LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N D

LOCALGOVERNMENTCOMMISSIONFOR ENGLAND

FINALRECOMMENDATIONSON THE FUTUREELECTORALARRANGEMENTS FORKETTERING INNORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Report to the Secretary of State forthe Environment

March 1997

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N Dii

LOCALGOVERNMENTCOMMISSIONFOR ENGLAND

This report sets out the Commission’s final

recommendations on the electoral arrangements

for Kettering in Northamptonshire.

Members of the Commission are:

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman)

Helena Shovelton (Deputy Chairman)

Peter Brokenshire

Professor Michael Clarke

Robin Gray

Bob Scruton

David Thomas

Adrian Stungo (Chief Executive)

©Crown Copyright 1997Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mappingby The Local Government Commission for England withthe permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s StationeryOffice, Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproductioninfringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution orcivil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G.

©

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N D iii

CONTENTS

page

LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v

SUMMARY vii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3

3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7

4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9

5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11

6 NEXT STEPS 27

APPENDICES

A Final Recommendations for Kettering:Detailed Mapping 29

B Draft Recommendations for Kettering (October 1996) 35

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N Div

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N D v

Local Government Commission for England

25 March 1997

Dear Secretary of State

On 19 March 1996 the Commission began a review of the borough of Kettering under the LocalGovernment Act 1992. It published its draft recommendations in October 1996 and undertook a nine-weekperiod of consultation.

The Commission has now formulated its final recommendations in the light of the consultation and modifiedits initial warding proposals. This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations for changes toelectoral arrangements in the area.

The Commission is recommending to you that Kettering should be served by 45 councillors representing 23wards, and that some changes should be made to ward boundaries in order to improve electoral equality,having regard to the Commission’s statutory criteria. It is recommended that the whole Council shouldcontinue to be elected every four years.

I would like to thank members and officers of the Borough Council and other local people who havecontributed to the review. Their co-operation and assistance have been very much appreciated byCommissioners and staff.

Yours sincerely

PROFESSOR MALCOLM GRANTChairman

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N Dvi

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N D vii

SUMMARY

The Commission began a review of Kettering on19 March 1996. It published its draftrecommendations for electoral arrangements on 31October 1996, after which it undertook a nine-week period of consultation.

● This report summarises the submissionsreceived by the Commission duringconsultation on its draft recommendations,and offers its final recommendations to theSecretary of State.

The Commission found that the existing electoralarrangements provide unequal representation ofelectors in Kettering because:

● in 15 of the 22 wards, the number ofelectors represented by each councillor variesby more than 10 per cent from the averagefor the borough, and in six of these it variesby more than 20 per cent;

● by 2001, the number of electors percouncillor is projected to vary by more than10 per cent from the average in 14 of thewards, and in seven of these by more than 20per cent.

The Commission’s final recommendations forelectoral arrangements (Figure 1) are that:

● Kettering Borough Council should be servedby 45 councillors as at present,

● there should be 23 wards, rather than 22 asat present;

● the ward boundaries of 19 of the existingwards should be modified, while three wardsshould retain their existing boundaries;

● elections should continue to take place everyfour years, with the next elections takingplace in 1999.

These recommendations seek to ensure that thenumber of electors represented by each boroughcouncillor is as nearly as possible the same, havingregard to local circumstances.

● In 13 of the 23 wards the number of electorsper councillor would vary by no more than10 per cent from the borough average.

● By 2001 the number of electors percouncillor would vary by no more than 10per cent from the average in 17 wards.

Recommendations are also made for changes totown council electoral arrangements.

● They provide for changes to thewarding arrangements of Burton Latimer,Desborough and Rothwell town councils.

All further correspondence on theserecommendations and the mattersdiscussed in this report should beaddressed to the Secretary of State for theEnvironment, who will not make an Order implementing the Commission’srecommendations before 5 May 1997.

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N Dviii

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map referencecouncillors

1 All Saints 2 All Saints ward (part); Kingsley ward (part) Large map(Kettering town)

2 Avondale 2 Avondale ward (part); All Saints ward (part) Large map (Kettering town)

3 Barton 2 Barton ward (part); Latimer ward (part - Large map (Kettering town) proposed Burton Latimer parish ward

of Barton)

4 Brambleside 2 Kingsley ward (part); All Saints ward (part) Large map (Kettering town)

5 Buccleuch 1 Buccleuch ward (part - the parishes of Map 2Cranford, Grafton Underwood, Rushton, Warkton and Weekley)

6 Latimer 2 Latimer ward (part - Burton Latimer Maps 2 and A4parish ward of Latimer); Barton ward (part)

7 Loatland 2 Loatland ward (Desborough parish ward Maps 2 and A3of Loatland); St Giles ward (part - Desborough parish ward of St Giles)

8 Millbrook 2 Ise Valley ward (part) Large map (Kettering town)

9 Pipers Hill 2 Pipers Hill ward (part); St Mary’s Large map (Kettering town) ward (part)

10 Plessy 2 Unchanged (Burton Latimer parish ward Map 2 of Plessy)

11 Queen Eleanor 1 Queen Eleanor ward (Geddington parish); Map 2 Buccleuch ward (part - Newton and Little Oakley parish)

12 St Andrew’s 3 St Andrew’s ward (part); St Peter’s ward Large map(Kettering town) (part); Kingsley ward (part); All Saints

ward (part)

13 St Giles 2 St Giles ward (part - Desborough parish Maps 2 and A3ward of St Giles)

14 St Mary’s 3 St Mary’s ward (part); St Peter’s ward Large map(Kettering town) (part); Avondale ward (part); St Andrew’s

ward (part)

Figure 1:The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N D ix

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map referencecouncillors

15 St Michael’s 2 St Michael’s ward (part) Large map(Kettering town)

16 St Peter’s 2 St Peter’s ward (part); St Michael’s Large map(Kettering town) ward (part)

17 Slade 2 Unchanged (the parishes of Broughton, Map 2Cransley, Harrington, Loddington, Orton, Pytchley and Thorpe Malsor)

18 Spinney 2 Ise Valley ward (part) Large map(Kettering town)

19 Tresham 2 Tresham ward (Rothwell parish ward of Maps 2 and A2Tresham); Trinity ward (part - Rothwellparish ward of Trinity)

20 Trinity 2 Trinity ward (part - Rothwell parish ward Maps 2 and A2of Trinity)

21 Warkton 2 Warkton ward; Pipers Hill ward (part); Large map(Kettering town) St Mary’s ward (part)

22 Welland 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Ashley, Map 2Brampton Ash, Braybrooke, Dingley, Stoke Albany, Sutton Bassett, Weston-by-Welland and Wilbarston)

23 Wicksteed 2 Wicksteed ward; St Michael’s ward (part) Large map(Kettering town)

Note: Kettering town is unparished and comprises the 13 wards indicated.

Figure 1 (continued):The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N Dx

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N D 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1 This report contains the Commission’s finalrecommendations on the electoral arrangementsfor the borough of Kettering in Northamptonshire.

2 The Commission has now reviewed the sevendistricts in Northamptonshire as part of itsprogramme of periodic electoral reviews of allprincipal local authority areas in England. This isthe Commission’s first review of the electoralarrangements for Kettering. The last such reviewwas undertaken by the Commission’s predecessor,the Local Government Boundary Commission(LGBC), which reported to the Secretary of Statein October 1975 (Report No. 76). The electoralarrangements of Northamptonshire CountyCouncil were last reviewed in November 1980(Report No. 403). It is intended that a review ofthe County Council’s electoral arrangements willfollow in due course.

3 In undertaking these reviews, the Commissionis required to have regard to:

● the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5)of the Local Government Act 1992:

(a) to reflect the identities and interests of localcommunities; and

(b) to secure effective and convenient localgovernment;

● the Rules to be Observed in Considering ElectoralArrangements contained in Schedule 11 to theLocal Government Act 1972.

.4 The Commission has also had regard to its ownGuidance and Procedural Advice for Local Authoritiesand Other Interested Parties (published in March1996 and supplemented in September 1996). Thissets out its approach to the reviews.

5 The review of Kettering was in four stages(Figure 2).

6 Stage One commenced on 19 March 1996.The Commission wrote to Kettering BoroughCouncil inviting it to make proposals for its futureelectoral arrangements. Copies of that letter weresent to Northamptonshire County Council,Northamptonshire Police Authority, the localauthority associations, parish and town councils inthe area, Members of Parliament and Members ofthe European Parliament with constituencyinterests in the borough, and the headquarters ofthe main political parties. The Commission alsoplaced a notice in the local press, issued a pressrelease and invited the Borough Council itself topublicise the review.

7 At Stage Two the Commission considered allthe representations received during Stage One andformulated its draft recommendations.

8 Stage Three began on 31 October 1996 with the publication of the Commission’s report,Draft Recommendations on the Future ElectoralArrangements for Kettering in Northamptonshire.Copies were sent to all those to whom theCommission wrote at the start of the review as wellas to those who had written to the Commissionduring Stage One, inviting comments on theCommission’s preliminary conclusions. Again, theCommission placed a notice in the local press,issued a press release and invited the BoroughCouncil to publicise the report more widely.

9 Finally, during Stage Four the Commissionreconsidered its draft recommendations in the lightof the Stage Three consultation.

