Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements ......18 Nyetimber 1 10,069 10,069 20...

Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council
February 2004

2

© Crown Copyright 2004 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper.

Contents page What is The Boundary Committee for England? 5 Summary 7

1 Introduction 15

2 Current electoral arrangements 19

3 Submissions received 23

4 Analysis and draft recommendations 25

5 What happens next? 53

Appendices A Draft recommendations for West Sussex County Council: detailed mapping

55

B Code of practice on written consultation 57

3

What is The Boundary Committee for England? The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The functions of the Local Government Commission for England were transferred to The Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee on 1 April 2002 by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of functions) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3692). The Order also transferred to The Electoral Commission the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to taking decisions on recommendations for changes to local authority electoral arrangements and implementing them. Members of the Committee: Pamela Gordon (Chair) Professor Michael Clarke CBE Robin Gray Joan Jones CBE Ann M. Kelly Professor Colin Mellors Archie Gall (Director) We are required by law to review the electoral arrangements of every principal local authority in England. Our aim is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor in an area is as nearly as possible the same, taking into account local circumstances. We can recommend changes to the number of councillors elected to the council, division boundaries and division names.

5

Summary We began a review of the electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council on 11 March 2003. • This report summarises the submissions we received during the first stage of the

review, and makes draft recommendations for change. We found that the current arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in West Sussex County Council: • In 36 of the 71 divisions, each of which is currently represented by a single

councillor, the number of electors per councillor varies by more than 10% from the average for the county, and eight divisions vary by more than 20%.

• By 2007 this situation is expected to continue, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10% from the average in 34 divisions and by more than 20% in nine divisions.

Our main proposals for West Sussex County Council’s future electoral arrangements (see Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 167–168) are: • West Sussex County Council should have 70 councillors, one fewer than at

present, representing 62 divisions. • As the divisions are based on district wards which have themselves been

changed as a result of recent district reviews, the boundaries of all divisions, except Northgate & Three Bridges, will be subject to change.

The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that, in future, each county councillor represents approximately the same number of electors, bearing in mind local circumstances. • In 45 of the proposed 62 divisions the number of electors per councillor would

vary by no more than 10% from the average. Only one division would vary by more than 20%.

• This level of electoral equality is expected to continue, with the number of electors per councillor in 46 divisions expected to vary by no more than 10% from the average by 2007. Only one division would vary by more than 20%.

Recommendations are also made for changes to parish council electoral arrangements, which provide for: • revised warding arrangements and the redistribution of councillors for the parish

of Rustington. This report sets out draft recommendations on which comments are invited. • We will consult on these proposals for eight weeks from 24 February 2004. We

take this consultation very seriously. We may decide to move away from our draft recommendations in the light of comments or suggestions that we receive. It is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft recommendations.

• After considering local views we will decide whether to modify our draft recommendations. We will then submit our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission, which will then be responsible for implementing change to the local authority electoral arrangements.

7

• The Electoral Commission will decide whether to accept, modify or reject our final recommendations. It will also decide when any changes will come into effect.

You should express your views by writing directly to us at the address below by 26 April 2004. The Team Leader West Sussex County Council Review The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

8

Table 1: Draft recommendations: Summary

Division name (by district council area)

Number of councillors Constituent district wards

Adur district

1 Kingston Buci 1 Southlands; part of St Mary’s; part of Southwick Green

2 Lancing 1 Churchill; Manor; Mash Barn

3 Saltings 1 Marine; Widewater

4 Shoreham 1 Buckingham; St Nicolas; part of St Mary’s

5 Sompting 1 Cokeham; Peverel

6 Southwick 1 Eastbrook; Hillside; part of Southwick Green

Arun district

7 Angmering & Findon 1 Angmering; Findon

8 Arundel Wick 1 Arundel; Wick with Toddington

9 Bersted 1 Bersted; Pevensey

10 Bognor Regis East 1 Hotham; Orchard

11 Bognor Regis West 1 Aldwick East; Marine

12 East Preston Ferring 1 East Preston with Kingston; Ferring

13 Felpham 1 Felpham East; Felpham West

14 Fontwell 1 Barnham; Walberton

15 Littlehampton Central 1 Ham; River

16 Littlehampton East 1 Beach; Brookfield; part of Rustington West

17 Middleton 1 Middleton-on-Sea; Yapton

18 Nyetimber 1 Aldwick West; Pagham & Rose Green

19 Rustington 1 Rustington East; part of Rustington West

Chichester district

20 Bourne 1 Southbourne; Westbourne; part of Bosham (the parish of Chidham); part of Funtington (the parishes of Compton, Marden and Stoughton)

21 Chichester East 1 Chichester East; North Mundham; Tangmere

22 Chichester North 1 Boxgrove; Chichester North; Lavant

23 Chichester South 1 Chichester South; Donnington; Sidlesham

24 Chichester West 1 Chichester West; Fishbourne; part of Bosham (the parish of Bosham); part of Funtington (the parish of Funtington)

25 Fernhurst 1 Bury; Easebourne; Fernhurst; part of Stedham (the parishes of Cocking, Heyshott and West Lavington)

9



26 Midhurst 1 Harting; Midhurst; Rogate; part of Stedham (the parishes of Bepton, Stedham with Iping and Woolbeding)

27 Petworth 1 Petworth; Plaistow; Wisborough Green

28 Selsey 1 Selsey North; Selsey South

29 The Witterings 1 East Wittering; West Wittering

Crawley borough

30 Broadfield 1 Broadfield North; Broadfield South

31 Gossops Green & Bewbush 2 Bewbush; Gossops Green; Southgate

32 Langley Green & Ifield 2 Ifield; Langley Green; West Green

33 Northgate & Three Bridges 1 Northgate; Three Bridges

34 Pound Hill & Maidenbower 2 Maidenbower; Pound Hill North; Pound Hill South & Worth

35 Tilgate & Furnace Green 1 Furnace Green; Tilgate

Horsham district

36 Billingshurst 1 Billingshurst & Shipley; Rudgwick

37 Bramber Castle 1 Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote; Steyning

38 Henfield 1 Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead; Henfield

39 Holbrook 1 Holbrook East; Holbrook West

40 Horsham Carfax 1 Denne; Trafalgar

41 Horsham Riverside 1 Forest; Horsham Park

42 Pulborough 1 Pulborough & Coldwaltham; part of Chanctonbury (the parishes of Thakeham and West Chiltington)

43 Roffey 1 Roffey North; Roffey South

44 Southwater & Nuthurst 1 Nuthurst; Southwater

45 Storrington 1 Chantry; part of Chanctonbury (the parishes of Ashington and Wiston)

46 Warnham Rusper 1 Broadbridge Heath; Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham; Rusper & Colgate

Mid Sussex district

47 Burgess Hill 2 Burgess Hill Dunstall; Burgess Hill Franklands; Burgess Hill Leylands; Burgess Hill Meeds; Burgess Hill St Andrews

48 Cuckfield 1 Cuckfield; Haywards Heath Lucastes

49 East Grinstead 2 Ashurst Wood; East Grinstead Ashplats; East Grinstead Baldwins; East Grinstead Herontye; East Grinstead Town

50 Hassocks 1 Burgess Hill Victoria; Hassocks

51 Haywards Heath East 1 Haywards Heath Bentswood; Haywards Heath Franklands

52 Haywards Heath Town 1 Haywards Heath Ashenground; Haywards Heath Heath

10



53 Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 1 Bolney; Hurstpierpoint & Downs

54 Imberdown 1 East Grinstead Imberhorne; part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill (Crawley Down parish ward of Worth parish)

55 Lindfield 1 High Weald; Lindfield

56 Worth Forest 1 Ardingly & Balcombe; Copthorne & Worth; part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill (Turners Hill parish)

Worthing borough

57 Castle 2 Castle; Goring; Northbrook

58 Gaisford 2 Broadwater; Gaisford; Tarring

59 Salvington 2 Durrington; Offington; Salvington

60 Worthing East 1 Selden; part of Central

61 Worthing Pier 1 Part of Central; part of Heene

62 Worthing West 1 Marine; part of Heene

Notes 1. The constituent district wards are those resulting from the electoral reviews of West Sussex

districts which were completed in 2002. Where whole district wards do not form the building blocks in parished areas, constituent parishes and parish wards are listed.

2. Sheet 1 inserted at the back of the report illustrates the proposed divisions outlined above and the maps on Sheet 2 illustrate some of the proposed boundaries in more detail.

