Canterbury final recommendations

Northeast, Hersden and Sturry

Beltinge

We received a submission from a resident in addition to the support for the draft recommendations that we received from the Liberal Democrats.

One resident noted the importance of including Beltinge with areas that had similar values and characteristics like Bishopstone, Herne and Reculver, but not communities that they considered were very different like Sturry. We note that our draft recommendations retain the boundaries of the existing ward with Bishopstone and Reculver in a neighbouring ward to its east. We have not included Sturry in a ward with Beltinge.

As this was the only additional comment we received, we are confirming our draft recommendations for Beltinge ward as final.

Greenhill, Herne Village, Reculver and Wantsum

We received submissions from the Conservative Group, Sir Roger Gale MP, Herne & Broomfield Parish Council and a number of residents, in addition to the supportive comments from the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrats were of the view that the additional councillor our draft recommendations included in the northeast of the local authority area allowed for a more satisfactory warding pattern, recognising that there is no perfect solution for wards in this area.

Most of the comments we received on the draft recommendations were about Herne Village and Wantsum wards, the majority of which objected to splitting Herne & Broomfield parish or the Broomfield area across city wards. Respondents told us that the Herne and Broomfield areas were a single community which our draft recommendations had split.

To address this, the Conservatives proposed an alternative warding pattern for the Greenhill, Herne, Broomfield, Reculver and Wantsum area. They proposed that we extend Greenhill ward to the A299, east of Herne & Broomfield parish’s western boundary, that we create a Herne & Broomfield ward coterminous with the rest of Herne & Broomfield parish, and that we combine the rest of our proposed Hillborough and Wantsum wards to form a two-councillor Reculver & Wantsum ward. At the same time, the Conservatives supported our inclusion of the Bishopstone area in a ward with Reculver.

Sir Roger Gale wrote in support of the Conservatives’ proposal.

Herne & Broomfield Parish Council also proposed that Greenhill ward be extended to the A299, thereby taking in the parished part of the Redrow housing development to the west of the parish. It argues that this would unite Redrow housing development in a single ward. Furthermore, it was of the view that splitting the eastern part of the parish could leave part of Broomfield with very little representation at City Council level, as the Wantsum ward councillor would be spread too thin having to attend three different parish council meetings.

Most residents objected to any part of Broomfield being a separate ward from the Herne area, stating that they looked to Herne as part of their community. Two residents expressed support for the draft recommendations in the Herne Bay area. One of them believed that they had a fairer distribution of councillors representing areas with a shared interest.

We considered the points raised carefully. We understand the views put forward, and we contemplated doing what the Conservative Group, MP, parish council and most residents proposed. This would provide for Greenhill, Herne & Broomfield and Reculver & Wantsum wards forecast to have variances of -3%, 15% and -33%, respectively. Meanwhile, a single-councillor Wantsum ward (without Reculver) would be forecast to have 60% fewer electors than the average for Canterbury. We considered these variances to be very high and not justified by the evidence we received.

Accordingly, we considered changing the council size back to 39 to see if a single-councillor Reculver & Wantsum ward would produce wards with good electoral equality. In this case, the variances for Herne & Broomfield and Reculver & Wantsum would be forecast to be -12% and 32%, respectively. And that is without taking account of any knock-on effect on the variances of other wards for which we have not received any comments.

We do have some sympathy for the views expressed by respondents from Herne & Broomfield parish. However, if a local authority has just one ward with a variance outside of 30%, this would meet the criteria which would trigger us conducting an electoral review. That is why we do not recommend wards with such high forecast variances, as would be the case for the proposed Reculver & Wantsum or Wantsum ward under any of the scenarios listed above. Therefore, we did not adopt these proposals.

The boundary between our draft recommendations for Greenhill and Herne Village wards runs along the parish boundary. We considered making one change in line with the proposals we received, by departing from this boundary and extending Greenhill ward to the A299 while retaining our draft recommendations boundary to the east. Herne Village ward would then have 18% fewer electors than the average for Canterbury City Council. We were not persuaded to make this change in light of the poor variances and because we noted we would also have to create another parish ward within Herne & Broomfield parish.

Therefore, after careful consideration, we are not making any changes to the boundaries of our draft recommendations in this area, and confirm them as final.