Stage Description

One Submission of proposals to the Commission

Two The Commission’s analysis and deliberation

Three Publication of draft recommendations and consultation

Four Final deliberation and report to the Secretary of State for the Environment

Figure 2: Stages of the Review

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T C O M M I S S I O N F O R E N G L A N D2


2. CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

10 The borough of Kettering covers an area of more than 23,300 hectares in the north-east ofNorthamptonshire. The town of Kettering is themain urban centre of the borough and is locatedbetween the rivers Ise and Slade, the confluence ofwhich is south of the town. The other mainsettlements of Desborough, Rothwell and Burton Latimer are located in the borough’ssubstantial rural fringe. The remainder of theborough comprises villages and hamlets scatteredthroughout the rural area. The borough is parishedexcept in Kettering town. The area has become afocus for investment and development due to itslocation and its transportation links. The boroughis served by 25 parish and town councils, coveringall areas except Kettering town.

11 The Borough Council has 45 councillors electedfrom 22 wards (Map 1 and Figure 3). Four wardsare each represented by three councillors, 15 wardsby two councillors each and three wards by a singlecouncillor per ward. The whole Council is electedevery four years, with the next elections due to takeplace in May 1999. The current electorate of theborough (February 1996) is 60,843 and eachcouncillor represents an average of 1,352 electors.The Borough Council forecasts that the electoratewill increase to 64,986 by the year 2001, whichwould increase the average number of electors percouncillor to 1,444 (Figure 3).

12 In order to compare levels of electoralinequality between wards, the Commissioncalculated the extent to which the number ofelectors per councillor in each ward (thecouncillor:elector ratio) varies from the average forthe borough in percentage terms. In the text whichfollows, this calculation may also be describedusing the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’.

13 Since the last electoral review of Kettering wascompleted in 1975, changes in population andelectorate have not been evenly spread across theborough. As a result, the number of electors percouncillor varies significantly from the average inmany wards. In 15 of the 22 wards, the variation

is more than 10 per cent from the average and insix wards more than 20 per cent. The mostsignificant variances are in Ise Valley (50 per cent)and Welland (29 per cent) both of which arerelatively under-represented. In Ise Valley onecouncillor represents on average 2,033 electors,compared to the borough average of 1,352.


Map 1:Existing Wards in Kettering


Figure 3:Existing Electoral Arrangements

1996 2001 (Projected)

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of of electors from of electors from

councillors per councillor average per councillor average% %

1 All Saints 2 2,614 1,307 -3 2,666 1,333 -8(Kettering town)

2 Avondale 3 3,287 1,096 -19 3,579 1,193 -17(Kettering town)

3 Barton 2 2,733 1,367 1 2,733 1,367 -5(Kettering town)

4 Buccleuch 1 1,256 1,256 -7 1,360 1,360 -6

5 Ise Valley 3 6,099 2,033 50 6,365 2,122 47(Kettering town)

6 Kingsley 2 3,404 1,702 26 4,239 2,120 47(Kettering town)

7 Latimer 2 3,028 1,514 12 3,028 1,514 5

8 Loatland 2 2,799 1,400 4 2,900 1,450 0

9 Pipers Hill 2 2,337 1,169 -14 2,382 1,191 -18(Kettering town)

10 Plessy 2 2,376 1,188 -12 2,464 1,232 -15

11 Queen Eleanor 1 1,147 1,147 -15 1,257 1,257 -13

12 St Andrew’s 3 3,603 1,201 -11 3,675 1,225 -15(Kettering town)

13 St Giles 2 3,199 1,600 18 3,329 1,665 15

14 St Mary’s 3 3,205 1,068 -21 3,335 1,112 -23(Kettering town)

15 St Michael’s 2 2,670 1,335 -1 2,702 1,351 -6(Kettering town)

16 St Peter’s 2 2,521 1,261 -7 3,542 1,771 23(Kettering town)

17 Slade 2 2,797 1,399 3 2,964 1,482 3

18 Tresham 2 2,019 1,010 -25 2,019 1,010 -30

continued overleaf


Figure 3 (continued):Existing Electoral Arrangements




19 Trinity 2 3,318 1,659 23 3,582 1,791 24

20 Warkton 2 2,312 1,156 -15 2,312 1,156 -20(Kettering town)

21 Welland 1 1,744 1,744 29 1,935 1,935 34

22 Wicksteed 2 2,375 1,188 -12 2,618 1,309 -9(Kettering town)

Totals 45 60,843 - - 64,986 - -

Averages - - 1,352 - - 1,444 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Kettering Borough Council’s Stage One submission.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor variesfrom the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in1996, electors in Tresham ward are relatively over-represented by 25 per cent, while electors in Ise Valley ward arerelatively under-represented by 50 per cent. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.


3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

14 During Stage One the Commission received asubmission from Kettering Borough Council onthe electoral arrangements in the borough. It alsoreceived seven submissions from parish and town councils, one from the Conservative Groupon the Borough Council and one from a resident of Loatland ward. In the light of theserepresentations, the Commission formulated itspreliminary conclusions which were set out in itsreport, Draft Recommendations on the FutureElectoral Arrangements for Kettering inNorthamptonshire. The Commission proposed thatKettering should be served by 45 councillorsrepresenting 22 wards. It also proposed that:

(a) in Kettering town there should bemodifications to the boundaries of the wards ofAll Saints, Avondale, Pipers Hill, St Andrew’s,St Mary’s, St Michael’s, St Peter’s, Warkton andWicksteed. Kingsley ward should be abolishedand part of it incorporated in a newBrambleside ward. Ise Valley should be replacedby two new wards, Millbrook and Spinney.Barton ward should remain unchanged;

(b) in Burton Latimer the boundary between theborough and parish wards of Latimer andPlessy should be re-aligned and a parish wardshould be created for that part of Latimer wardwhich lies to the north of the A14 bypass;

(c) in Rothwell the boundary between the boroughand parish wards of Tresham and Trinity shouldbe re-aligned;

(d) in Desborough the St Giles ward should bemerged with part of Buccleuch ward to form anew ward of ‘Buccleuch and St Giles’, whilethere should be no change to Loatland ward;

(e) in the rural areas the existing Queen Eleanorward should be enlarged to include the parish ofNewton and Little Oakley from Buccleuchward. No changes were proposed to the wardsof Slade and Welland.

Draft RecommendationKettering Borough Council shouldcomprise 45 councillors serving 22 wards.The whole Council should be elected everyfour years, as at present.

15 The Commission’s proposals would haveresulted in significant improvements in electoralequality, with the number of electors per councillorin 19 of the 22 wards varying by no more than 10per cent from the borough average. By 2001 thenumber of electors per councillor was projected tovary by no more than 10 per cent from the averagein all but two wards.

16 The Commission’s draft recommendations aresummarised at Appendix B.



4. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

17 During the consultation on the Commission’sdraft recommendations report, 38 submissionswere received. A list of all respondents is availableon request from the Commission.

Kettering Borough Council

18 The Borough Council acknowledged the needfor a review of electoral arrangements. It alsoacknowledged that the balance to be struckbetween the statutory criteria and good electoralequality is a matter of judgement. It endorsed theCommission’s proposal that a council of 45members, and a system of four-yearly whole-council elections, remained appropriate. However,it argued that elements of the draftrecommendations sought electoral equality at theexpense of the statutory criteria. In the light of thedraft recommendations, the Council therefore re-examined its Stage One proposals and, inconsultation with the parish and town councils inthe borough and others, put forward revisedproposals to the Commission. It stated that itsproposals were endorsed by full Council withoutdissent.

19 The Council proposed detailed changes toelectoral arrangements in the built-up areas ofKettering town, Burton Latimer, Rothwell andDesborough (where it opposed the proposal to merge the St Giles ward with the rural ward of Buccleuch). It welcomed the draftrecommendations for the rural wards of QueenEleanor and Welland.

20 A further key issue for the Borough Councilwas that the boundaries of some parishes havebecome out-dated following the construction ofthe A14 and A43 trunk roads around Ketteringtown which have broken previous local ties. Withthis in mind, the Council had argued at Stage Onethat using these roads as borough ward boundarieswould mean that borough and parish boundaries -such as those of Burton Latimer and Rothwelltown councils, and the parishes of Rushton (inBuccleuch ward) and Cransley, Broughton andPytchley (in Slade ward) - would no longer becoterminous. It had therefore expressed itsdisappointment that the Secretary of State had notdirected the Commission to conduct a concurrentparish review to correct these anomalies. In the

absence of such a review, it had urged theCommission to ward the affected parish and towncouncil areas so facilitating borough wards whichwould reflect the new community realities. AtStage Three the Council reiterated its preferencefor a concurrent borough electoral review andparish review, and in the absence of such a review,for the establishment of parish and town wards toprovide borough boundaries which follow themain roads.

Parish and Town Councils

21 The Commission received representations fromseven parish councils and two town councils.Rushton Parish Council opposed the proposedmerger of Buccleuch and St Giles wards, as did theparish councils of Cranford, Warkton and Weekley.Braybrooke and Weston-by-Welland parish councilssupported the draft recommendation for Wellandward. Cransley Parish Council supported theBorough Council’s proposal that the boundary ofCransley parish, in Slade ward, with Ketteringtown, be re-aligned to follow the A14 road.Rothwell Town Council opposed theCommission’s proposed new boundary betweenthe borough and parish wards of Tresham andTrinity and put forward an alternative boundary.Burton Latimer Town Council expressed supportfor the Borough Council’s proposal that thesouthern boundary of Barton ward be re-aligned tofollow the A14, with no change to Latimer orPlessy wards.