11

Table 2: Draft recommendations for West Sussex County Council


Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from average

%

Adur district

1 Kingston Buci 1 7,678 7,678 -9 8,287 8,287 -5

2 Lancing 1 9,984 9,984 19 10,158 10,158 17

3 Saltings 1 7,676 7,676 -9 7,870 7,870 -10

4 Shoreham 1 7,233 7,233 -14 7,360 7,360 -15

5 Sompting 1 6,819 6,819 -19 6,915 6,915 -21

6 Southwick 1 7,784 7,784 -7 7,932 7,932 -9

Arun district

7 Angmering & Findon 1 6,722 6,722 -20 7,615 7,615 -13

8 Arundel Wick 1 7,178 7,178 -15 7,538 7,538 -13

9 Bersted 1 9,711 9,711 16 10,043 10,043 15

10 Bognor Regis East 1 7,705 7,705 -8 8,119 8,119 -7

11 Bognor Regis West 1 7,983 7,983 -5 8,240 8,240 -5

12 East Preston Ferring 1 9,616 9,616 14 9,640 9,640 11

13 Felpham 1 7,923 7,923 -6 8,173 8,173 -6

14 Fontwell 1 8,636 8,636 3 8,770 8,770 1

15 Littlehampton Central 1 7,210 7,210 -14 7,473 7,473 -14

16 Littlehampton East 1 9,428 9,428 12 9,475 9,475 9

17 Middleton 1 8,181 8,181 -3 8,381 8,381 -4

18 Nyetimber 1 10,069 10,069 20 10,183 10,183 17

19 Rustington 1 8,989 8,989 7 9,125 9,125 5

Chichester district

20 Bourne 1 8,994 8,994 7 9,308 9,308 7

21 Chichester East 1 8,785 8,785 5 9,305 9,305 7

22 Chichester North 1 8,049 8,049 -4 8,583 8,583 -1

23 Chichester South 1 8,560 8,560 2 8,833 8,833 1

24 Chichester West 1 8,991 8,991 7 9,420 9,420 8

25 Fernhurst 1 8,412 8,412 0 8,613 8,613 -1

12


Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from average

%

26 Midhurst 1 8,710 8,710 4 8,958 8,958 3

27 Petworth 1 9,464 9,464 13 9,819 9,819 13

28 Selsey 1 8,310 8,310 -1 8,652 8,652 -1

29 The Witterings 1 7,883 7,883 -6 8,352 8,352 -4

Crawley borough

30 Broadfield 1 8,608 8,608 2 8,808 8,808 1

31 Gossops Green & Bewbush 2 16,043 8,022 -5 16,625 8,313 -5

32 Langley Green & Ifield 2 15,460 7,730 -8 16,252 8,126 -7

33 Northgate & Three Bridges 1 7,773 7,773 -8 8,056 8,056 -7

34 Pound Hill & Maidenbower 2 16,563 8,282 -1 18,087 9,044 4

35 Tilgate & Furnace Green 1 8,990 8,990 7 9,068 9,068 4

Horsham district

36 Billingshurst 1 8,297 8,297 -1 8,874 8,874 2

37 Bramber Castle 1 9,126 9,126 9 9,313 9,313 7

38 Henfield 1 8,131 8,131 -3 8,586 8,586 -1

39 Holbrook 1 8,474 8,474 1 8,558 8,558 -2

40 Horsham Carfax 1 8,633 8,633 3 8,833 8,833 1

41 Horsham Riverside 1 8,773 8,773 4 8,998 8,998 3

42 Pulborough 1 8,779 8,779 4 9,158 9,158 5

43 Roffey 1 9,617 9,617 14 9,781 9,781 12

44 Southwater & Nuthurst 1 9,091 9,091 8 9,391 9,391 8

45 Storrington 1 9,072 9,072 8 9,446 9,446 9

46 Warnham Rusper 1 8,246 8,246 -2 8,559 8,559 -2

Mid Sussex district

47 Burgess Hill 2 17,636 8,818 5 17,858 8,929 3

48 Cuckfield 1 6,301 6,301 -25 8,298 8,298 -5

49 East Grinstead 2 16,141 8,071 -4 16,417 8,209 -6

50 Hassocks 1 9,466 9,466 13 9,827 9,827 13

51 Haywards Heath East 1 7,229 7,229 -14 7,518 7,518 -14

13


Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from average

%

52 Haywards Heath Town 1 7,585 7,585 -10 7,675 7,675 -12

53 Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 1 7,384 7,384 -12 7,896 7,896 -9

54 Imberdown 1 7,640 7,640 -9 7,688 7,688 -12

55 Lindfield 1 9,281 9,281 10 9,331 9,331 7

56 Worth Forest 1 8,806 8,806 5 9,058 9,058 4

Worthing borough

57 Castle 2 16,459 8,230 -2 17,356 8,678 0

58 Gaisford 2 19,706 9,853 17 19,740 9,870 13

59 Salvington 2 17,566 8,783 4 17,473 8,737 0

60 Worthing East 1 8,079 8,079 -4 8,210 8,210 -6

61 Worthing Pier 1 8,285 8,285 -1 8,951 8,951 3

62 Worthing West 1 8,491 8,491 1 8,552 8,552 -2

Totals 70 588,414 – – 609,381 – –

Averages – – 8,406 – – 8,705 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by West Sussex County Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of

electors per councillor varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

14

1 Introduction 1 This report contains our proposals for the electoral arrangements for the county of West Sussex, on which we are now consulting. Our review of the county is part of the programme of periodic electoral reviews (PERs) of all 386 principal local authority areas in England. This programme started in 1996 and is expected to finish in 2004. 2 In carrying out these county reviews, we must have regard to:

• the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by SI 2001 No. 3692), i.e. the need to; − reflect the identities and interests of local communities; − secure effective and convenient local government; and − achieve equality of representation:

• Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972. • The general duty set out in section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the

statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to: − eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; − promote equality of opportunity; and − promote good relations between people of different racial groups.

3 Details of the legislation under which we work are set out in The Electoral Commission’s Guidance and Procedural Advice for Periodic Electoral Reviews (published by the EC in July 2002). This Guidance sets out our approach to the reviews. 4 Our task is to make recommendations on the number of councillors who should serve on a council, and the number, boundaries and names of electoral divisions. In each two-tier county, our approach is first to complete the PERs of all the constituent districts and, when the Orders for the resulting changes in those areas have been made, then to commence a PER of the county council’s electoral arrangements. Orders were made for the new electoral arrangements in the districts in West Sussex in November and December 2002 and we are now embarking on our county review in this area. 5 Prior to the commencement of Part IV of the Local Government Act 2000, each county council division could only return one member. This restraint has now been removed by section 89 of the 2000 Act, and we may now recommend the creation of multi-member county divisions. In areas where we are unable to identify single-member divisions that are coterminous with ward boundaries and provide acceptable levels of electoral equality we will consider recommending multi-member divisions if they provide a better balance between these two factors. However, we do not expect to recommend large numbers of multi-member divisions other than, perhaps, in the more urban areas of a county. 6 Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 sets out the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements. These statutory rules state that each division should be wholly contained within a single district and that division boundaries should not split unwarded parishes or parish wards. 7 In the Guidance, we state that we wish wherever possible to build on schemes which have been created locally on the basis of careful and effective consultation. Local people are normally in a better position to judge what council size and division configurations are most likely to secure effective and convenient local government in their areas, while also reflecting the identities and interests of local communities.

15

8 The broad objective of PERs is to achieve, as far as possible, equal representation across the local authority as a whole. Schemes which would result in, or retain, an electoral imbalance of over 10% in any division will have to be fully justified. Any imbalances of 20%

or more should only arise in the most exceptional circumstances, and will require the strongest justification. 9 Similarly, we will seek to ensure that each district area within the county is allocated the correct number of county councillors with respect to the district’s proportion of the county’s electorate. 10 The Rules provide that, in considering county council electoral arrangements, we should have regard to the boundaries of district wards. We attach considerable importance to achieving coterminosity between the boundaries of divisions and wards. The term ‘coterminosity’ is used throughout the report and refers to situations where the boundaries of county electoral divisions and district wards are the same, that is to say where county divisions comprise either one or more whole district wards. 11 We recognise, however, that it is unlikely to be possible to achieve absolute coterminosity throughout a county area while also providing for the optimum level of electoral equality. In this respect, county reviews are different from those of districts. We will seek to achieve the best available balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, taking into account the statutory criteria. While the proportion of electoral divisions that will be coterminous with the boundaries of district wards is likely to vary between counties, we would normally expect coterminosity to be achieved in a significant majority of divisions. The average level of coterminosity secured under our final recommendations for the first eleven counties that we have reviewed (excluding the Isle of Wight) is 70%. We would normally expect to recommend levels of coterminosity of around 60% to 80%. 12 Where coterminosity is not possible in parished areas, and a district ward is to be split between electoral divisions, we would normally expect this to be achieved without dividing (or further dividing) a parish between divisions. There are likely to be exceptions to this, however, particularly where larger parishes are involved. 13 We are not prescriptive on council size. However, we believe that any proposals relating to council size, whether these are for an increase, a reduction or no change, should be supported by evidence and argumentation. Given the stage now reached in the introduction of new political management structures under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, it is important that whatever council size interested parties may propose to us they can demonstrate that their proposals have been fully thought through, and have been developed in the context of a review of internal political management and the role of councillors in the new structure. However, we have found it necessary to safeguard against upward drift in the number of councillors, and we believe that any proposal for an increase in council size will need to be fully justified. In particular, we do not accept that an increase in electorate should automatically result in an increase in the number of councillors, nor that changes should be made to the size of a council simply to make it more consistent with the size of other similar councils. 14 A further area of difference between county and district reviews is that we must recognise that it will not be possible to avoid the creation of some county divisions which contain diverse communities, for example, combining rural and urban areas. We have generally sought to avoid this in district reviews in order to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Some existing county council electoral divisions comprise a number of distinct communities, which is inevitable given the larger number of electors represented by each councillor, and we would expect that similar situations would continue under our recommendations in seeking the best balance between coterminosity and the statutory criteria. 15 As a part of this review we may also make recommendations for change to the electoral arrangements of parish and town councils in the county. However, we made some recommendations for new parish electoral arrangements as part of our district reviews. We

16

therefore expect to put forward such recommendations during county reviews only on an exceptional basis. In any event, we are not able to review administrative boundaries between local authorities or parishes, or consider the establishment of new parish areas as part of this review. The review of West Sussex County Council 16 We completed the reviews of the seven district council areas in West Sussex in July 2002, and Orders for the new electoral arrangements have since been made. This is our first review of the electoral arrangements of West Sussex County Council. The last such review was undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission, which reported to the Secretary of State in June 1984 (Report No. 473). 17 The review is in four stages (see Table 3). Table 3: Stages of the review Stage Description

One Submission of proposals to us

Two Our analysis and deliberation

Three Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them

Four Final deliberation and report to The Electoral Commission

18 Stage One began on 11 March 2003, when we wrote to West Sussex County Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. We also notified the seven district and borough councils in the county, Sussex Police Authority, the Local Government Association, West Sussex Association of Local Councils, parish and town councils in the county, Members of Parliament with constituencies in the county, Members of the European Parliament for the South East Region and the headquarters of the main political parties. We placed a notice in the local press, issued a press release and invited West Sussex County Council to publicise the review further. The closing date for receipt of submissions (the end of Stage One) was 7 July 2003. 19 At Stage Two we considered all the submissions received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations. 20 We are currently at Stage Three. This stage, which began on 24 February 2004 and will end on 26 April 2004, involves publishing the draft proposals in this report and public consultation on them. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. 21 During Stage Four we will reconsider the draft recommendations in the light of the Stage Three consultation, decide whether to modify them, and submit final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission will decide whether to accept, modify or reject our final recommendations. If The Electoral Commission accepts the recommendations, with or without modification, it will make an Order and decide when any changes come into effect.

17

Equal opportunities 22 In preparing this report the Committee has had regard to the general duty under section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote racial equality and to the approach set out in BCFE (03) 35, Race Relations Legislation, which the Committee considered and agreed at its meeting on 9 April 2003.

18

2 Current electoral arrangements 23 The county of West Sussex comprises the seven districts and boroughs of Adur, Arun, Chichester, Crawley, Horsham, Mid Sussex and Worthing. West Sussex is a largely rural county. Gatwick airport is located in Crawley district, which is the main manufacturing and employment centre, although the coastal areas do provide some tourist trade. 24 The electorate of the county is 588,414 (December 2002). The Council presently has 71 members, with one member elected from each division. 25 To compare levels of electoral inequality between divisions, we calculated, in percentage terms, the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each division (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the county average. In the text which follows, this figure may also be described using the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’. 26 At present each councillor represents an average of 8,288 electors, which the County Council forecasts will increase to 8,583 by the year 2007 if the present number of councillors is maintained. However, due to demographic change and migration over the last two decades, the number of electors per councillor in 36 of the 71 divisions varies by more than 10% from the county average, and eight divisions vary by more than 20%. The worst imbalance is in Furnace Green division where the councillor represents 62% more electors than the county average. 27 As detailed previously, in considering the County Council’s electoral arrangements we must have regard to the boundaries of district wards. Following the completion of the reviews of district warding arrangements in West Sussex, we are therefore faced with a new starting point for considering electoral divisions. Our proposals for county divisions will be based on the new district wards as opposed to those, which existed prior to the recent reviews. In view of the effect of these new district wards and changes in the electorate over the past twenty years, which have resulted in electoral imbalances across the county, changes to most if not all of the existing county electoral divisions are inevitable.