We note that the Conservatives’ Group expressed the view that the name Reculver resonates with the local community, but that Hillborough does not. They state that neither the primary school nor the new housing development are named Hillborough, but the school is named after Reculver. After due consideration, we have been persuaded to rename Hillborough ward, Reculver.

We accept that Wantsum ward is made up of different communities. We sometimes have to do this in order to achieve a balance of our statutory criteria. With regards to the ward councillor having to attend three parish meetings, we note that the wards to the south of the city have single-councillor wards each comprised of five parishes.

We also note that the Conservative Group alluded to us splitting Herne & Broomfield into ‘two parish councils’. We have not, and we are unable to do so. Herne & Broomfield Parish Council is still a single parish council under these recommendations. We have split the parish area over two city (or district) wards but both areas (parish wards) will remain part of Herne & Broomfield parish and therefore the parish council area. The precepts for both areas will still be collected by Herne & Broomfield Parish Council. Accordingly, unless Canterbury City Council decides to conduct a Community Governance Review to change the boundaries of the parish, nothing in this electoral review changes the parish boundaries.

Aside from the name change in Reculver, we confirm our draft recommendations for the wards in this area as final.

Hampton and Heron

We received two submissions from residents in addition to the supportive city-wide comments from the Liberal Democrats.

The residents expressed support for our draft recommendations. One stated that our approach in the Herne area seemed pragmatic. The other felt that under the draft recommendations, councillors would be representing areas with shared interests.

In light of the support for our draft recommendations for Hampton and Heron wards, we are confirming them as final.

Hersden with Westbere and Sturry

We received comments from Westbere Parish Council about our draft recommendations for this area.

While it did not object to the splitting of the current Sturry ward into two separate wards, it advocated for Hersden ward to be renamed Hersden with Westbere.

We note that the Hersden ward is made up of Hersden and Westbere parishes. We are therefore content to rename the ward, Hersden with Westbere.

Except for this name change, we make no further changes and confirm the boundaries of our draft recommendations for these wards as final.

Canterbury and Blean

We received an alternative warding pattern for the wards in this area from a resident. The resident objected to the inclusion of urban and rural areas in the same ward. They particularly objected to the inclusion of Thanington parish in a ward with Chartham, Lower Hardres & Nackington, Petham, Upper Hardres and Waltham parishes.

The resident proposed retaining the boundaries of the existing two-councillor Chartham & Stone Street ward, with the split of Harbledown & Rough Common parish across wards. They also proposed a two-councillor Barton ward and a two-councillor Wincheap based on the existing wards. Their proposed Barton ward was forecast to have 12% fewer electors than the average for Canterbury City Council by 2029.

Furthermore, the resident did not support the inclusion of unparished areas of Canterbury in a ward with Blean and Hackington parishes and proposed changes and consequential ones to wards in that area as well as St Martin’s and Westgate. The resident expressed support for the draft recommendations for St Stephen’s ward.

We have carefully considered the proposed wards and note that while we received other objections about our inclusion of Thanington parish in a mostly rural ward, on the basis that it was more affiliated to urban Canterbury city and not the rural parishes, we did not receive any other objections to our warding pattern elsewhere in the area. Furthermore, we note that it is dependent on retaining the existing split of Harbledown & Rough Common parish, which we have received support for uniting.

Accordingly, we have not been persuaded to make any changes to the boundaries of our draft recommendations’ Blean Woods and Northgate wards. We have, however, been persuaded to make changes to Chartham, Thanington & Stone Street and St Lawrence wards, with consequential ones to St Martin’s and Westgate wards.

Barton and Wincheap

Our draft recommendations for this area included a three-councillor St Lawrence ward excluding Thanington parish which we included in a ward with other parishes to the south and west.

The comments we received for this area included the supportive ones from the Liberal Democrats and those from the resident who advocated two two-councillor wards based on the existing Barton and Wincheap wards, which included Thanington parish. The resident was of the view that whilst there was no perfect dividing line between the existing Wincheap ward and Barton ward, the communities on the roads that lead off Wincheap and the communities on the roads that lead off the Old Dover Road are distinct communities within Canterbury, and therefore keeping separate wards would better reflect the community interests than a new combined St Lawrence ward. The proposed Barton ward includes Holm Oak Close and the area east of Nunnery Road and South Canterbury Road.

We also received additional comments in relation to our draft recommendations for the ward to the southwest, which mostly did not support the inclusion of Thanington parish there, on the grounds that the parish shared facilities with, and had more in common with, the Wincheap area of Canterbury than with the rural parishes in that ward.