Other Representations

22 Twelve local residents supported the BoroughCouncil’s proposal that the boundary betweenBarton and Latimer wards be re-aligned to followthe A14. This was also supported by a local businessand by Councillor Meads, the borough councillor forLatimer ward. Six local residents opposed theCommission’s proposal that the wards of Buccleuchand St Giles be merged, as did the Church Councilof the Anglican and Methodist Church of St Giles(Desborough), Councillor Tod (a member for St Giles ward) and Councillor Hiscock (a parish councillor for Grafton Underwood). TheCommission also received a submission from a localresident in support of the merger.


23 The Commission received four furthersubmissions during Stage Three, two supportingthe Commission’s proposal for the Ise Valley wardand two opposing.


24 As indicated previously, the Commission’sprime objective in considering the mostappropriate electoral arrangements for Ketteringwas to achieve electoral equality, having regard tothe statutory criteria and to Schedule 11 to theLocal Government Act 1972, which refers to theratio of electors to councillors being “as nearly asmay be, the same in every ward of the district orborough”.

25 However, the Commission’s function is notmerely arithmetical, for three reasons. First, itsrecommendations are not intended to be basedsolely on existing electorate figures, but also onassumptions as to changes in the number anddistribution of local government electors likely totake place within the ensuing five years. Second, itmust have regard to the desirability of fixingidentifiable boundaries, and to maintaining localties which might otherwise be broken. Third, theCommission has had to consider the desirability of servicing effective and convenient localgovernment, and reflecting the interests andidentities of local communities.

26 It is therefore impractical to design an electoralscheme which provides for exactly the samenumber of electors per councillor in every ward ofan authority. There must be a degree of flexibility.In conducting its electoral reviews, theCommission’s predecessor, the LGBC, consideredthat variations from the average number of electorsper councillor for an authority as a whole should bekept to the absolute minimum: a variation of up toplus or minus 10 per cent in a particular ward maybe regarded as being “acceptable”, but variations inexcess of plus or minus 20 per cent were generallyaccepted only in very exceptional circumstances.

27 The Commission’s view is that the LGBC’sapproach to this issue had merit insofar as itcombined a clearly defined tolerance thresholdwith the degree of flexibility necessary to achievereasonable levels of electoral equality across a localauthority’s area. Accordingly, the Commission hasdecided to adopt this approach for the purposes ofits reviews.

28 In its March 1996 Guidance, the Commissionexpressed the view that “proposals for changes inelectoral arrangements should therefore be basedon variations in each ward of no more than plus or minus 10 per cent from the averagecouncillor:elector ratio for the authority, havingregard to five-year forecasts of changes inelectorates. Imbalances in excess of plus or minus20 per cent may be acceptable, but only in highlyexceptional circumstances ... and will have to bejustified in full”. However, as the Commissionemphasised in its September 1996 supplement tothe Guidance: “While the Commission accepts thatabsolute equality of representation is likely to be unattainable, it considers that, if electoralimbalances are to be kept to a minimum, suchequality should be the starting point in anyelectoral review”.

Electorate Projections

29 At Stage One of the review the BoroughCouncil submitted electorate forecasts for the year2001, projecting an increase in the electorate of 6per cent over the five-year period from 60,834 to64,986. At Stage Three the Borough Councilprovided amended electorate projections for itsproposed scheme of 64,473. The Councilestimated rates and locations of housingdevelopment with regard to structure and localplans, and the expected rate of building over thefive-year period. Reasonable estimates have beenmade of the changes in electorate that will arise.Advice from the Borough Council on the likelyeffect on electorates of ward boundary changes hasbeen obtained. The Commission accepts that this isan inexact science and, having given considerationto projected electorates, is content that theyrepresent the best estimates that can reasonably bemade at this time. However, the amendments madeby the Council to its projections have led to minorvariations in the data in Figures 3, 4, 5 and B2.

Council Size

30 The Commission indicated in its March 1996Guidance that it would normally expect the number

5. ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS


of councillors serving a district or borough councilto be in the range of 30 to 60.

31 Kettering Borough Council is at present served by 45 councillors, and at Stage One theCouncil proposed no change to council size. In itsdraft recommendations report the Commissionconsidered the size and distribution of theelectorate, the geography and other characteristicsof the area, together with the representationsreceived. The Commission concluded that thestatutory criteria and the achievement of electoralequality would best be served by maintaining acouncil of 45 members. The Commission receivedsupport for this council size from the BoroughCouncil at Stage Three and has not receivedevidence to persuade it to move away from its view.It therefore confirms its draft recommendations asfinal.

The Background to the Commission’s Recommendations

32 Kettering town currently comprises 12 wards -All Saints, Avondale, Barton, Ise Valley, Kingsley,Pipers Hill, St Andrew’s, St Mary’s, St Michael’s,St Peter’s, Warkton and Wicksteed. At Stage Onethe Borough Council proposed boundary changesto 11 of the 12 existing wards in the town.

33 Currently, the number of electors per councillorvaries by more than 10 per cent from the boroughaverage in eight of the 12 wards (Avondale, IseValley, Kingsley, Pipers Hill, St Andrew’s, StMary’s, Warkton and Wicksteed). Three of theeight (Ise Valley, Kingsley and St Mary’s) vary bymore than 20 per cent from the average, and theworst, Ise Valley, varies by 50 per cent. All Saints,Barton, St Michael’s and St Peter’s wards all varyby less than 10 per cent from the average. Thesearch for improved electoral equality in Ketteringtown is hindered by several factors.

34 The geography and physical pattern ofdevelopment in the south of the town does notfacilitate the modification of boundaries betweenwards such as Barton, Ise Valley, Pipers Hill andWicksteed. For example, there is open spacebetween Ise Valley and Barton, Barton andWicksteed, Wicksteed and Pipers Hill, and PipersHill and Ise Valley. In addition, this particularconfiguration of wards is split east-west by theRiver Ise and north-south by the A6 trunk road.

35 In the north of the town a different problem isposed by the wards of Kingsley, All Saints,Avondale and St Andrew’s. These wards are closely

connected and any modification to the boundary ofone will have an effect on electoral equality in the others. Any such changes would also affect St Mary’s ward, which lies to the south of StAndrew’s and Avondale wards, and Warkton wardwhich borders St Mary’s and Avondale wards to theeast.

36 A further issue which must be considered whenreviewing the electoral arrangements of Ketteringtown, is the town’s external boundary. With theconstruction of the A43 Kettering Northern By-pass and the A14 Kettering Southern By-pass, theboundary between the wards of Kingsley, AllSaints, St Peter’s, Wicksteed and Barton, and theparishes of Rushton, Rothwell, Thorpe Malsor,Cransley, Broughton, Pytchley and BurtonLatimer, may no longer be appropriate. Theparishes at present extend inside the new roads intowhat is perceived to be the Kettering town area,whereas it has been argued that the roadsthemselves would now provide the mostappropriate boundary. The Borough Council andthe affected parish and town councils generallyremain of the view that the external boundary ofKettering town should be re-aligned to follow theA14 and A43 which the Borough Council says“have effectively broken any local ties on either sideof them which may have existed prior to theirconstruction”.

37 The Borough Council’s Stage One submissionaccepted that there was a need to undertake anelectoral review because of the electoral imbalancesin the borough and what it considered to be the inappropriateness of the existing boundaries of some wards. The Council proposed themodification of boundaries of several wards whichcomprise part of the town’s external boundary:Avondale, Kingsley, St Peter’s, Wicksteed andBarton wards, so that they follow the trunk roadswhich run to the north, west and south of thetown. However, if coterminous parish ward andborough ward boundaries are to be maintained, allof the proposed amendments to the externalboundaries of Kettering town would requireadjustments to parish boundaries.

38 The Commission is unable to proposemodifications to external parish boundaries as partof a periodic electoral review. The BoroughCouncil therefore proposed that, in order to retaincoterminous town ward and parish boundaries, theareas of the parishes which are now on the ‘town’side of the roads, should become parish wards.However, the affected areas are unpopulated,except the area within Burton Latimer parish, andthe Comission is unwilling to recommend parish


wards in such circumstances: under the terms ofSchedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972,section 4(2), the Commission is required to haveregard to the following considerations whendeciding whether to recommend that any parish isto be divided into parish wards:

(a) whether the number or distribution of the local government electors for the parish orcommunity is such as to make a single electionof parish councillors impracticable orinconvenient; and

(b) whether it is desirable that any area or areas ofthe parish should be separately represented onthe parish council.

39 It would therefore be inappropriate for theCommission to recommend the creation of parishwards, with councillors to represent them, for areas which do not contain any electors. TheCommission, however, has put forward a proposalto ward the area in Burton Latimer parish north ofthe A14 Southern By-pass (detailed below) inwhich some electors reside.

Electoral Arrangements

40 The Commission notes the improved electoralequality achieved in the Borough Council’s StageThree submission, particularly in Kettering town.It welcomes the further evidence which has beenprovided by the Borough Council and others aboutthe impact of alternative electoral proposals onlocal community identities and interests and oneffective and convenient local government. In thelight of this, it has modified its draftrecommendations and recommends to theSecretary of State much of the Council’s StageThree proposals.