19

Table 4: Existing electoral arrangements Division name (by district council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Variance

from average

%

Adur district

1 Kingston Buci 1 7,121 -14 7,438 -13

2 Lancing 1 8,517 3 8,669 1

3 Saltings 1 9,335 13 9,551 11

4 Shoreham 1 8,629 4 9,082 6

5 Sompting 1 6,627 -20 6,723 -22

6 Southwick 1 6,945 -16 7,059 -18

Arun district

7 Arun East 1 6,333 -24 6,340 -26

8 Arundel & Angmering 1 8,236 -1 9,183 7

9 Bersted 1 9,613 16 10,018 17

10 Bognor Regis 1 8,655 4 8,925 4

11 Felpham 1 7,829 -6 8,078 -6

12 Fontwell 1 8,636 4 8,770 2

13 Hotham 1 7,359 -11 7,687 -10

14 Littlehampton North 1 7,154 -14 7,292 -15

15 Littlehampton Town 1 9,814 18 10,302 20

16 Middleton 1 8,275 0 8,476 -1

17 Nyetimber 1 9,841 19 9,955 16

18 Preston Manor 1 8,747 6 8,860 3

19 Rustington West 1 8,859 7 8,889 4

Chichester district

20 Bourne 1 8,994 9 9,308 8

21 Chichester East 1 7,372 -11 7,667 -11

22 Chichester North 1 7,327 -12 8,039 -6

23 Chichester South 1 8,544 3 8,777 2

24 Chichester West 1 8,460 2 8,881 3

25 Fernhurst 1 8,126 -2 8,287 -3

20


Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Variance

from average

%

26 Midhurst 1 9,315 12 9,591 12

27 Petworth 1 9,145 10 9,512 11

28 Selsey & Sidlesham 1 9,243 12 9,611 12

29 The Witterings 1 9,632 16 10,170 18

Crawley borough

30 Bewbush 1 8,325 0 8,392 -2

31 Broadfield 1 8,608 4 8,808 3

32 Furnace Green 1 13,417 62 13,637 59

33 Gossops Green 1 7,200 -13 7,530 -12

34 Ifield 1 6,173 -26 6,735 -22

35 Langley Green 1 6,955 -16 7,169 -16

36 Northgate Three Bridges 1 7,773 -6 8,056 -6

37 Pound Hill 1 7,614 -8 8,967 4

38 Tilgate 1 7,372 -11 7,602 -11

Horsham district

39 Billingshurst 1 7,351 -11 7,922 -8

40 Henfield 1 8,700 5 9,179 7

41 Holbrook 1 11,771 42 12,026 40

42 Hurst 1 6,312 -24 6,405 -25

43 Pulborough 1 9,387 13 9,785 14

44 Riverside 1 8,384 1 8,602 0

45 Roffey 1 8,843 7 8,998 5

46 Southwater 1 11,204 35 11,564 35

47 Steyning 1 8,557 3 8,720 2

48 Storrington 1 8,464 2 8,819 3

49 Warnham 1 7,266 -12 7,477 -13

Mid Sussex district

50 Burgess Hill Central 1 9,715 17 9,744 14

51 Burgess Hill East 1 7,263 -12 7,456 -13

21


Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Variance

from average

%

52 Cuckfield Rural 1 7,497 -10 7,785 -9

53 East Grinstead East 1 7,291 -12 7,456 -13

54 East Grinstead South 1 7,590 -8 7,687 -10

55 Hassocks & Burgess Hill West 1 10,124 22 10,485 22

56 Haywards Heath East 1 7,229 -13 7,518 -12

57 Haywards Heath West 1 7,172 -13 8,885 4

58 Imberdown 1 10,511 27 10,570 23

59 Lindfield 1 7,546 -9 7,709 -10

60 Mid Sussex North 1 8,566 3 8,804 3

61 Mid Sussex South 1 6,965 -16 7,467 -13

Worthing borough

62 Broadwater 1 7,439 -10 7,555 -12

63 Cissbury 1 8,505 3 8,482 -1

64 Durrington 1 8,274 0 9,230 8

65 East Worthing 1 7,959 -4 8,140 -5

66 Goring-by-Sea 1 7,989 -4 8,003 -7

67 Maybridge 1 7,037 -15 6,932 -19

68 Richmond 1 7,060 -15 7,606 -11

69 Salvington 1 7,953 -4 7,898 -8

70 West Parade 1 8,630 4 8,750 2

71 West Tarring 1 7,740 -7 7,686 -10

Totals 71 588,414 – 609,381 –

Averages – 8,288 – 8,583 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by West Sussex County Council. Note: Each division is represented by a single councillor, and the electorate columns denote the

number of electors represented by each councillor. The ‘variance from average’ column shows how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors represented by each councillor varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in 2002, electors in Ifield division in Crawley borough were relatively over-represented by 26%, while electors in Furnace Green division in Crawley borough were relatively under-represented by 62%. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

22

3 Submissions received 28 At the start of this review we invited members of the public and other interested parties to write to us giving their views on the future electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council and its constituent parish and town councils. 29 During this initial stage of the review, officers from The Boundary Committee visited the area and met officers and members of the County Council. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 43 submissions during Stage One, including county-wide schemes from West Sussex County Council, Councillor Jones (member for Hotham division) and Councillor Deedman (member for Steyning division). All of these submissions may be inspected at our offices and those of the County Council. West Sussex County Council 30 The County Council proposed a council of 70 members and a uniform pattern of single-member divisions across the county. Under the County Council’s proposals 23 divisions would have electoral variances of over 10%, with one division having an electoral variance of over 20% both now, and by 2007. District and Borough Councils 31 We received three submissions from district councils. Arun District Council put forward one of the schemes the County Council had formulated as part of its consultation process, while both Horsham District Council and Mid Sussex District Council supported the proposals put forward by the County Council for their respective areas. Political Groups 32 We received two submissions from political groups. Tilgate Branch Labour Party expressed concern over a division name proposed by the County Council in Crawley borough and put forward an alternative. Gossops Green Branch Labour Party put forward a borough-wide scheme for Crawley. Parish and Town Councils 33 We received responses from 21 parish and town councils. In Adur district, Lancing and Sompting parish councils opposed the proposals of the County Council. They proposed that the existing Sompting division should remain unchanged. 34 In the district of Arun, East Preston Parish Council opposed the County Council’s scheme as it divided the parish between two divisions, necessitating warding of the parish. Ferring Parish Council opposed the County Council’s proposals which included part of East Preston parish being placed in a division with Ferring. Littlehampton Town Council put forward a partial scheme in the east of the district. 35 In Chichester district, Linch Parish Meeting and Easebourne Parish Council stated that they were satisfied with the current arrangements. Sidlesham Parish Council supported the County Council’s proposed Chichester South division. Harting Parish Council stated that it had no comments or objections regarding the review. 36 In Horsham district, Slinfold Parish Council objected to an increase in the size of an area that a councillor covers. Both North Horsham Parish Council and Southwater Parish Council stated that they had no comments to make. We received two submissions from Nuthurst Parish Council who stated that they did not wish to be included in the County Council’s

23

proposed Southwater division without some recognition. The Parish Council therefore proposed that the division be called Southwater & Nuthurst. 37 In Mid Sussex district, Ashurst Wood, Ardingly and Turners Hill parish councils generally supported the scheme put forward by the County Council. Burgess Hill Town Council proposed that Burgess Hill be represented by three councillors in three wholly urban divisions. Haywards Heath Town Council also proposed that all of Haywards Heath should be contained within wholly urban divisions. Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Parish Council did not consider it satisfactory to include sections of towns with rural divisions and therefore did not wish to be linked with Burgess Hill Dunstall ward. Both East Grinstead Town Council and Worth Parish Council stated that they had no proposals to make in relation to the draft recommendations. Other representations 38 We received a further 16 submissions from councillors and local residents. Councillor Jones (member for Hotham division) put forward a 76-member county-wide scheme based on single-member divisions which he stated he had ‘compiled in consultation with fellow councillors and colleagues from the local parties across West Sussex’. He stated that his scheme aimed to ‘reunite communities … [and] preserve the identity of parishes and keep to either predominantly urban or rural divisions’. 39 Councillor Deedman (member for Steyning division) put forward a 69-member county-wide scheme. He supported the County Council’s proposals in the districts of Chichester, Horsham and Mid Sussex and the borough of Crawley. 40 In Arun district Councillor Freeman (member for Middleton division) put forward one of the schemes the County Council formulated as part of its consultation process, stating it retained that ‘precious element of their quality of life’. Two local residents opposed the district warding arrangements in the Wick area of Arun district. In Crawley borough Councillor Mullins (member for Gossops Green division) opposed the County Council’s scheme and put forward an alternative scheme. Councillor Smith (member for Furnace Green division) supported the County Council’s scheme but proposed that the County Council’s proposed Maidenbower division be renamed Maidenbower Worth. Councillor Sully (member for Bewbush division) opposed the inclusion of Worth in the name of this division and also noted that local residents opposed the County Council’s scheme in the Gossops Green area. Two local residents opposed the name of the County Council’s proposed Tilgate Park division and proposed that it be renamed either Tilgate & Furnace Green or Furnace Green & Tilgate. 41 In Horsham district Councillor Watson (member for Southwater division) and two local residents both proposed that the County Council’s proposed Southwater division be renamed Southwater & Nuthurst. In Mid Sussex district Councillor Collins (member for East Grinstead division) proposed that the County Council’s proposed East Grinstead South division be renamed East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wood. Hurstpierpoint Society proposed uniting Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common and Albourne parishes in the same division. James Elles MEP stated that he had no comments to make regarding the review at this stage.

24

4 Analysis and draft recommendations 42 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council and welcome comments from all those interested relating to the proposed division boundaries, number of councillors and division names. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. 43 As with our reviews of districts, our primary aim in considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council is to achieve electoral equality. In doing so we have regard to section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended) – the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and secure the matters referred to in paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 (equality of representation). Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 refers to the number of electors per councillor being ‘as nearly as may be, the same in every division of the county’. 44 In relation to Schedule 11, our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of local government electors likely to take place over the next five years. We must also have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiable boundaries and maintaining local ties, and to the boundaries of district wards. 45 We have discussed in Chapter One the additional parameters which apply to reviews of county council electoral arrangements and the need to have regard to the boundaries of district wards in order to achieve coterminosity. In addition, our approach is to ensure that, having reached conclusions on the appropriate number of councillors to be elected to the county council, each district council area is allocated the number of county councillors to which it is entitled. 46 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral scheme which results in exactly the same number of electors per councillor in every division of a county. 47 We accept that the achievement of absolute electoral equality for an authority as a whole is likely to be unattainable, especially when also seeking to achieve coterminosity in order to facilitate convenient and effective local government, so there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach, in the context of the statutory criteria, is that such flexibility must be kept to a minimum. Accordingly, we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to be minimised, the aim of electoral equality should be the starting point in any review. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested parties should make electoral equality their starting point, and then make adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as the boundaries of district wards and community identity. Five-year forecasts of changes in electorate must also be taken into account, and we would aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral equality over this five-year period. 48 The recommendations do not affect county, district or parish external boundaries, local taxes, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that these recommendations will have an adverse effect on house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our proposals do not take account of parliamentary boundaries, and we are not therefore able to take into account any representations that are based on these issues.

