetown, Burntwood Chase Terrace etc.
Cllr Susan Woodward Deputy Leader of Labour Group, Staffordshire County Council Burntwood North Division
Staffordshire County Council
A Connected Staffordshire where everyone can prosper and be healthy and happy
For more information about the county council visit our website: www.staffordshire.gov.uk
Sign up now to My Staffordshire eXtra for the latest news, interviews and stories about what matters to you in your local area
Follow the county council on Twitter
This e-mail (including any attachments) is only for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient you must let me know immediately and then delete this e-mail. If you use this e-mail without permission, or if you allow anyone else to see, copy or distribute the e-mail, or if you do, or don't do something because you have read this e-mail, you may be breaking the law.
Liability cannot be accepted for any loss or damage arising from this e-mail (or any attachments) or from incompatible scripts or any virus transmitted.
E-mails and attachments sent to or received from staff and elected Members may be monitored and read and the right is reserved to reject or return or delete any which are considered to be inappropriate or unsuitable.
Do you really need to print this email? It will use paper, add to your waste disposal costs and harm the environment.