41 However, the Commission is still concerned atthe level of electoral inequality which would persistin some wards, particularly in Desborough andRothwell. The Borough Council's Stage Threeproposals would initially result in 11 of theborough’s 23 wards having an electoral variance ofmore than 10 per cent from the average, and threewards over 20 per cent. Although this is animproved level of electoral equality compared withthe Council’s Stage One proposals (14 wards andfive wards respectively), the Commission proposesrelatively minor amendments in Desborough,Rothwell, the Ise Valley area and the wards of AllSaints and St Andrew’s in Kettering town. TheCommission has also been unable to propose therealignment of most of the parish and borough

ward boundaries to the north, south and west ofKettering town. Its final recommendations areillustrated in the maps at Appendix A, includingthe large map inserted at the back of the report.The following areas, based on existing wards, areconsidered in turn:

(a) Kettering town (12 wards);

(b) Burton Latimer (two wards);

(c) Rothwell (two wards);

(d) Desborough (two wards);

(e) the rural areas (four wards).

Kettering town

42 At Stage One the Council proposedadjustments to the boundaries of All Saints,Avondale, Barton, Pipers Hill, St Andrew’s, StMary’s, St Michael’s, St Peter’s and Wicksteed, thatKingsley ward be abolished, that the three-memberIse Valley ward be replaced by the two-memberwards of Millbrook and Spinney, and that a newBrambleside ward be created. Only Warkton wardwas to retain its existing boundaries. Under theCouncil’s proposals, the number of electors percouncillor would vary by more than 10 per centfrom the borough average in eight of the 13 wardsin the town (in seven wards by 2001).

43 The Commission was concerned about such adegree of electoral inequality. It therefore prepareddraft recommendations which sought to improveelectoral equality, while building on the Council’sproposals. The Commission adopted the Council’sproposals for Brambleside and Spinney wards, butproposed a different western boundary for StPeter’s ward (where the Council had proposed thecreation of parish wards with no electors), andproposed alternative warding arrangements for the remaining 10 town wards. Under theCommission’s proposals, the number of electorsper councillor in All Saints ward would be 2 percent below the borough average (24 per cent underthe Borough Council’s scheme), 1 per cent inAvondale (7 per cent), 1 per cent in Barton (19 percent), 7 per cent in Millbrook (20 per cent), 2 percent in Pipers Hill (6 per cent), 5 per cent in StAndrew’s (6 per cent), 2 per cent in St Mary’s (16per cent), 1 per cent in St Michael’s (2 per cent), 8per cent in Warkton (15 per cent) and 3 per cent inWicksteed (12 per cent). Thus, the Commission’sdraft recommendations would improve electoralequality in each of the 10 wards compared with theproposals put forward by the Borough Council.


44 At Stage Three the Borough Councilacknowledged that the Commission “has a difficult task in preparing recommendations whichmeet the statutory criteria”. However, the Council considered that the Commission’s draftrecommendations in several instances did notadequately reflect community identity or secureeffective and convenient local government. TheCouncil was particularly concerned about the draftrecommendations for Ise Valley, Barton, BurtonLatimer, Rothwell town and Desborough town,and expressed its disappointment that theCommission “has not agreed to establish new townand parish council wards in order to facilitateborough ward boundaries”. The Council said thatit had “considered all the options for wardboundaries afresh” and “taken careful note of theCommission’s analysis and sought to reduceelectoral inequalities as much as possible,compatible with the need to meet the otherstatutory criteria”. Having “fully considered thedraft recommendations and re-examined its owninitial (Stage One) proposals in consultation withthe town and parish councils of the borough andlocal people”, the Borough Council’s Stage Threesubmission presented revised proposals for nine ofthe Kettering town wards which it had proposed atStage One.

Kingsley, All Saints, St Andrew’s andAvondale wards

45 As stated previously, because of the pattern ofsettlement in the north of the town, changes to oneward would impact upon neighbouring wards. Inline with the Borough Council’s Stage Onesubmission, the Commission proposed theabolition of the existing Kingsley ward in the northof the town and the establishment of a newBrambleside ward, comprising parts of the existingKingsley and All Saints wards. At Stage Three the Borough Council revised its initial proposal for Brambleside ward which the Commission has decided to put forward as its finalrecommendation. The average number of electorsper councillor would be 3 per cent below theborough average (8 per cent above in 2001).

46 The Commission consulted on a revised AllSaints ward which built on the Borough Council’sStage One scheme. At Stage Three the BoroughCouncil stated that it believed that theCommission’s draft recommendation for All Saintsward did not reflect community identity andinterests in this area. It proposed an amendment to

its Stage One scheme, with the area around DysonDrive being transferred from All Saints ward to StAndrew’s ward. The number of electors percouncillor for the Borough Council’s revised AllSaints ward would vary by 5 per cent from theaverage both now and in 2001.

47 The Commission recognises the improvedelectoral equality which the Borough Council’srevised scheme would produce in this area, butproposes one minor modification in order to arriveat a more easily identifiable boundary. Thesouthern boundary of All Saints ward with StAndrew’s ward should run west off Bath Road tothe rear of the buildings on the north side of WoodStreet, as far as Park Avenue, where it would godown the middle of Park Avenue, south along thecentre of Wilson Terrace and west to the rear of theproperties on the north side of the western end ofWood Street until it rejoins the existing boundaryat Rockingham Road. The number of electors percouncillor would be 4 per cent above the boroughaverage both now and in 2001. The Commission issatisfied that this proposal meets the statutorycriteria, and therefore puts it forward as its finalrecommendation for All Saints ward.

48 At Stage One the Borough Council described StAndrew’s ward as “the most densely populatedward anywhere in Northamptonshire”, with anelectorate of more than 3,600 in a relatively smallarea. The Commission’s draft recommendationdiffered slightly from the Borough Council’s StageOne proposal for this ward. In the interests ofbetter electoral equality, the Commission proposedto retain the existing eastern and southernboundaries of the ward, although it adopted theCouncil’s proposed boundaries with St Peter’s andAll Saints wards to the north and west. The revisedSt Andrew’s ward would continue to be served bythree councillors and the average number ofelectors per councillor would be 5 per cent belowthe borough average (9 per cent in 2001).

49 At Stage Three the Council noted that the draftrecommendation drew heavily on its proposals forSt Andrew’s ward. The only changes which theCouncil proposed were that the Dyson Drive areain the west of the proposed All Saints ward betransferred from All Saints to St Andrew’s ward,and that in the south of St Andrew’s ward, MarthaWallis Court, the Carey Baptist Mission House,Upper Street and Tanners Lane should transfer toSt Mary’s ward. The number of electors percouncillor would be 2 per cent below the boroughaverage (6 per cent in 2001). The Commission is


satisfied that this proposal meets the statutorycriteria and puts forward the amended St Andrew’sward as part of its final recommendations.

50 At Stage One the Council proposed that thesouth-west boundary of Avondale ward bemodified to run along the middle of LancasterRoad and Clarence Road, with the area to thesouth-west of this boundary being transferred to StAndrew’s ward. The Council also proposed thatthe revised Avondale ward be served by two councillors and not three as at present. The resulting number of electors per councillorwould be 7 per cent above the borough average(10 per cent in 2001). However, as its draftrecommendation, the Commission proposed thatthe western boundary of Avondale ward beamended to include the area bounded by ScottRoad and Bath Road, then follow the existingboundary of Masefield Road, going southwards tothe west of Park Road, an area currently in AllSaints ward. The average number of electors foreach of the three councillors in the revisedAvondale ward would be 1 per cent below theborough average both now and in 2001.

51 At Stage Three the Council reiterated its StageOne proposal for a reduction in the electorate andrepresentation in this ward. It proposed thatAvondale should be a two-member ward and thatits southern boundary should run from StamfordRoad to Bath Road, via Lancaster Road andEdinburgh Road, with the area to the south of thisboundary being transferred to St Andrew’s ward.The Council also proposed extending the westernboundary of the Avondale ward to follow BathRoad and incorporate all the properties in ScottRoad, Byron Road and North Park Drive,currently in All Saints ward. This proposal would affect a smaller area than that proposed bythe Commission. The number of electors percouncillor would be 7 per cent above the boroughaverage both now and in 2001. The Commission issatisfied that these arrangements for Avondalewould contribute to a scheme which would providereasonable electoral equality across the boroughand would reflect the statutory criteria. It therefore puts forward the proposal as its finalrecommendation.

Warkton and St Mary’s wards

52 At Stage One the Council proposed no changefor Warkton ward, so that the number of electorsrepresented by each of the two councillors would

remain at 15 per cent below the borough average(20 per cent in 2001). The Commission, however,proposed that the southern part of Warkton ward,comprising polling district LP, should beincorporated into St Mary’s ward. The number ofelectors represented by a single councillor for therevised Warkton ward would be 8 per cent abovethe average for the borough (1 per cent in 2001).