25

Electorate forecasts 49 Since 1975 there has been a 25% increase in the electorate of West Sussex. The County Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2007, projecting an increase in the electorate of 4% from 588,414 to 609,381 over the five-year period from 2002 to 2007. Most of the growth is expected to be in Crawley and Mid Sussex, although the growth is expected to be fairly uniform throughout the county. In order to prepare these forecasts, the Council estimated rates and locations of housing development with regard to structure and local plans, the expected rate of building over the five-year period and assumed occupancy rates. Advice from the County Council on the likely effect on electorates of changes to division boundaries has been obtained. 50 During Stage Two, Councillor Jones (member for Hotham division) stated that in several wards he ‘had cause to disagree with the County Council’s predicted figures’. He queried the figures ‘in areas where there has been a significant fall in the numbers which the County Council predicted would be in these wards in 2002 based on the 2001 electoral registration figures in areas where there is likely to be significant residential development by 2007’. We asked the County Council to consider his comments regarding the electorate forecasts. The County Council responded, stating that it was ‘satisfied that it obtained the best available information, and used this in a consistent manner to arrive at projected figures for 2007’. It stated that Arun, which was one of the districts that Councillor Jones queried the figures for, ‘did experience a reduction in electorate in 2002 over 2001 [and that] subsequent action by Arun District Council resulted in upwardly revised electorate figures, which were taken into account in the County Council’s predictions’. The County Council stated that the method it had used to calculate the electorate forecasts ‘was applied consistently to all the wards within a district’. 51 We know that forecasting electorates is difficult and, having considered all the evidence received concerning electorate forecasts, we accept that the County Council’s figures are the best estimates that can reasonably be made at this time. However, we would welcome further evidence on electorate forecasts during Stage Three. Council size 52 As explained earlier, we now require justification for any council size proposed, whether it is for an increase, decrease, or retention of the existing council size. We received proposals for three different council sizes from the County Council, Councillor Jones (member for Hotham division, and Councillor Deedman (member for Steyning division). 53 In April 2001 West Sussex County Council adopted a Leader and Cabinet system of governance and in its Stage One submission it set out the Council’s basic structure under the new system. The County Council presently has 71 members representing 71 single-member divisions. In its submission it stated that when coming to a decision on council size the Council had decided that ‘work on the submission should be based on a council of about 71, its present level of membership’. It stated that ‘this decision reflected an assessment that the new political management structure introduced … had not had a significant impact on the overall workload of members’. The County Council described the function and responsibilities of the Council under the new political management structure. It outlined the various committees in place, including the all-party Governance Committee, the Standards Committee and a number of non-Executive Committees. It stated that the community leadership role of members is likely to expand ‘as part of the modernisation of local government’ and that the County Council ‘has also agreed the principle of establishing area committees … across West Sussex’.

26

54 The County Council noted that in some areas of its work the workload of the councillors had decreased as a result of the new political management structure and in other areas it had increased. For example it stated: ‘The Cabinet took 57 decisions in 2000/1; 42 in

2001/2; and 28 in 2002/3’. It stated that the Select Committees that operate under the new structure ‘hold the executive to account’. It stated that they meet on a monthly basis and ‘and consider issues identified through a self-generated programme,’ and noted that ‘this work provides an opportunity for the Select Committees to inform and develop County Council policy’. 55 The County Council compared the pre-2001 political management structure with the new Leader and Cabinet model and detailed the responsibilities of the Cabinet under the new system. The County Council stated that ‘while the burden of attending meetings under the previous committee and sub-committee may have been reduced, this has been balanced by increases in work in other areas’. It stated that the ‘enhanced community leadership role … takes up more of members’ time, as does the developing role of local authorities in new areas of activity, such as scrutiny of health services within the county’. 56 Having decided that a council size of ‘about 71’ would secure the most effective and convenient local government for West Sussex, the County Council decided on a council of 70 members, one fewer than at present. It concluded that a council size of 70 would provide the best allocation of councillors between the seven districts although it noted that in Worthing the level of representation would be reduced and this ‘has caused considerable anguish to the current county councillors’. It stated that its proposed council size ‘would best meet the future needs of West Sussex County Council.’ 57 Councillor Jones opposed a decrease in council size. He proposed a council size of 76, and went on to state that ‘if a 76 member scheme is not acceptable’ to The Boundary Committee then a scheme of between 71 and 75 members should be adopted. He stated that the County Council did ‘not have a proper consultation about the optimum number of councillors’. He considered that ‘by needlessly deciding on a number before appropriate schemes had been worked out which sensibly expressed community ties as well as electoral equality, boundaries have been contorted and the result has been the putting together of areas with poor community ties, many divisions oversized … and the unnecessary mixing of predominantly urban wards with predominantly rural ones’. However, as outlined in the Electoral Commission’s Guidance, when considering what council size to adopt we must first consider the political management structure under the new council size before considering factors such as community identity, the allocation of councillors between districts, and boundaries of the new divisions. 58 Councillor Deedman proposed a council size of 69, which would provide the same allocation of councillors between districts as the County Council’s scheme, except in Adur, which would be entitled to one less. He did not provide any evidence or argumentation in support of his proposed council size. 59 We have not been persuaded by Councillor Jones’s proposal that a council size of between 71 and 76 would provide effective and convenient local government as he has not provided any evidence in terms of the new political management structure. Similarly we have not been persuaded to adopt a council size of 69, as proposed by Councillor Deedman, as we received no evidence at all in relation to the new political management structure. 60 We considered that the County Council provided a good level of evidence detailing the role of councillors under the new political management structure. It outlined the representative role of the councillors and also compared the new system with the old committee system. We consider that the County Council has provided good argumentation and evidence in support of a council size of around 71 and we have been persuaded that a council size of around this size would provide for effective and convenient local government. We note that the County Council decided to propose a council size of 70 as this provided the best allocation of councillors for a council size of around 71. We consider that matters such as the allocation of councillors between districts can only be taken into account after a

27

decision has been made on council size. We recognise that the County Council first established that a council size of around 71 would provide the most effective and convenient local government for West Sussex. We also consider that minor adjustments around this figure are acceptable in order to provide the correct allocation of councillors between the seven districts and boroughs of West Sussex. 61 We are proposing to adopt the County Council’s proposed council size as we consider that it has provided strong evidence and argumentation in support of its proposal and has considered the council size in light of the new political management structure. Having looked at the size and distribution of the electorate, the geography and other characteristics of the area, together with the responses received, we conclude that the statutory criteria would best be met by a council of 70 members. Electoral arrangements 62 We have carefully considered all the representations received, including the county-wide schemes from the County Council, Councillor Jones and Councillor Deedman. Our Guidance states that council size is the starting point for periodic electoral reviews, since it determines the number of councillors to which each district or borough is entitled and also determines the county average councillor:elector ratio. Having decided to adopt the County Council’s proposed council size of 70 members as the most appropriate for West Sussex it was very difficult for us to adopt the divisions proposed by Councillor Deedman and Councillor Jones in districts which were provided the incorrect allocation of councillors under this council size. This is because the divisions in these schemes were of different sizes to those required under a council of 70 members, resulting in higher levels of electoral inequality. We have, however, been able to consider their argumentation with regard to community identities in some areas. All of the schemes that we received proposed single-member divisions and with the exception of the County Council’s submission we received no comments regarding the adoption of multi-member divisions. 63 As discussed earlier, the County Council proposed a decrease in council size from 71 to 70. Its proposals would improve electoral equality, compared to the existing arrangements, with the number of divisions where the number of electors would vary by more than 10% from the county average reduced from 36 to 23, and its scheme would provide 56% coterminosity between district wards and county divisions. It proposed all single-member divisions for the county, ‘as it wishes to preserve the clear line of accountability and direct relationship between the elected member and the people that he or she represents’. The County Council undertook a consultation process where it initially consulted on between two and six schemes for each district, with ‘all members of the County Council, West Sussex borough and district councils and principal political parties operating in the county’. It then extended the consultation process and consulted with ‘about 400’ consultees, including borough, district and parish councils, local offices of political parties, community associations and the general public, via public libraries and community centres. It stated that the ‘consultation scheme attracted very little comment or criticism’. 64 Councillor Jones’s scheme would provide 72% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. He proposed a uniform pattern of single-member divisions. In some areas he proposed similar divisions to the County Council but considered that his proposals aimed to ‘reunite communities’ and achieved a ‘greater amount of coterminosity’. Councillor Deedman’s scheme would provide 59% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. He also proposed a uniform pattern of single-member divisions. His scheme was identical to the County Council’s in the districts and boroughs of Chichester, Horsham, Mid Sussex and Crawley but in the remaining districts he considered that his proposals provided a better reflection of community identities. 65 In addition to the county-wide schemes that were submitted at Stage One, we also received a number of district-wide schemes that the County Council had formulated as part

28

of its consultation process. These schemes were submitted by the respondents as they considered that these schemes provided a better level of community identity than those actually submitted by the County Council. We note that the majority of the submissions that we received at Stage One did not provide detailed evidence regarding community identity and we would welcome further evidence concerning the communities of West Sussex at Stage Three. A number of submissions that we received were regarding the names of divisions, especially in Horsham and Crawley. 66 We also received a number of representations from two households regarding the district review of Arun. These residents considered that there had been insufficient publicity regarding the publication of our recommendations in the Wick area. However, as part of this county council review we are unable to revisit the district reviews and therefore have not been able to take into account these representations when formulating our draft recommendations. 67 We are proposing a combination of the County Council’s, Councillor Jones’s and Councillor Deedman’s proposals, with a number of amendments in order to improve the balance between electoral equality and coterminosity and to reflect community identities. In Adur district we are adopting Councillor Jones’s proposals in the west and are making a number of minor amendments to the County Council’s proposals in the east. In Arun district we are adopting Councillor Deedman’s proposal in its entirety. In Chichester district we are proposing a scheme based on the County Council’s scheme with a number of amendments to improve electoral equality. In Crawley borough we are proposing our own three two-member divisions to improve coterminosity and unite communities and are also adopting three of the single-member divisions proposed by the County Council. In Horsham district we are adopting the County Council’s scheme in its entirety, with one name change. In Mid Sussex district we are proposing our own scheme which includes two-member divisions in East Grinstead and Burgess Hill. In Worthing borough we are adopting three divisions proposed by the County Council and are also proposing three two-member divisions to improve coterminosity. 68 Our draft recommendations provide 74% coterminosity between district wards and county divisions. Our proposals would involve re-warding Rustington parish in Arun district in order to facilitate a better balance between electoral equality and community identity. For county division purposes, the seven district and borough areas in the county are considered in turn, as follows: i. Adur district (pages 29 – 32) ii. Arun district (pages 32 – 37) iii. Chichester district (pages 37 – 39) iv. Crawley borough (pages 39 – 42) v. Horsham, district (pages 42 – 44) vi. Mid Sussex district (pages 44 – 47) vii. Worthing borough (pages 47 – 49) 69 Details of our draft recommendations are set out in Tables 1 and 2, and on the large maps inserted at the back of this report. Adur district 70 Under the current arrangements, the district of Adur is represented by six county councillors serving six divisions. Kingston Buci, Sompting and Southwick divisions currently contain 14%, 20% and 16% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (13%, 22% and 18% fewer by 2007). Lancing, Saltings and Shoreham divisions currently contain 3%, 13% and 4% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1%, 11% and 6% more by 2007).