After careful consideration we have been persuaded to base our final recommendations on the resident’s proposals with some modifications to improve the electoral equality of Barton ward. We have modified it to place Lansdown Road in Barton ward. We consider that this is the best balance of our statutory criteria.

Barton and Wincheap are both two-councillor wards forecast to have good electoral equality by 2029.

Blean Forest and St Stephen’s

We received two additional submissions from Harbledown & Rough Common Parish Council and a resident about our draft recommendations for this area. Both submissions were in response to our question about the name of Blean Woods ward and objected to our renaming Blean Forest ward, Blean Woods.

Both the parish council and resident stated that ‘Blean Forest references the ancient Forest of Blean whereas Blean Woods connotes a place more specific and less inclusive’. The resident also expressed the view that Blean Forest was a name that had been used for years and so would connote some continuity. The resident expressed support for the boundaries of the ward.

As mentioned earlier, the Liberal Democrats supported our draft recommendations, including the name of our Blean Woods ward. The resident who proposed a different warding arrangement also supported our draft recommendations for St Stephen’s but proposed a single-councillor Blean Forest ward.

After careful consideration of the submissions we received across the two consultations, we have not been persuaded to make any changes to the boundaries of our draft recommendations for Blean Woods, partly in view of the support for the inclusion of all of Harbledown & Rough Common parish in this ward. Also, as we have only received one submission objecting to the ward boundaries, we are unable to determine if the views expressed by the resident advocating for change is shared more widely.

However, we have been persuaded to change the name of the ward back to Blean Forest. Nevertheless, in the five years following a review, a local authority may seek the Commission’s agreement to change the name of a ward if this reflects community identity and sentiment. After five years, a local authority may make a change without seeking the agreement of the Commission.

We did not receive any more comments specific to St Stephen’s ward. Accordingly, with the exception of the name change referred to in the paragraph above, we confirm our draft recommendations for these two wards as final.

St Martin’s, Northgate and Westgate

We received two submissions from residents in addition to the supportive submission from the Liberal Democrats and the one from a resident advocating a different warding pattern. Both were about Westgate ward.

One resident objected to the reduction of the number of councillors representing Westgate, from two to one. Another resident was of the view that the city centre ‘within the ring road’ ought to have its own dedicated councillors because residents of that area had issues not applicable to those outside of the area.

The resident who advocated for a different warding pattern proposed that the area east of Duck Lane, west of Kingsmead Road and south of Great Stour River be moved into St Martin’s ward. They wanted all of Duck Lane and St Radigund’s Place included in Westgate as in their view these residents identified with the city centre.

We considered the boundary between Northgate, St Martin’s and Westgate both at draft recommendations stage and now. We note that in order to include both sides of Duck Lane and all of St Radigund’s Place in Westgate but move the rest of the area into St Martin’s as proposed by the resident, we would have to draw a boundary through what appears to be a shared courtyard and car park. We were not persuaded to split this shared area nor did we consider it a strong or identifiable boundary. This is why our boundary between Westgate and Northgate runs along Kingsmead Road and why we have included the entire area in question in Westgate ward. We have not been persuaded to change this.

As mentioned earlier, we have also not been persuaded to make changes that split Harbledown & Rough Common parish and Blean Forest ward. However, we have included Bingley Close and St Andrews Close just outside the ring road in Westgate ward, as it facilitates a Wincheap ward with good electoral equality.

With regards to the number of councillors for Westgate ward, the number of councillors representing an area is dependent on and in proportion to the number of electors in that area. In the case of Westgate, both the number of electors and the area covered by the new ward are very different from that of the existing ward. Westgate ward is forecast to have 10% more electors per councillor than the average for Canterbury City Council by 2029.

With regards to the area within the ring road having a dedicated councillor representing it, such a ward is forecast to have at least 6% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the local authority area, by 2029. We were not persuaded by the evidence we received to create such a ward.

St Martin’s, Northgate and Westgate wards are all forecast to have good electoral equality by 2029.

We asked for views on the name of Northgate ward. We received one comment from the Liberal Democrats who suggested Vauxhall after the retail and industrial area of the ward. They indicated that they did not have any strong views about it. We have decided to retain the name Northgate as we are unable to tell if Vauxhall resonates with the community in the area.