53 At Stage Three the Borough Council opposedthe draft recommendation for Warkton ward andproposed instead that the ward be enlarged to thesouth and west to include the properties in the areabound by Elm Road, St Mary’s Road andWindmill Avenue in St Mary’s ward, on thegrounds that the affected electors are “closer interms of community identity and interests to thosecurrently in Warkton ward”. The Borough Councilalso proposed that the boundary of Warkton beextended southward to incorporate the HenryGotch Schools. The boundary would run alongthe footpath at the southern end of the schools andeastwards until it joins the western boundary of theproposed Millbrook ward. Under these revisedproposals, the number of electors per councillor for Warkton ward, which would retain twocouncillors, would be 5 per cent below theborough average (9 per cent in 2001). TheCommission concludes that this proposal wouldbetter reflect local identities and puts it forward asits final recommendation.

54 The draft recommendation for St Mary’s wardwould provide for an average number of electorsper councillor of 2 per cent below the boroughaverage (5 per cent in 2001). However, it differedmarkedly from the Borough Council’s Stage Oneproposal. At Stage Three the Council revised itsproposal. While it reiterated its suggestion that thepolling district LD be transferred from St Peter’sward to St Mary’s ward with which it has “anidentifiable link”, it also proposed the transfer ofMartha Wallis Court, the Carey Baptist MissionHouse, Upper Street and Tanners Lane, from StAndrew’s ward to St Mary’s ward, and therealignment of the boundary in the south-east of StMary’s ward to continue along St Mary’s Roaduntil it joins the existing boundary at WindmillAvenue. The Commission is satisfied that theseproposals would reflect the statutory criteria andputs them forward as its final recommendation.The number of electors per councillor would be 4per cent below the average (5 per cent in 2001).


Ise Valley ward

55 The number of electors represented by each ofthe three councillors for Ise Valley ward is currently50 per cent above the borough average (47 percent in 2001). At Stage One the Borough Councilproposed that the ward be divided into two newwards, Millbrook and Spinney, each represented bytwo councillors.

56 While the Commission adopted the Council’sproposed boundary between the two wards as itsdraft recommendation, it remained concernedabout the level of electoral inequality which wouldresult. In Millbrook, the western ward, the numberof electors per councillor would be 20 per centabove the borough average (17 per cent in 2001),while in Spinney, the eastern ward, the number ofelectors per councillor would be 6 per cent abovethe borough average (3 per cent in 2001). In orderto secure better electoral equality, the Commissionproposed that a number of roads in the south-westof Millbrook ward, to the west of St John’s Road as far north as Oban Close, be included in Pipers Hill ward. Under the Commission’s draftrecommendations, the average number of electorsrepresented by each of the two councillors inMillbrook ward would be 7 per cent above theborough average (5 per cent in 2001).

57 At Stage Three the Borough Council opposedthe transfer of the area around Oban Close toPipers Hill ward on grounds of communityidentity. It stated that the sense of community inthe Ise Valley area arises from its “geographicalseparation from the rest of urban Kettering”. TheCommission also received four representationsfrom local residents, two in support of the draftrecommendation and two opposing it. TheCouncil, however, did propose an amendment toits proposed boundary between Millbrook andSpinney in order to improve electoral equality and“reflect building patterns on this estate”. Theboundary would run further westwards along StJohn’s Road to its junction with WalsinghamAvenue, then to the rear of the houses on the westside of Walsingham Avenue, and then south tomeet Barton Road. The average number ofelectors per councillor would be 11 per cent abovethe borough average in Millbrook ward (5 per centin 2001) and 15 per cent above the boroughaverage in Spinney ward (13 per cent in 2001).

58 The Commission proposes to adopt theCouncil’s revised proposals subject to the transferof an additional 110 electors from Spinney toMillbrook. In the north of the area, the boundary

between the two wards would join St Catherine’sRoad further east, then run west along the middleof St Catherine’s Road, east along the middle of StDavid’s Close before turning south to join DeebleRoad and following the boundary proposed by theBorough Council as outlined above. In Millbrookward the average number of electors per councillorwould be 15 per cent above the borough average(9 per cent in 2001) and in Spinney ward it wouldbe 11 per cent above the average (9 per cent in2001). The Commission is satisfied with the levelof electoral equality which will be achieved by2001 and accepts that this proposal is more in tune with local community identity than the draftrecommendation. Consequently, the Commissionproposes this as its final recommendation for theIse Valley area.

Barton, Pipers Hill, St Michael’s, St Peter’sand Wicksteed wards

59 The Borough Council re-stated its Stage Oneproposals for the wards of Barton, St Michael’s, StPeter’s and Wicksteed with a minor modification toits original proposal for Pipers Hill. Under itsproposals the average number of electors percouncillor in Barton would be 22 per cent abovethe average (16 per cent in 2001), 11 per centbelow in Pipers Hill (14 per cent in 2001), 2 percent below in St Michael’s (6 per cent in 2001), 22per cent below in St Peter’s (1 per cent in 2001),and 12 per cent below in Wicksteed (7 per cent in2001).

60 In its draft recommendations, the Commissionproposed two amendments to the existingboundary of Pipers Hill: first, the incorporation ofproperties between London Road and Elm Road(from St Mary’s ward); and second, that it shouldrun along the west of St John’s Road, therebyincluding Oban Close, Glencoe Drive, BraemarClose, Glenshee Close, Burness Close, GrantownClose, Kylesku Crescent and Rannock Close (fromIse Valley ward). As indicated above, at StageThree the Borough Council proposed that the areaaround Oban Close remain in the Ise Valley areabecause it considered that the community identityissue is so strong on this estate that “it would betotally wrong for any part of it to be attached toanother ward”. The only change that the Councilproposed to the existing Pipers Hill ward was thatthe north-east boundary of the ward should run ina south-easterly direction from behind theproperties on the north side of St Mary’s Road,along Elm Road to its junction with WindmillAvenue.


61 The Commission acknowledges that theproposed Millbrook and Spinney wards in the IseValley area are physically separate from the rest ofthe town and has concluded that a degree ofelectoral inequality in the Pipers Hill area isunavoidable. It therefore puts forward the BoroughCouncil’s proposal for Pipers Hill as its finalrecommendation. The number of electors percouncillor in Pipers Hill ward would be 11 per centbelow the borough average (14 per cent in 2001).

62 At Stage One the Borough Council proposedadjustments to the western and southernboundaries of St Michael’s ward. The westernboundary would run along the railway line, therebytransferring the strip of land on the western side ofthe line to St Peter’s ward, which would not affectany electors. The proposal for the southernboundary was that the small number of propertieson the north side of Highfield Road (as far as TheOval) should transfer to Wicksteed ward, in linewith the rest of Highfield Road. The averagenumber of electors represented by each of the twocouncillors in St Michael’s ward would be 2 percent below the borough average (6 per cent in2001).

63 In addition to the transfer of those propertieson the north side of Highfield Road, theCommission put forward a further amendment asits draft recommendation, as a result of proposedchanges elsewhere. It recommended that the areaaround Silverwood Road in the south-east of StMichael’s ward be transferred to Wicksteed ward.Under this arrangement the average number ofelectors represented by each of the two councillorsin St Michael’s ward would be 1 per cent below theborough average both now and in 2001.

64 However, in the light of proposed changeselsewhere, the Commission has concluded that thestatutory criteria would best be met by theBorough Council’s proposal for St Michael’s wardand recommends it as final.

65 St Peter’s ward currently covers a large area inthe west of Kettering town. At Stage One theCouncil proposed modifications to its boundarywith St Andrew’s, St Mary’s and St Michael’swards, stating that “the most easily identifiableboundaries of the ward, which would not severlocal ties, would be provided by the A43 KetteringNorthern By-pass, the A14 Kettering Southern By-pass and the railway line”.

66 Using the railway line as a boundary wouldentail the transfer of land from St Peter’s ward to StAndrew’s and St Mary’s wards, as well as a transfer

of land from St Michael’s ward to St Peter’s ward,none of which would affect any electors. Theproposal to use the A14 as a boundary wouldinvolve the transfer of land between several townwards and the parishes of Cransley and Broughtonin Slade ward. The proposal to use the A43Kettering Northern By-pass as a boundary wouldentail the transfer of land from Trinity ward, aborough and parish ward in Rothwell, to St Peter’sward, again not affecting any electors.

67 Based on the boundaries proposed by theBorough Council, the average number of electorsrepresented by each of the two councillors wouldbe 22 per cent below the borough average (3 percent above the average in 2001). Because theCommission is unable to revise parish boundariesas part of the current periodic electoral review, theCouncil proposed warding the areas of the affectedparishes. However, as explained earlier, theCommission would not propose the establishmentof new parish wards in areas where there arecurrently no electors. The Commission,nevertheless, endorsed the Borough Council’sproposals for realigning the boundary between StPeter’s ward and St Andrew’s and St Michael’swards along the railway line.

68 At Stage Three the Council said that it largelyagreed with the Commission’s proposals for StPeter’s ward, but still considered that there shouldbe a realignment of the boundary between StPeter’s ward and Slade and Trinity wards, to followthe A14 and A43. Because this proposal wouldinvolve the creation of parish wards for areas whichcontain no electors, the Commission confirms itsdraft recommendation for St Peter’s ward as final.The number of electors per councillor would be 22per cent below the borough average (1 per cent in2001). (The difference in the projected electoralvariances at draft and final recommendations is aconsequence of the Borough Council submittingrevised electorate figures at Stage Three).