29

71 At Stage One we received five submissions in relation to the district of Adur. The County Council, Councillor Jones and Councillor Deedman all submitted district-wide schemes consisting of a uniform pattern of single-member divisions. 72 The County Council and Councillor Jones both proposed schemes that allocated Adur six councillors, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. In the west of the district the County Council proposed a Sompting division comprising the district wards of Cokeham and Peverel and the southern half of Churchill district ward, to the south of the railway line (polling district AD). It proposed including the remainder of Churchill ward, to the north of the railway line, with Manor and Mash Barn district wards in a Lancing division. In the south of the district it proposed a Saltings division comprising the district wards of Marine and Widewater. 73 In the east of Adur the County Council proposed a Shoreham division comprising the district wards of Buckingham and St Nicolas and the part of St Mary’s district ward lying to the south of the railway line. It proposed a Kingston Buci division comprising Southlands district ward, the remainder of St Mary’s district ward and polling district AX in the western half of Southwick Green district ward. It also proposed a Southwick division comprising the district wards of Eastbrook, Hillside and the remainder of Southwick Green district ward (polling district AW). 74 The County Council’s proposals would provide a relatively poor level of electoral equality, and just 17% coterminosity would be secured between district ward and county division boundaries. Under the County Council’s proposals Kingston Buci, Saltings, Shoreham and Sompting divisions would initially contain 22%, 9%, 14% and 1% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (17%, 10%, 15% and 3% fewer by 2007). The proposed Lancing and Southwick divisions would initially contain 1% and 6% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1% fewer and 4% more by 2007). 75 Councillor Jones stated that ‘the County Council’s proposals for Adur do not give due provenance to the Commission’s coterminous requirements’. He also stated that it was ‘wholly unsuitable’ to include that part of Churchill, the polling district south of the railway line, in a Sompting division because ‘the residential area in Sompting is separated by a very large industrial estate from the residential area in [Churchill] ward and acts as a strong barrier between… the two areas’. He stated that his proposals ‘recognise the distinct identities of Sompting, Lancing, Shoreham and Southwick’. 76 Councillor Jones proposed a Sompting division comprising the district wards of Cokeham and Peverel, a Lancing East division comprising the district wards of Mash Barn and Churchill, and a Lancing West division comprising the district wards of Manor and Elms. In the east of Adur he proposed a Shoreham St Nicholas division comprising the district wards of Buckingham, St Nicolas and Marine. He also proposed a Shoreham St Mary’s division comprising the district wards of Southlands, St Mary’s and part of Southwick Green (polling district AX), and a Southwick division, identical to the County Council’s Southwick division, comprising the district wards of Eastbrook, Hillside and part of Southwick Green (polling district AW). 77 Councillor Jones’s proposals would provide 67% coterminosity between district wards and county divisions, but would provide a poorer level of electoral equality than the County Council’s proposals. Under Councillor Jones’s proposals Lancing East, Lancing West, Shoreham St Marys and Sompting divisions would initially contain 5%, 21%, 12% and 19% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (6%, 22%, 8% and 21% fewer by 2007). The proposed Shoreham St Nicholas and Southwick divisions would initially contain 12% and 6% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (10% and 4% more by 2007).

30

78 Councillor Deedman proposed five single-member divisions in Adur, which under his proposed council size of 69 would provide 60% coterminosity between district wards and county division boundaries. Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Deedman as his scheme was based on a different council size resulting in divisions with a much higher level of electoral inequality. 79 We received two other proposals in relation to Adur district. Lancing and Sompting parish councils both opposed the County Council’s proposals and stated that the existing Sompting division should remain unchanged, as under Councillor Jones’s proposal. Lancing Parish Council also opposed the inclusion of part of Lancing in a Sompting division, stating that ‘geographically and demographically the part of Lancing [polling district AD of Churchill ward] to be included within the Sompting [division], is disparate, and not compatible with the rest of the proposed [division]’. 80 We note that in this district the size and distribution of the existing district wards makes it very difficult to propose single-member divisions with both good electoral equality and a high level of coterminosity. Providing good electoral equality has also been difficult to achieve because, according to the proportion of the county’s electorate that it contains, Adur district is entitled to 5.57 councillors under a council size of 70. It has therefore been allocated six councillors, which makes it difficult to achieve good electoral equality due to the ‘leftover’ portion of the electorate. Consequently a number of divisions will inevitably have relatively poor levels of electoral equality. 81 We propose to adopt a combination of the County Council’s and Councillor Jones’s proposals, with some minor amendments to provide the best balance between the statutory criteria. In the west of Adur we are adopting the Sompting and Lancing divisions proposed by Councillor Jones and supported by both the parish councils. As noted previously, due to the problem of allocation, a number of divisions will have a poor level of electoral equality in Adur. We consider that by adopting these two divisions that have poor levels of electoral equality (21% and 17% respectively by 2007) but are coterminous and reflect community identities and interests we are providing the best balance between the statutory criteria given the constraints in the area while also facilitating our proposals in the rest of the district. 82 In the east of the district and on the coast we are adopting the County Council’s proposals with a number of amendments to improve electoral equality. We are adopting the County Council’s proposed Saltings division as this appears to reflect community identities and interests, is coterminous and provides a good level of electoral equality. We were not persuaded to adopt Councillor Jones’s proposed Shoreham St Nicholas division in this area as we noted that there were no access routes between Marine and St Nicolas district wards within the division and we considered that we had not received sufficient evidence to justify adopting a division with no links, especially in light of the alternative proposals provided by the County Council. 83 We are adopting the County Council’s proposed Shoreham division with no amendments as it is coterminous and facilitates our proposals in the rest of the district. We are also proposing to adopt the County Council’s proposed Southwick and Kingston Buci divisions with some amendments to improve electoral equality. We note that the County Council proposed dividing Southwick Green district ward between these two divisions using polling districts. To improve electoral equality we propose dividing polling district AW between Southwick and Kingston Buci divisions. We are transferring the area broadly to the east of Kingston Lane and west of Victoria Road from the County Council’s proposed Southwick division to the Kingston Buci division. This will ensure that both these divisions have electoral variances of less than 10% from the county average. 84 We are also dividing polling district AX between Kingston Buci and Southwick divisions to improve access routes within the Southwick division. We note that under the County

31

Council’s proposals the electorate to the south of the railway line in the proposed Kingston Buci division would not have direct access links with the rest of the division and we are therefore transferring the electorate to the south of the railway line in polling district AX to the Southwick division. 85 We consider that by transferring parts of these polling districts between these divisions we have improved electoral equality and access links and have consequently improved the balance between the statutory criteria. 86 Under our draft recommendations the district of Adur will have 50% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Under our draft recommendations Kingston Buci, Saltings, Shoreham, Southwick and Sompting divisions will initially contain 9%, 9%, 14%, 7% and 19% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 10%, 15%, 9% and 21% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Lancing division will initially contain 19% more electors per councillor than the county average (17% more by 2007). Our draft proposals are illustrated on Sheets One and Two at the back of the report. Arun district 87 Under the current arrangements the district of Arun is represented by 13 county councillors serving 13 divisions. Arun East, Arundel & Angmering, Felpham, Hotham and Littlehampton North divisions currently contain 24%, 1%, 6%, 11% and 14% fewer electors than the county average respectively (26%, 7%, 6%, 10% and 15% fewer by 2007). Bersted, Bognor Regis, Fontwell, Littlehampton Town, Nyetimber, Preston Manor and Rustington West divisions currently contain 16%, 4%, 4%, 18%, 19%, 6% and 7% more electors than the county average respectively (17%, 4%, 2%, 20%, 16%, 3% and 4% more by 2007). Middleton division would initially have an electoral variance equal to the county average (1% fewer by 2007). 88 At Stage One we received eight submissions in relation to the district of Arun. The County Council, Councillor Jones, Councillor Deedman, Arun District Council and East Preston Parish Council all submitted district-wide schemes consisting of single-member divisions, which were broadly similar in the west of the district but provided alternative arrangements in the east of the district. Councillor Freeman (member for Middleton division) also submitted a district-wide scheme. 89 In Arun the majority of the population lives along the coast, and the rural parished north of the district contains a much smaller proportion of the electorate. The County Council noted that ‘the organisation of the coastal wards from the River Arun eastwards makes it very difficult to devise a scheme that avoids having to split parishes or parish wards’. The County Council’s proposals are illustrated in Table 5. In the west of the district the County Council proposed a Nyetimber division comprising the district wards of Aldwick West and Pagham & Rose Green. It noted that this division would have an electoral variance of 17% from the county average by 2007. However, it noted that the other viable ward that Pagham & Rose Green ward could be combined with is Bersted, which would result in a division with even poorer electoral equality. It also considered improving electoral equality by dividing Aldwick West ward between divisions. However, it noted that this would necessitate parish warding in Bersted and a reduction in coterminosity and stated that ‘for these reasons, splitting Aldwick West was rejected’. 90 In the rest of the west of the district the County Council proposed a Bognor Regis West division comprising the district wards of Aldwick East and Marine, and a Bognor Regis East division comprising the district wards of Hotham and Orchard. It proposed a Bersted division comprising the district wards of Bersted and Pevensey, and a Felpham division comprising the district wards of Felpham East and Felpham West. It proposed a Middleton division comprising the district wards of Middleton-on-Sea and Yapton, and a Fontwell division

32

comprising the district wards of Barnham and Walberton. Arun District Council, East Preston Parish Council and Councillor Deedman also all proposed these divisions in the west of the district. 91 To the east of the River Arun the County Council proposed an Arundel Angmering division comprising the district wards of Angmering and Arundel, and a Ferring Findon divison comprising the district wards of Ferring, Findon and part of East Preston with Kingston district ward (Kingston parish and polling district BE of East Preston parish). It noted that this division would require the rewarding of East Preston parish. It proposed a Littlehampton North division comprising the district wards of Ham and Wick with Toddington, and a Littlehampton Town division comprising the district wards of Beach and River. It proposed a Rustington East division comprising Rustington East district ward, the remainder of East Preston with Kingston district ward (West Preston parish ward of Rustington parish and polling district BF of East Preston parish) and part of Rustington West district ward (polling district CH). Finally it proposed a Rustington West division comprising Brookfield district ward and the remainder of Rustington West district ward (polling districts CI, CJ and CS). Table 5: West Sussex County Council’s proposals for Arun district