69 At Stage One the Council proposed that thesouthern and western boundaries of Wicksteedward be extended to the A14 Kettering SouthernBy-pass, thereby incorporating parts of Broughtonand Pytchley parishes, in Slade ward. The onlyother proposed change was that the small numberof properties on the northern part of HighfieldRoad (as far as The Oval), should be transferredfrom St Michael’s ward to Wicksteed ward in linewith the majority of Highfield Road. The numberof electors per councillor in Wicksteed ward, asproposed by the Borough Council, would be 12per cent below the average (9 per cent in 2001).


70 However, as stated before, the Commissioncannot review parish boundaries as part of thisreview and it is not prepared to recommend thecreation of new parish wards for Broughton andPytchley, for areas which currently contain noelectors. The Commission, however, proposed afurther amendment, that an area in the south-eastof St Michael’s ward, around Silverwood Road, beincluded in Wicksteed ward, in order to improveelectoral equality. Under the Commission’s draftrecommendations, the average number of electorsrepresented by each of the two councillors wouldbe 3 per cent above the borough average (5 percent in 2001).

71 At Stage Three the Council reiterated its StageOne proposal and said that the area beingtransferred into Wicksteed had little communityidentity with the rest of the ward. In the absence of any alternative proposals for this area,the Commission puts forward as its finalrecommendation the Borough Council’s proposalfor retaining the existing boundaries of Wicksteedward, except for the inclusion of those propertieson the northern part of Highfield Road as far asThe Oval. The number of electors per councillorwould be 12 per cent below the average (7 per centin 2001 on the Borough Council’s amendedelectorate figures).

72 Barton ward (which is unparished) lies to thesouth of the town, and the Council proposed thatits boundary with Latimer ward (also a parish wardof Burton Latimer parish) be modified, to followthe A14 Kettering Southern By-pass, which itdescribed at Stage One as “easily identifiable andproviding an obvious physical separation betweenthe communities of Barton Seagrave and BurtonLatimer”. The area around Farmfield Close, southof the A14, but within the existing Barton ward,would transfer to Latimer ward, while the areanorth of the A14, currently in Latimer ward, wouldtransfer to Barton. Under the Borough Council’sscheme, the average number of electors representedby each of the two councillors for Barton wardwould be 19 per cent above the borough average(12 per cent in 2001). To facilitate this boundarychange the Borough Council proposed the creationof a new parish ward for Burton Latimer TownCouncil, to be called Barton ward (detailed below).

73 The Commission, however, was concernedabout the electoral inequality which would resultfrom the Council’s proposal and thereforeproposed that the existing Barton ward boundarybe retained. Under the draft recommendations theaverage number of electors per councillor would be1 per cent above the borough average in Barton

ward (5 per cent below in 2001) and equal to theaverage in Latimer ward (6 per cent below in2001).

74 During Stage Three the Borough Councilreiterated its proposal that the southern boundaryof Barton ward should follow the A14, whichwould require that a new parish ward should becreated for Burton Latimer Town Council. BurtonLatimer Town Council supported the BoroughCouncil’s proposal, as did Councillor Meads, themember for Latimer ward. One local business and12 local residents also requested that theCommission re-align the boundary to follow theA14.

75 Such a proposal would have an impact on theelectoral arrangements in Burton Latimer, andcannot therefore be considered in isolation.However, as a consequence of the proposals for theBurton Latimer area (detailed below), theCommission has decided to adopt the BoroughCouncil’s proposal to use the A14 as the wardboundary between Barton and Burton Latimer, asits final recommendation. The number of electorsper councillor in Barton ward would be 22 per centabove the borough average (16 per cent in 2001).Although the level of electoral equality provided bythis proposal is not as good as in the draftrecommendation the Commission acknowledgesthe significant boundary created by the SouthernBy-pass, and the impact that the trunk road has hadon community identities.

Burton Latimer

76 The town of Burton Latimer currentlycomprises two borough wards, Latimer and Plessy,each represented by two councillors. At Stage Onethe Borough Council proposed that the boundarybetween the parish of Burton Latimer and Bartonward in Kettering town be realigned to follow theA14 Southern By-pass. It also proposed thatPlessy ward should retain its existing boundariesand that a new parish ward should be created forBurton Latimer parish, incorporating some 590electors in the area around Radnor Way – that partof Latimer ward which lies to the north of the A14Kettering Southern By-pass – a proposal that wassupported by Burton Latimer Town Council. BothLatimer and Plessy wards would continue to berepresented by two councillors, with representationin Latimer varying by 6 per cent below theborough average (12 per cent in 2001), and inPlessy by 12 per cent below the average (15 percent in 2001).


77 In its draft recommendations, in order toachieve improved electoral equality, theCommission proposed to realign the boundarybetween the current Plessy and Latimer wards sothat some 320 electors in The Crescent, Elm Road,Woodland Road, Poplar Road and part of SpinneyRoad, currently in Latimer ward, would beincorporated into Plessy ward. The averagenumber of electors per councillor for Plessy wardwould equal the borough average (4 per centbelow in 2001). The Commission proposed toretain the existing boundary between Latimer wardand Barton ward which, as indicated above, wouldresult in representation equal to the boroughaverage in Latimer ward and varying by 1 per centabove the average in Barton ward (6 per cent and5 per cent below the average respectively in 2001).The Commission did, however, propose rewardingthe parish of Burton Latimer.

78 During Stage Three the Borough Councilreiterated its request that the northern boundary ofLatimer ward should follow the A14, and that anew ward should be created for Burton Latimerparish for the area north of the road. The BoroughCouncil contended that if this proposal wasaccepted, and the properties in the area aroundRadnor Way were transferred to Barton ward, therewould be no need for any further change to theboundary between Latimer and Plessy wards.

79 In its draft recommendations the Commissionproposed that a parish ward be created for the areaaround Radnor Way - that part of Latimer wardwhich lies to the north of the A14. This areawould also become a parish ward of BurtonLatimer parish, called Barton parish ward,comprising some 590 electors.

80 In light of the representations received theCommission has reconsidered its draftrecommendations with regard to the BurtonLatimer area. However, the Commission is awarethat the Borough Council’s Stage Three proposalfor this area would result in electoral inequality,with the average number of electors per councillorin Latimer ward varying from the borough averageby 9 per cent (13 per cent in 2001), and in Plessyward by 12 per cent (11 per cent in 2001).

81 The warding arrangements in Burton Latimerparish cannot be considered in isolation. Asindicated above, if the Borough Council’sproposals were implemented, Barton ward inKettering town would be affected - the area aroundRadnor Way, which would form a new parish wardfor Burton Latimer parish, would be transferred toBarton ward from Latimer ward. With the A14

forming the new ward boundary between Bartonand Latimer, this would also mean transferring thatpart of the existing Barton ward which lies south ofthe A14 - the area around Farmfield Close - toLatimer ward (see Map A4). The average numberof electors per councillor in Barton ward would be22 per cent above the borough average (16 percent in 2001). The Commission has consideredthis issue carefully and has concluded that, in orderto arrive at a boundary which better reflects thestatutory criteria, it should recommend theBorough Council’s proposal as its finalrecommendation.

82 In moving away from its draft recommendationin the Barton/Burton Latimer area, there is nolonger the need to revise the boundary betweenLatimer and Plessy wards in Burton Latimer. The Commission has therefore decided to adoptthe Borough Council’s proposal as its finalrecommendation. The number of electors percouncillor in Latimer ward would be 9 per centbelow the borough average and 12 per cent belowthe average in Plessy (13 per cent and 11 per centrespectively in 2001 on the Borough Council’samended electorate figures). The Commission isaware that the level of electoral equality providedby this proposal is not as good as in the draftrecommendation. However, as stated earlier, theCommission has concluded that, given the physicalpresence of the Southern By-pass, the pattern ofdevelopment of Barton Seagrave and BurtonLatimer, and the resulting community identity,such electoral inequality is unavoidable.

Rothwell

83 During Stage One the Borough Councilproposed no change to the boundaries of Treshamand Trinity wards in Rothwell town, except for aminor adjustment to the ward boundary betweenTrinity and Kettering town, to follow the A43Northern By-pass. However, the existing Treshamward is substantially over-represented (the numberof electors per councillor being 25 per cent belowthe borough average), while Trinity ward issubstantially under-represented (with 23 per centabove the average number of electors percouncillor). In its draft recommendations theCommission therefore proposed a boundarymodification in order to secure better electoralequality. In Tresham the number of electors percouncillor would be 2 per cent below the boroughaverage (9 per cent in 2001), and in Trinity itwould equal the borough average (2 per cent abovein 2001).


84 At Stage Three Rothwell Town Councilacknowledged the improved electoral equalitywhich would result from the draft recommendationbut considered that the proposed boundary did notreflect local community identities. The TownCouncil also proposed that Holy Trinity ParishChurch should remain in Trinity ward and, onceagain, that the boundary between Trinity ward andthe relevant wards of Kettering town be amendedto follow the A43 Kettering Northern By-pass. TheBorough Council supported the views of RothwellTown Council.

85 The Commission is unable to realign theboundary of Trinity ward to follow the A43because it is also a parish boundary, and, as it statedin its draft recommendations report, theCommission is unable to review parish boundariesas part of a periodic electoral review and is notprepared to recommend a parish ward for an areawhich does not contain any electors.