Proposed division name Number of councillors Proposed constituent district wards

1 Nyetimber 1 Pagham & Rose Green; Aldwick West


3 Bognor Regis East 1 Orchard; Hotham





8 Arundel Angmering 1 Arundel; Angmering

9 Ferring Findon 1 Ferring; Findon; part of East Preston with Kingston (Kingston parish and polling district BE)

10 Littlehampton North 1 Ham; Wick with Toddington

11 Littlehampton Town 1 Beach; River

12 Rustington East 1 Rustington East; part of East Preston with Kingston (polling district BF and West Preston parish ward of Rustington parish); part Rustington West (polling district CH)

13 Rustington West 1 Brookfield; part of Rustington West (polling districts CI, CJ, CS)

92 We concur with the County Council regarding the problems of forming divisions in the east of the district. However, we note that its proposed Ferring Findon division has no access between the Findon and Ferring wards and we would not generally adopt a division with no access if there were alternative proposals that would meet the statutory criteria. 93 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 77% coterminosity would be secured between district wards and county divisions. Bognor Regis East, Bognor Regis West, Felpham, Littlehampton North, Littlehampton Town, Middleton and Rustington East divisions would initially contain 8%, 5%, 6%, 12%, 14%, 3% and 6% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 5%, 6%, 11%, 14%, 4% and 8% fewer by 2007). The proposed Bersted, Ferring Findon, Fontwell, Nyetimber and Rustington West divisions would initially contain 16%, 4%, 3%, 20% and 14% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (15%, 2%, 1%, 17% and 10% more by

33

2007). The proposed Arundel Angmering division would initially contain 2% fewer electors than the county average (5% more by 2007). 94 Councillor Freeman submitted one of the schemes formulated by the County Council during its consultation process, illustrated in Table 6. She proposed identical divisions to the County Council to the east of the River Arun and in the west proposed an alternative arrangement which she considered reflected the ‘essential village identity and character of the Downland area’. Although she submitted a district-wide scheme she only specifically supported the Barnham division which would comprise Walberton and Yapton district wards and part of Barnham district ward (the parishes of Barnham and Eastergate) and gave very little evidence in support of her proposal. Table 6: Councillor Freeman’s proposals for Arun district


1 Nyetimber 1 Aldwick West; Pagham & Rose Green 2 Aldwick 1 Aldwick East; Marine 3 Bognor Regis 1 Orchard; Pevensey

4 Bersted 1 Bersted; part of Barnham (the parish of Aldingbourne)

5 Hotham Park 1 Felpham West; Hotham 6 Middleton 1 Felpham East; Middleton-on-Sea

7 Barnham 1 Walberton; Yapton; part of Barnham (the parishes of Barnham and Eastergate)

8 Arundel Angmering 1 Arundel; Angmering

9 Ferring Findon 1 Ferring; Findon; part of East Preston with Kingston (polling district BE)

10 Littlehampton North 1 Ham; Wick with Toddington

11 Littlehampton Town 1 Beach; River

12 Rustington West 1 Brookfield; part of Rustington West (polling districts CI, CJ, CS)

13 Rustington East 1 Rustington East; part of East Preston with Kingston (polling district BF and West Preston parish ward of Rustington parish); part of Rustington West (polling district CH)

95 Arun District Council, East Preston Parish Council and Councillor Deedman also submitted schemes formulated by the County Council during its consultation process. They were all identical to the County Council’s scheme to the west of the River Arun but provided an alternative arrangement of divisions to the east of the River Arun. Arun District Council and East Preston Parish Council submitted an identical scheme, illustrated in Table 7. They both opposed the proposals of the County Council because they would involve the rewarding of East Preston parish and proposed some name changes to the divisions in the west of Arun. East Preston Parish Council considered that ‘regard must be had to local ties which would be broken by this parish being split into two electoral divisions’. The District Council supported the Parish Council stating that ‘the parish should not be split at county level and should remain intact to retain the parish’s characteristics’. Under their proposals there would be 100% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries and there would be good access within all the divisions. However, Rustington division, comprising the district wards of Rustington East and Rustington West, would have an electoral variance of 21% above the county average by 2007.

34

Table 7: Arun District Council’s and East Preston Parish Council’s proposals for Arun district


1 Pagham & Rose Green & Aldwick West

1 Pagham & Rose Green; Aldwick West


3 Bersted Pevensey 1 Bersted; Pevensey

4 Arundel with Littlehampton North 1 Arundel; Wick with Toddington

5 Bognor Regis East 1 Hotham; Orchard

6 Felpham East & Felpham West 1 Felpham East; Felpham West


8 Middleton Yapton 1 Middleton-on-Sea; Yapton

9 Littlehampton West 1 Ham; River

10 Littlehampton East 1 Beach; Brookfield

11 Rustington East & Rustington West 1 Rustington East; Rustington West

12 Ferring East Preston & Kingston 1 East Preston with Kingston; Ferring

13 Highdown 1 Angmering; Findon

96 As noted previously, Councillor Deedman proposed a scheme with the same divisions in the west of the district as the County Council. To the east of the River Arun he proposed divisions that were very similar to those put forward by Arun District Council and East Preston Parish Council. His scheme is illustrated in Table 8. The schemes differ, however, because he proposed rewarding Rustington parish to improve electoral equality. He proposed a Rustington division comprising Rustington East district ward and the majority of Rustington West district ward (polling districts CI, CJ and CH). The remainder of Rustington West district ward (polling district CS) would be included in a Littlehampton East division with Beach and Brookfield district wards. He also proposed a Littlehampton Central divison comprising the district wards of Ham and River. In the very east of the district he proposed an Angmering Findon division comprising the district wards of Angmering and Findon, and an East Preston Ferring division comprising the district wards of East Preston with Kingston and Ferring. He proposed an Arundel Wick division comprising the district wards of Arundel and Wick with Toddington. He noted that this division is ‘not ideal’ as it links an urban ward with a rural ward, but considered that it ‘enables the formation of community related divisions in the rest of the eastern part of Arun’.

35

Table 8: Councillor Deedman’s proposals for Arun district


1 Nyetimber 1 Pagham & Rose Green; Aldwick West


3 Bognor Regis East 1 Orchard; Hotham





8 Arundel Wick 1 Arundel; Wick with Toddington

9 Littlehampton Central 1 Ham; River

10 Littlehampton East 1 Beach; Brookfield; part of Rustington West (polling district CS)

11 Rustington 1 Rustington East; part of Rustington West (polling districts CI, CJ, CH)

12 East Preston Ferring 1 East Preston with Kingston; Ferring

13 Angmering Findon 1 Angmering; Findon

97 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a different council size and therefore the councillor:elector ratio is different to that under our proposed council size. The divisions in his scheme are of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size and it has therefore been difficult to incorporate divisions from his scheme into our proposals. 98 We also received submissions from Littlehampton Town Council and Ferring Parish Council. Littlehampton Town Council proposed six divisions in the east of the district which were broadly similar to the County Council’s proposals and provided a similar level of electoral equality and the same level of coterminosity. However, it provided little evidence in support of its proposals. Ferring Parish Council opposed the County Council’s proposal to include part of East Preston parish in the existing Findon & Ferring division. It stated that the ‘identity of Ferring village is very much protected by agricultural land to the east and west [of Ferring]’ and considered that by being included in a division with ‘neighbouring villages’ it would ‘make it hard for the appropriate authorities to prevent the development [to the west of Ferring]’. 99 We note the general consensus for the proposals in the west of the district and we consider that the River Arun is a strong boundary and are proposing to adopt it. We acknowledge that Councillor Freeman opposed the County Council’s proposals in the west of the district, but she did not submit detailed argumentation or evidence to support her proposals and we have not been persuaded to adopt them. In the light of the support received and the excellent level of electoral equality they provide, we are adopting all of the divisions proposed by the County Council to the west of the River Arun, without amendment. We note that in the west of the district the County Council, Arun District Council, East Preston Parish Council and Councillor Deedman proposed Nyetimber and Bersted divisions with electoral variances of 17% and 15% above the county average respectively, by 2007. We looked at a number of alternative arrangements of divisions in this area to improve electoral equality but were unable to find a better arrangement. We consider that this level of electoral inequality would provide more effective and convenient local government than

36

rewarding Bersted parish and are of the opinion that it can be justified in light of the support it received and the reflection of community identities that it provides. 100 In the east of the district we have carefully considered all of the proposals we received at Stage One. We have not been persuaded to adopt a Ferring Findon division as proposed by the County Council, Councillor Freeman and Littlehampton Town Council. Although we are unable to take account of future development possibilities outside the five-year projections, we agree with Ferring Parish Council that East Preston parish does not share a community of interest with Ferring and Findon district wards. We also consider that this division would have very poor access links between Ferring and Findon district wards, and as noted previously, we would not normally be persuaded to adopt such a division if there were alternative arrangements that would meet the statutory criteria. 101 We have been constrained by the fact that the urban district wards in the east of Arun are all situated on the southern coast while the rural district wards in the north do not contain enough electors to form two divisions and contain too many electors to form one division with acceptable electoral equality. To provide a good level of electoral equality, it has therefore been necessary to include at least one urban district ward with the rural district wards to the north. We propose adopting Councillor Deedman’s Arundel Wick division as we consider that it will facilitate divisions that unite urban areas and reflect community identities in the rest of the district. We consider that including Wick with Toddington district ward with rural wards is a better alternative than linking part of East Preston with Kingston district ward with the rural Findon ward. We recognise that uniting urban and rural areas in the same division is not ideal, but in this area we consider it necessary to facilitate an improved level of electoral equality. 102 We propose adopting all of Councillor Deedman’s proposals to the east of the River Arun. We considered adopting Arun District Council and East Preston Parish Council’s proposals which would provide 100% coterminosity and would ensure that no parish rewarding would be necessary. However, we do not consider that we have received sufficient evidence to enable us to adopt a Rustington division with an electoral variance of 21% above the county average and consider that rewarding Rustington parish, as proposed locally, allows for the adoption of a scheme that provides a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. However, we would welcome comments on our proposals at Stage Three. 103 Under our draft recommendations the district of Arun will have 85% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Angmering Findon, Arundel Wick, Bognor Regis East, Bognor Regis West, Felpham, Littlehampton Central and Middleton divisions will initially contain 20%, 15%, 8%, 5%, 6%, 14% and 3% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (13%, 13%, 7%, 5%, 6%, 14% and 4% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bersted, East Preston Ferring, Fontwell, Littlehampton East, Nyetimber and Rustington divisions will initially contain 16%, 14%, 3%, 12%, 20% and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (15%, 11%, 1%, 9%, 17% and 5% more by 2007). Our draft proposals are illustrated on the large maps at the back of the report. Chichester district 104 Under the current arrangements the district of Chichester is represented by 10 county councillors serving 10 divisions. Chichester East, Chichester North and Fernhurst divisions currently contain 11%, 12% and 2% fewer electors than the county average respectively (11%, 6% and 3% fewer by 2007). Bourne, Chichester South, Chichester West, Midhurst, Petworth, Selsey & Sidlesham and The Witterings divisions currently contain 9%, 3%, 2%, 12%, 10%, 12% and 16% more electors than the county average respectively (8%, 2%, 3%, 12%, 11%, 12% and 18% more by 2007).