86 The Commission has concluded that theboundary between Tresham and Trinity wardsshould be modified in order to secure reasonableelectoral equality, while retaining Holy TrinityParish Church within Trinity ward. The revisedboundary would run to the rear of Jubilee Streetand Gordon Street, then generally north along fieldboundaries until it reaches the western edge ofTrinity Church, east along the middle of BridgeStreet and Market Hill, north along New Street,east to the end of Cecil Street (No. 45), then northalong the fence line to the rear of Spencer Street,west along the fence line to the rear of CambridgeStreet, and finally in a north-westerly directionuntil it rejoins the existing boundary of the A6where it meets Greening Road (see Map A2).

87 The number of electors per councillor inTresham would be 1 per cent above the boroughaverage (3 per cent below in 2001), while inTrinity it would be 3 per cent below both now andin 2001. The Commission is satisfied that thisproposal would reflect the statutory criteria andputs it forward as its final recommendation forTresham and Trinity wards.

Desborough

88 Desborough is the second largest settlement inthe borough, with a population of more than7,300. It is located six miles north-west ofKettering town and is covered by two wards,Loatland and St Giles, each represented by twocouncillors. At Stage One both Desborough Town

Council and the Borough Council proposed nochange in this area. The Commission accepted theproposal that there should be no change inLoatland ward, where the number of electors percouncillor would be 3 per cent above the boroughaverage (projected to equal the average in 2001).However, in St Giles ward the number of electorsper councillor is currently 18 per cent above theaverage (15 per cent in 2001). Therefore, theCommission concluded that better electoralequality could be achieved by creating a new three-member ward comprising St Giles ward and therevised ward of Buccleuch (comprising the parishesof Cranford, Grafton Underwood, Rushton,Warkton and Weekley), in which the number ofelectors per councillor would be 7 per cent abovethe borough average (5 per cent in 2001).

89 At Stage Three the Borough Council expressedthe view that a merger of the urban St Giles wardand part of the rural Buccleuch ward would runcounter to the statutory criteria and reiterated itspreference for no change in St Giles. The draftrecommendation was also opposed by Rushton,Warkton and Weekley parish councils (all in theexisting Buccleuch ward), a councillor for theexisting St Giles ward, a parish councillor forGrafton Underwood, a church council and sevenlocal residents.

90 The Commission has carefully considered all therepresentations received and taken account of allthe evidence presented to it. It is aware of thestrength of feeling among the parishes and localresidents that Buccleuch and St Giles are differentin character, and of their preference for the optionput forward by the Borough Council. However,the Commission is still mindful of the electoralimbalance which would result if this option wasaccepted. It therefore proposes a modification tothe boundary between St Giles and Loatland wardsin Desborough town, involving the transfer of anarea with some 230 electors from St Giles toLoatland. The ward boundary would follow theexisting boundary north along the A6, turning eastalong the middle of Victoria Street and UnionStreet, before going north along the middle ofQueen Street where it would rejoin the existingboundary (see Map A3).

91 The average number of electors per councillorin the revised Loatland ward would be 12 per centabove the borough average (9 per cent in 2001),and 10 per cent above the average in the revised StGiles ward (7 per cent in 2001). Due to the overallimprovement in electoral equality and havingregard to local circumstances, the Commission has


decided to propose this as its final recommendationfor the Desborough area (Buccleuch ward isdetailed below).

The Rural Areas

92 The Commission adopted the BoroughCouncil’s initial proposals for Queen Eleanor and Welland wards as part of its draftrecommendations. The number of electors percouncillor in Queen Eleanor would be 7 per centbelow the borough average (2 per cent in 2001)and 29 per cent above the average in Welland ward(36 per cent in 2001 on the Borough Council’samended electorate figures). The Commissionrecognised the considerable level of electoralimbalance in Welland ward, but due to theconfiguration of the parishes and wards in the area,was unable to put forward an alternative proposalthat would not have a detrimental effect on theimproved level of equality in neighbouring wards.

93 At Stage Three the Borough Council supportedthe proposal that Queen Eleanor ward shouldcomprise the parishes of Geddington and Newtonwith Little Oakley (the latter from Buccleuch ward)and that there should be no change to Welland ward.The Commission received no proposals on ways toaddress the imbalance in Welland ward and thereforeconfirms as final its draft recommendations for bothQueen Eleanor and Welland wards.

94 At Stage One the Borough Council proposedthat the eastern boundary of Slade ward, where itborders Kettering town, be amended to follow theA14 Kettering Southern By-pass. This would affectthe parish boundaries of Cransley, Broughton andPytchley, but would not affect any electors. Aspreviously stated, the Commission cannot reviewparish boundaries as part of a periodic electoralreview, and would not recommend parish wards forunpopulated areas. In its draft recommendationsthe Commission therefore proposed no change tothe electoral arrangements of Slade ward, wherethe number of electors represented by each of thetwo councillors would be 3 per cent above theborough average both now and in 2001.

95 During Stage Three the Borough Councilsupported the draft recommendation for no changeto Slade ward, subject to continuing to press for a“sensible boundary” between the boundaries of theparishes within Slade ward which border St Peter’sward in Kettering town. The Commission’sposition on this issue remains as stated in its draftrecommendations report. No further evidence was

received during Stage Three to make theCommission move away from its proposal and ittherefore confirms its draft recommendation for nochange to Slade ward as final.

96 As indicated earlier, the Commission proposesto revise its draft recommendation that the ruralward of Buccleuch be combined with theDesborough town ward of St Giles. TheCommission is putting forward as its finalrecommendation the Borough Council’s proposalthat Buccleuch ward should comprise the parishesof Cranford, Grafton Underwood, Rushton,Warkton and Weekley, and be represented by onecouncillor. The number of electors represented bythe councillor would be 15 per cent below theborough average (13 per cent in 2001). TheCommission recognises that the level of electoralequality provided by this proposal is not as good asunder the draft recommendation, but it considersthat the proposal would better reflect localcommunities in the area and would receive localsupport.

Electoral Cycle

97 In its draft recommendations report, theCommission proposed that the present system ofwhole-council elections be retained. At Stage Threethe Borough Council reiterated its support for thisproposal. No other representations were receivedon this issue, and the Commission thereforeconfirms its draft recommendation as final.

Town Council Electoral Arrangements

98 As indicated below, the Commissionrecommends that the warding arrangements ofBurton Latimer Town Council, Desborough TownCouncil and Rothwell Town Council be modifiedto reflect the new borough warding arrangementsin those areas.

Conclusions

99 The Commission welcomes the revisedproposals put forward by the Borough Council in response to the Commission’s draftrecommendations. The Commission hassubstantially adopted the Council’s Stage Threeproposals, subject to the modifications outlinedabove. The Commission has concluded that itsfinal recommendations provide better electoral


equality throughout the borough while havingregard to community identities and interests andseeking to secure effective and convenient localgovernment.

100 Having considered all the evidence andrepresentations received in response to its draftrecommendations, the Commission has concludedthat the council size should remain at 45 members;that there should be 23 wards - two three-memberwards, 18 two-member wards and three single-member wards; that elections should continue tobe held on a whole-council basis; and that theboundaries of 19 of the existing wards should bemodified. Figure 4 shows the impact of theCommission’s final recommendations on electoralequality, comparing them with the currentarrangements, as based on 1996 electorate figuresand with projected electorates in the year 2001.

101 As Figure 4 shows, the Commission’srecommendations would result in a reduction inthe number of wards with electoral variances ofmore than 10 per cent from the borough average,from 15 to 10, reducing further to six in 2001. TheCommission concludes that its recommendationswould best meet the need for electoral equality,having regard to the statutory criteria.

Final RecommendationKettering Borough Council shouldcomprise 45 councillors serving 23 wards,as detailed and named in Figures 1 and 5,Map 2 and Appendix A. The wholeCouncil should continue to be electedtogether every four years.

102 Changes in town council electoral arrangementswould be required as a consequence of theCommission’s final recommendations for theBorough Council’s warding arrangements.

103 In the Burton Latimer Town Council area, theCommission recommends that the parish wards aremodified to reflect the proposed Borough Councilwards in the town. It also recommends thecreation of a new Barton parish ward, to berepresented by one councillor, and a reduction inthe number of town councillors being returnedfrom the Latimer ward, from six to five.

Final RecommendationBurton Latimer Town Council shouldcomprise 12 councillors representing threeparish wards, with Plessy ward returningsix councillors, Latimer ward returning fivecouncillors and Barton ward returning onecouncillor. The parish ward boundariesshould be modified to reflect the proposedBorough Council wards as illustrated inMap A4 at Appendix A.

104 The Commission recommends that the parishwards of Desborough Town Council should bemodified to reflect the proposed Borough Councilwards in the town.

Final RecommendationDesborough Town Council shouldcomprise 12 councillors, representing twowards, with the wards of Loatland and StGiles each returning six councillors as atpresent. The parish ward boundariesshould be modified to reflect the proposedBorough Council wards as illustrated inMap A3 at Appendix A.

105 The Commission recommends that the parishwards of Rothwell Town Council should bemodified to reflect the proposed Borough Councilwards in the town.

Final RecommendationRothwell Town Council should comprise 12councillors, representing two wards, withthe wards of Tresham and Trinity eachreturning six councillors as at present. Theward boundaries should be modified toreflect the proposed Borough Council wardsas illustrated in Map A2 at Appendix A.