37

105 At Stage One we received six submissions in relation to the district of Chichester. The County Council and Councillor Jones submitted single-member district-wide schemes. 106 The County Council proposed linking each of the four urban Chichester district wards with a number of more rural wards and parishes to achieve divisions that reflect community identity. It proposed a Chichester South division comprising the district wards of Chichester South, Donnington, Sidlesham and part of North Mundham district ward (North Mundham parish) and a Chichester East division comprising the district wards of Boxgrove, Chichester East, Tangmere and the remainder of North Mundham district ward (Oving parish). It proposed a Chichester West division comprising the district wards of Bosham, Chichester West and Fishbourne, and a Chichester North division comprising the district wards of Chichester North, Lavant and Funtington. It proposed a Bourne division comprising the district wards of Southbourne and Westbourne, and a Selsey division comprising the district wards of Selsey North and Selsey South. It also proposed The Witterings division comprising the district wards of East Wittering and West Wittering. 107 The County Council noted that the north of the district is sparsely populated, with just three main settlements: Fernhurst, Midhurst and Petworth. It proposed that each of these settlements should be combined with the surrounding parishes to provide divisions with good levels of electoral equality that would reflect community identity. It proposed a Fernhurst division comprising the district wards of Bury, Easebourne, Fernhurst and part of Stedham (the parishes of Cocking, Heyshott and West Lavington). It proposed a Midhurst division comprising the district wards of Harting, Midhurst and Rogate and the remainder of Stedham (the parishes of Bepton, Stedham and Woolbeding) and a Petworth division comprising the district wards of Petworth, Plaistow and Wisborough Green. 108 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 60% coterminosity would be secured between district ward and county divisions. Bourne, Selsey and The Witterings divisions would initially contain 15%, 1% and 6% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (15%, 1% and 4% fewer by 2007). The proposed Chichester East, Chichester South, Chichester West, Midhurst and Petworth divisions would initially contain 14%, 13%, 4%, 4% and 13% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (16%, 13%, 5%, 3% and 13% more by 2007). The proposed Chichester North and Fernhurst division would initially have electoral variances equal to the county average (3% more and 1% fewer by 2007). 109 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a different council size and therefore the councillor:elector ratio is different to that under our proposed council size. The divisions in his scheme are of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size and it has therefore been difficult to incorporate divisions from his scheme into our proposals. 110 We received four other submissions. Sidlesham Parish Council stated that it supported the County Council’s proposed Chichester South division as it ‘considered that the populations from the various parishes making up the new division are more balanced than the current situation where very small Sidlesham is joined with the large and ever increasing population of Selsey’. Easebourne Parish Council and Linch Parish Meeting stated that they were satisfied with the existing arrangements. Harting Parish Council stated that it had no comments or objections to make. 111 We note that the County Council proposed separating the urban Chichester district wards so that they are combined with more rural wards. It stated that it had considered uniting two of the Chichester wards in a single-member division, with the other two wards being combined with rural wards and parishes in a ‘doughnut’ formation. It stated that this resulted in divisions ‘which were not considered to have any common community identity’. It also noted that Chichester District Council did not support any of the schemes that united

38

the district wards in this way. We do not generally seek to adopt divisions that combine urban and rural wards and therefore considered a two-member Chichester division comprising the four Chichester district wards. This division would have an electoral variance of 15% above the county average by 2007, and the adoption of such a division in Chichester would force us to consider divisions in the rest of the district that were not proposed locally. We received little evidence regarding community identities in Chichester and were therefore concerned that in the rural area any divisions of our own that we proposed would have a very poor sense of community identity. 112 We consider that a two-member Chichester division with a relatively poor level of electoral equality and a number of rural divisions based on little community identity evidence would not facilitate effective and convenient local government in Chichester. Consequently we are proposing to adopt a uniform pattern of single-member divisions based on the County Council’s scheme that combines both urban and rural district wards in single-member divisions. However, we have identified a number of areas in the County Council’s scheme where we can improve electoral equality without a resultant deterioration in coterminosity and are therefore doing so. 113 We are adopting five divisions that the County Council proposed, without amendment: Fernhurst, Midhurst, Petworth, Selsey and The Witterings. We are proposing a Chichester East division comprising the district wards of Chichester East, North Mundham and Tangmere, and a Chichester North division comprising the district wards of Boxgrove, Chichester North and Lavant. We are also proposing a Chichester South divison comprising the district wards of Chichester South, Donnington and Sidlesham, and a Chichester West division comprising the district wards of Chichester West, Fishbourne, part of Bosham (the parish of Bosham) and part of Funtington (the parish of Funtington). Finally, we are proposing a Bourne division comprising the district wards of Southbourne, Westbourne, the remainder of Bosham (the parish of Chidham) and the remainder of Funtington (the parishes of Compton, Marden and Stoughton). 114 We consider that our scheme takes account of the submission put forward by Sidlesham Parish Council as we have ensured that Sidlesham parish is united with the same wards as the County Council proposed, less the parish of North Mundham. We consider that our proposals provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, although we would welcome comments at Stage Three on a two-member division in Chichester and on community identities across the district. 115 Under our draft recommendations the district of Chichester will have 60% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Chichester North, Selsey and The Witterings divisions will initially contain 4%, 1% and 6% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1%, 1% and 4% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bourne, Chichester East, Chichester South, Chichester West, Midhurst and Petworth divisions will initially contain 7%, 5%, 2%, 7%, 4% and 13% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 7%, 1%, 8%, 3% and 13% more by 2007). Our proposed Fernhurst division will initially have an electoral variance equal to the county average (1% fewer by 2007). Our draft proposals are illustrated on the large maps at the back of the report. Crawley borough 116 Under the current arrangements the borough of Crawley is represented by nine county councillors serving nine divisions. Gossops Green, Ifield, Langley Green, Northgate Three Bridges and Tilgate divisions currently contain 13%, 26%, 16%, 6% and 11% fewer electors than the county average respectively (12%, 22%, 16%, 6%, and 11% fewer by 2007). Broadfield, Furnace Green and Pound Hill divisions currently contain 4% more, 62% more and 8% fewer electors than the county average respectively (3%, 59% and 4% more

39

by 2007). Bewbush division would initially have an electoral variance of 0% (2% fewer by 2007). 117 At Stage One we received nine submissions in relation to the borough of Crawley. The County Council, Councillor Jones, the Gossops Green Branch Labour Party and Councillor Mullins (member for Gossops Green division) all submitted single-member borough-wide schemes. 118 The County Council proposed retaining nine councillors to represent Crawley, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. It proposed a Broadfield division comprising the borough wards of Broadfield North and Broadfield South, and a Tilgate Park division comprising the borough wards of Tilgate and Furnace Green. It stated that this division ‘has been named after the main amenity area in the area’. It proposed a Northgate Three Bridges division comprising the borough wards of Northgate and Three Bridges, which it noted is largely the same as the existing division. It proposed a Langley Green division comprising Langley Green borough ward and part of West Green borough ward, the area broadly to the north of West Green Drive and Ewhurst Road. It proposed an Ifield division comprising Ifield borough ward and the remainder of West Green borough ward. It stated that it had divided West Green borough ward between these two divisions to provide a satisfactory level of electoral equality, using the existing division boundary. It proposed a Bewbush division comprising Bewbush borough ward and part of Gossops Green borough ward, the area ‘to the east and south of Gossops Drive, including Gossops Drive itself,’ and a Southgate division comprising Southgate borough ward and the remainder of Gossops Green borough ward, the area ‘to the north and west of Gossops Drive’. It stated that ‘the boundary is thought to best reflect the pattern of community in the ward’. 119 The County Council noted that ‘the London to Brighton railway line, with few crossing points, and the eastern boundary of the Borough form a corridor’ covered by Maidenbower, Pound Hill North and Pound Hill South & Worth borough wards. The County Council considered the railway line a strong boundary and did not breach it in its recommendations. It proposed a Maidenbower division comprising Maidenbower borough ward and the area broadly to the south of Worth Road and Turners Hill Road in Pound Hill South & Worth borough ward. It proposed a Pound Hill division comprising Pound Hill North borough ward and the remainder of Pound Hill South & Worth borough ward. It stated that it was necessary to divide Pound Hill South & Worth borough ward in this way ‘to create two divisions of acceptable size’. It stated that it had been locally proposed to call Maidenbower division, Maidenbower Worth, but this has ‘not been accepted because parts of Worth are included in both this division and [Pound Hill] division’. 120 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 33% coterminosity would be secured between borough wards and county divisions. Bewbush, Ifield, Langley Green, Northgate Three Bridges and Southgate divisions would initially contain 5%, 8%, 8%, 4% and 4% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 8%, 5%, 7% and 2% fewer by 2007). The proposed Broadfield and Tilgate Park divisions would initially contain 2% and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1% and 4% more by 2007). The proposed Maidenbower and Pound Hill divisions would initially contain 1% more and 4% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (1% fewer and 9% more by 2007). 121 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones, the Gossops Green Branch Labour Party and Councillor Mullins. Their schemes were based on a different council size and therefore the councillor:elector ratio is different to that under our proposed council size. The divisions in their schemes are of a different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size and it has therefore been difficult to incorporate divisions from their schemes into our proposals.