106 The Commission also proposes that thereshould be no change to the electoral cycle of parishand town councils in the borough.

Final RecommendationFor parish and town councils, whole-council elections should continue to takeplace every four years, on the same cycle asthat of the Borough Council.


1996 electorate 2001 projected electorate

Current Final Current Finalarrangements recommendations arrangements recommendations

Number of councillors 45 45 45 45

Number of wards 22 23 22 23

Average number of electors 1,352 1,352 1,444 1,433per councillor

Number of wards with a 15 10 14 6variance more than 10 per centfrom the average

Number of wards with a 6 3 7 1variance more than 20 per centfrom the average

Note: The average number of electors per councillor differ under the 2001 projected electorate figures due to the different totalelectorate figures provided by the Borough Council at Stages One and Three (see under ‘Electorate Projections’ and inFigures 3 and 5).

Figure 4:Comparison of Current and Recommended Arrangements


Map 2:The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Kettering


Figure 5:The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Kettering




1 All Saints 2 2,812 1,406 4 2,979 1,490 4(Kettering town)

2 Avondale 2 2,884 1,442 7 3,074 1,537 7(Kettering town)

3 Barton 2 3,307 1,654 22 3,327 1,664 16(Kettering town)

4 Brambleside 2 2,611 1,306 -3 3,103 1,552 8(Kettering town)

5 Buccleuch 1 1,143 1,143 -15 1,252 1,252 -13

6 Latimer 2 2,455 1,228 -9 2,488 1,244 -13

7 Loatland 2 3,033 1,517 12 3,115 1,558 9

8 Millbrook 2 3,101 1,551 15 3,128 1,564 9(Kettering town)

9 Pipers Hill 2 2,417 1,209 -11 2,464 1,232 -14(Kettering town)

10 Plessy 2 2,376 1,188 -12 2,563 1,282 -11

11 Queen Eleanor 1 1,260 1,260 -7 1,397 1,397 -2


13 St Giles 2 2,965 1,483 10 3,067 1,534 7



16 St Peter’s 2 2,113 1,057 -22 2,834 1,417 -1(Kettering town)

17 Slade 2 2,797 1,399 3 2,964 1,482 3

continued overleaf


Figure 5 (continued):The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Kettering




18 Spinney 2 3,000 1,500 11 3,124 1,562 9(Kettering town)

19 Tresham 2 2,723 1,362 1 2,778 1,389 -3

20 Trinity 2 2,614 1,307 -3 2,789 1,395 -3

21 Warkton 2 2,573 1,287 -5 2,600 1,300 -9(Kettering town)

22 Welland 1 1,744 1,744 29 1,951 1,951 36

23 Wicksteed 2 2,388 1,194 -12 2,655 1,328 -7(Kettering town)

Totals 45 60,854 - - 64,473 - -

Averages - - 1,352 - - 1,433 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Kettering Borough Council’s submissions.

Notes: 1 The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor variesfrom the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures havebeen rounded to the nearest whole number.

2 The total number of electors in the borough shown in this table, both current and projected, differ marginally from thetotals shown in Figures 3 and B2 as a result of the difficulty of comparing polling district information with street-by-street records.


6. NEXT STEPS

107 Having completed its review of electoralarrangements in Kettering and submitted its finalrecommendations to the Secretary of State, theCommission has fulfilled its statutory role underthe Local Government Act 1992.

108 It now falls to the Secretary of State to decidewhether to give effect to the Commission’srecommendations, with or without modification,and to implement them by means of an Order.Such an Order will not be made earlier than sixweeks from the date that the Commission’srecommendations are submitted to the Secretary ofState.

109 All further correspondence concerning theCommission’s recommendations and the mattersdiscussed in this report should be addressed to theSecretary of State at the following address:

The Secretary of State for the EnvironmentLocal Government ReviewDepartment of the EnvironmentEland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DU



The following maps illustrate the Commission’sproposed ward boundaries for the Kettering area.

Map A1 illustrates, in outline form, the proposedward boundaries within the borough and indicatesthe areas which are shown in more detail in MapsA2, A3, A4 and the large map inserted at the backof the report.

Map A2 illustrates the proposed boundarybetween Tresham ward and Trinity ward inRothwell town.

Map A3 illustrates the proposed boundarybetween Loatland ward and St Giles ward inDesborough town.

Map A4 illustrates the proposed wardingarrangements for Burton Latimer parish.

In addition, the large map inserted at the back ofthis report illustrates the Commission’s proposedwarding arrangements in Kettering town.

APPENDIX A

Final Recommendationsfor Kettering:Detailed Mapping


Map A1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Kettering: Key Map


Map A2: Proposed Ward Boundary between Tresham and Trinity


Map A3: Proposed Ward Boundary between Loatland and St Giles


Map A4: Proposed New Parish Ward for Burton Latimer Parish



Ward name Constituent areas

1 All Saints (Kettering town) All Saints ward (part); Kingsley ward (part)

2 Avondale (Kettering town) Avondale ward; All Saints ward (part)

3 Barton (Kettering town) Barton ward

4 Brambleside (Kettering town) All Saints ward (part); Kingsley ward (part)

5 Buccleuch and St Giles Buccleuch ward (part - the parishes of Cranford, GraftonUnderwood, Rushton, Warkton and Weekley); St Giles ward (Desborough parish ward of St Giles)

6 Latimer Latimer ward (part - Burton Latimer parish ward of Latimer)

7 Loatland Loatland ward (Desborough parish ward of Loatland)

8 Millbrook (Kettering town) Ise Valley ward (part)

9 Pipers Hill (Kettering town) Pipers Hill ward; Ise Valley ward (part); St Mary’s ward (part)

10 Plessy Plessy ward (Burton Latimer parish ward of Plessy); Latimer ward (part - Burton Latimer parish wardof Latimer)

11 Queen Eleanor Queen Eleanor ward (Geddington parish); Buccleuch ward (part - Newton and Little Oakley parish)

12 St Andrew’s (Kettering town) St Andrew’s ward; All Saints ward (part); Kingsley ward (part); St Peter’s ward (part)

13 St Mary’s (Kettering town) St Mary’s ward (part); Warkton (part)

14 St Michael’s (Kettering town) St Michael’s ward (part); St Peter’s ward (part)

15 St Peter’s (Kettering town) St Peter’s ward (part); St Michael’s ward (part)

16 Slade Slade ward (the parishes of Broughton, Cransley, Harrington,Loddington, Orton, Pytchley and Thorpe Malsor)

APPENDIX B

Draft Recommendationsfor Kettering

Figure B1:The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

continued overleaf


Ward name Constituent areas

17 Spinney (Kettering town) Ise Valley ward (part)

18 Tresham Tresham ward (Rothwell parish ward of Tresham); Trinity ward (part - Rothwell parish ward of Trinity)

19 Trinity Trinity ward (part - Rothwell parish ward of Trinity)

20 Warkton (Kettering town) Warkton ward (part)

21 Welland Welland ward (the parishes of Ashley, Brampton Ash, Braybrooke, Dingley, Stoke Albany, Sutton Bassett, Weston-by-Welland and Wilbarston)

22 Wicksteed (Kettering town) Wicksteed ward; St Michael’s ward (part)

Figure B1 (continued):The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas


Figure B2:The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for Kettering




1 All Saints 2 2,645 1,323 -2 2,680 1,340 -7(Kettering town)

2 Avondale 3 4,023 1,341 -1 4,315 1,438 -1(Kettering town)

3 Barton 2 2,733 1,367 1 2,733 1,367 -5(Kettering town)

4 Brambleside 2 2,381 1,191 -12 3,215 1,608 11(Kettering town)

5 Buccleuch and St Giles 3 4,342 1,447 7 4,562 1,521 5

6 Latimer 2 2,706 1,353 0 2,706 1,353 -6

7 Loatland 2 2,799 1,400 3 2,900 1,450 0

8 Millbrook 2 2,885 1,443 7 3,033 1,517 5(Kettering town)

9 Pipers Hill 2 2,771 1,386 2 2,898 1,449 0(Kettering town)

10 Plessy 2 2,698 1,349 0 2,786 1,393 -4

11 Queen Eleanor 1 1,260 1,260 -7 1,384 1,384 -4




15 St Peter’s 2 2,113 1,057 -22 2,968 1,484 3(Kettering town)

16 Slade 2 2,797 1,399 3 2,964 1,482 3

17 Spinney 2 2,862 1,431 6 2,980 1,490 3(Kettering town)

18 Tresham 2 2,643 1,322 -2 2,643 1,322 -9

continued overleaf


Figure B2 (continued):The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for Kettering




19 Trinity 2 2,694 1,347 0 2,958 1,479 2

20 Warkton 1 1,459 1,459 8 1,459 1,459 1(Kettering town)

21 Welland 1 1,744 1,744 29 1,935 1,935 34

22 Wicksteed 2 2,786 1,393 3 3,027 1,514 5(Kettering town)

Totals 45 60,851 - - 65,056 - -

Averages - - 1,352 - - 1,446 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Kettering Borough Council’s Stage One submission.

Notes: 1 As a result of the difficulty of reconciling polling district information with street-by-street records, the total number ofelectors in the borough shown in this table, both current and projected, differ from the totals shown in Figures 3 and 5.

2 The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor variesfrom the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures havebeen rounded to the nearest whole number.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

Documents