40

122 We received five other submissions. Councillor Smith (member for Furnace Green division) stated that he supported the scheme proposed by the County Council but proposed one name change in the east of the borough. He contended that the proposed Maidenbower division be renamed Maidenbower Worth to ‘officially recognise this historic area and make all electors in the division feel much more included’. Councillor Sully (member for Bewbush division) opposed Councillor Smith’s proposal, stating that if the name Worth is to be included in the name of a division it should be the proposed Pound Hill North division, ‘so that it becomes Pound Hill North Worth’ because ‘by far the greater number of Worth residents live in the new proposed division of Pound Hill North’. She also stated that ‘as Worth is one of the largest parishes in the country stretching almost to East Grinstead, it is quite appropriate to preserve the name in the Mid Sussex division of Worth Forest’. 123 Councillor Sully also stated that ‘people in Furnace Green are very unhappy about the name Tilgate Park’ for the divison proposed by the County Council comprising the borough wards of Furnace Green and Tilgate. She stated that ‘Furnace Green is slightly bigger than Tilgate’ and that the division should be called ‘Furnace Green Tilgate’. She also noted that the proposal to divide Gossops Green between divisions was not supported by residents of Gossops Green. Tilgate Branch Labour Party and two local residents also proposed renaming the County Council’s proposed Tilgate Park division, stating that it should be called either Tilgate & Furnace Green or Furnace Green & Tilgate, in order to reflect the identity of the area and to reduce confusion among the electorate. 124 We note the excellent levels of electoral equality in the scheme proposed by the County Council. However, we have identified a number of areas that we consider can be amended to further improve electoral equality. We are proposing three two-member divisions in this urban borough as this would enable us to improve the level of coterminosity in Crawley and would also slightly improve electoral equality across the borough. We agree with the County Council that the London to Brighton railway line forms a strong boundary which we do not propose to breach. We are therefore proposing a coterminous two-member Pound Hill & Maidenbower division comprising the borough wards of Pound Hill North, Pound Hill South & Worth and Maidenbower to the east of the railway line. We considered the comments of Councillor Smith regarding the inclusion of the name Worth in this area, but we have not been persuaded to adopt this proposal. We note that the County Council had considered this proposal before deciding not to adopt it in its submission, and we also note Councillor Sully’s opposition to this proposal. Therefore we do not consider we have received enough evidence to include it in the name of the division but would welcome further comments on this issue at Stage Three. 125 We are proposing a two-member Gossops Green & Bewbush division comprising the borough wards of Bewbush, Gossops Green and Southgate. This combines the Bewbush and Southgate divisions that the County Council proposed. We consider that by uniting all of Gossops Green borough ward in one division we are reflecting the community identity identified by a number of respondents at Stage One. This coterminous division will have excellent electoral equality both now and in 2007. We are also proposing a two-member Langley Green & Ifield division comprising the borough wards of Ifield, Langley Green and West Green. This division combines the Langley Green and Ifield divisions that the County Council proposed at Stage One. We are aware that this division is larger, geographically, than the other two-member divisions, but note that the electorate is concentrated in the south of the division because Gatwick airport covers the area in the north of Langley Green borough ward. We consider that the urban nature of Crawley borough allows for the provision of two-member divisions that are not ‘unworkably’ large geographically and we are proposing three such divisions as they provide excellent electoral equality and are coterminous. 126 In the remainder of the borough we are proposing to adopt the County Council’s proposals as we consider that they provide excellent levels of both electoral equality and coterminosity. However, in light of the submissions regarding the name of the Tilgate Park

41

division we are proposing to rename this division as Tilgate & Furnace Green, as we consider that this best reflects the constituent parts. We would welcome comments on this name at Stage Three. 127 Under our draft recommendations the borough of Crawley will have 100% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. Gossops Green & Bewbush, Langley Green & Ifield, Northgate & Three Bridges and Pound Hill & Maidenbower divisions will initially contain 5%, 8% and 8% and 1% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5% fewer, 7% fewer, 7% fewer and 4% more by 2007). Our proposed Broadfield and Tilgate & Furnace Green divisions will initially contain 2% and 7% more electors per councillor than the county average (1 % and 4% more by 2007). Our draft proposals are illustrated on the large maps at the back of the report. Horsham district 128 Under the current arrangements the district of Horsham is represented by 11 county councillors serving 11 divisions. Billingshurst, Hurst and Warnham divisions currently contain 11%, 24% and 12% fewer electors than the county average respectively (8%, 25% and 13% fewer by 2007). Henfield, Holbrook, Pulborough, Roffey, Southwater, Steyning and Storrington divisions currently contain 5%, 42%, 13%, 7%, 35%, 3% and 2% more electors than the county average respectively (7%, 40%, 14%, 5%, 35%, 2% and 3% more by 2007). Riverside division currently contains 1% more electors than the county average and will have an electoral variance equal to the county average by 2007. 129 At Stage One we received 11 submissions in relation to the district of Horsham. The County Council and Councillor Jones both submitted single-member district-wide schemes. 130 The County Council proposed retaining 11 councillors to represent Horsham district, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. In the north of the district it proposed a Holbrook division comprising the district wards of Holbrook East and Holbrook West and a Roffey division comprising the district wards of Roffey North and Roffey South. It proposed a Horsham Riverside division comprising the district wards of Horsham Park and Forest. It also proposed a Horsham Carfax division comprising the district wards of Denne and Trafalgar, ‘named after the historic centre of Horsham, called the Carfax’. It also proposed a Warnham Rusper division comprising the district wards of Broadbridge Heath, Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham and Rusper & Colgate. 131 In the more rural south of the district, the County Council proposed a Billingshurst division comprising the district wards of Billingshurst & Shipley and Rudgwick, and a Southwater division comprising the district wards of Nuthurst and Southwater. It proposed a Bramber Castle division comprising the district wards of Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote and Steyning, and a Henfield division comprising the district wards of Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead and Henfield. Finally, it proposed a Pulborough division comprising Pulborough & Coldwaltham district ward and part of Chanctonbury district ward (the parishes of Thakeham and West Chiltington) and a Storrington division comprising Chantry district ward and the remainder of Chanctonbury district ward (the parishes of Ashington and Wiston). 132 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 82% coterminosity would be secured between district ward and county divisions. Billingshurst, Henfield and Warnham Rusper divisions would initially contain 1%, 3% and 2% fewer electors than the county average respectively (2% more, 1% fewer and 2% fewer by 2007). The proposed Bramber Castle, Horsham Carfax, Horsham Riverside, Pulborough, Roffey, Southwater and Storrington divisions would initially contain 9%, 3%, 4%, 4%, 14%, 8% and 8% more electors than the county average respectively (7%, 1%, 3%, 5%, 12%, 8% and 9% more by 2007). The proposed Holbrook division would initially contain 1% more electors than the county average (2% fewer by 2007).

42

133 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a different council size and therefore the councillor:elector ratio is different to that under our proposed council size. The divisions in his scheme are of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size and it has therefore been difficult to incorporate divisions from his scheme into our proposals. 134 Horsham District Council supported the scheme proposed by the County Council, stating that ‘in view of the criteria and rules under which all electoral reviews are carried out, the scheme … for the Horsham District is the best that can be achieved’. Councillor Watson (member for Southwater division) supported the County Council’s proposals and also proposed that the name Nuthurst be reflected in the proposed Southwater division, which comprises Southwater and Nuthurst district wards. He stated that ‘Southwater parish has the majority of the electoral numbers, but the Nuthurst parish has the bulk of the land area’. Nuthurt Parish Council and four local residents also proposed that the name of Nuthurst be included in the County Council’s Southwater division. 135 Slinfold Parish Council objected to the County Council’s proposals, and ‘considered that asking a County Councillor to cover a larger geographical area will dilute his local knowledge, and decrease the amount of time he is able to spend within one particular parish’. Southwater Parish Council stated that it is happy with the existing arrangements. North Horsham Parish Council stated it had no comments to make. 136 We note the excellent level of both electoral equality and coterminosity that the County Council’s scheme provides. We also note that it is supported by the District Council and Councillor Watson. However, in the north of the district we are concerned that the railway line creates a barrier between the Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham and Rusper & Colgate district wards that the County Council proposed uniting in its proposed Warnham Rusper division. This railway line would prevent direct access between the east and west of the divison, and we would not normally adopt a division that has no internal links if there is an alternative scheme for the area that we consider provides a good balance between the statutory criteria. We therefore looked at a number of ways we could improve on the County Council’s scheme in the north of the district, in terms of forming divisions with improved access links. 137 We considered rewarding North Horsham parish so that the area north of the A264 would form a new parish ward in the Warnham Rusper division and would provide a link between the district wards south of the railway line. However, we noted that this parish ward would contain fewer than 100 electors and we do not consider that this would provide for effective and convenient local government. We also looked at a number of alternative arrangements in the north of the district but were of the opinion that the divisions proposed in the town of Horsham itself provide a good balance between the statutory criteria and that all other means of forming divisions around Horsham town would provide poorer levels of both electoral equality and coterminosity. We also noted that we would not be able to adopt a scheme that was proposed locally and that the divisions would be arbitrarily formed throughout the majority of the district. We received no strong evidence detailing the communities of interest in the district and are therefore reluctant to propose divisions where we have no evidence there is any community of interest. We therefore consider that the County Council’s proposals provide the best balance between the statutory criteria and are adopting them with one minor amendment. 138 In light of the support for the inclusion of the name Nuthurst in the County Council’s proposed Southwater division, we are proposing to name the division Southwater & Nuthurst to reflect its constituent parts. We note the concern of Slinfold Parish Council regarding its County Councillor covering ‘a larger geographical area’. However, we did not receive an alternative proposal for this area and the County Council’s proposals provide an excellent

43

balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. We have therefore not been persuaded to amend the County Council’s proposals in this area. We recognise that the lack of direct access within Warnham Rusper division is not ideal but consider that this anomaly cannot be rectified without a deterioration in both electoral equality and coterminosity. 139 Under our draft recommendations the district of Horsham will have 82% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Billingshurst, Henfield and Warnham Rusper divisions will initially contain 1%, 3% and 2% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (2% more, 1% fewer and 2% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Bramber Castle, Horsham Carfax, Horsham Riverside, Pulborough, Roffey, Southwater and Storrington divisions will initially contain 9%, 3%, 4%, 4%, 14%, 8% and 8% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (7%, 1%, 3%, 5%, 12%, 8% and 9% more by 2007). Our proposed Holbrook division will initially contain 1% more electors than the county average (2% fewer by 2007). Our draft proposals are illustrated on the large maps at the back of the report. Mid Sussex district 140 Under the current arrangements the district of Mid Sussex is represented by 12 county councillors serving 12 divisions. Burgess Hill East, Cuckfield Rural, East Grinstead East, East Grinstead South, Haywards Heath East, Lindfield and Mid Sussex South divisions currently contain 12%, 10%, 12%, 8%, 13%, 9% and 16% fewer electors than the county average respectively (13%, 9%, 13%, 10%, 12%, 10% and 13% fewer by 2007). Burgess Hill Central, Hassocks & Burgess Hill West, Imberdown and Mid Sussex North divisions currently contain 17%, 22%, 27% and 3% more electors than the county average respectively (14%, 22%, 23% and 3% more by 2007). Haywards Heath West division currently contains 13% fewer electors than the county average, and 4% more by 2007). 141 At Stage One we received 13 submissions in relation to the district of Mid Sussex. The County Council and Councillor Jones both submitted single-member district-wide schemes. 142 The County Council proposed retaining 12 councillors to represent Mid Sussex district, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. In its submission the County Council noted that the size of the district wards in Burgess Hill, East Grinstead and Haywards Heath does not facilitate divisions that are coterminous whilst also providing a good level of electoral equality. It also noted that some of its divisions combine urban and rural areas in the same division. In the south of the district it proposed a Hurstpierpoint division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Dunstall, Hurstpierpoint & Downs and part of Bolney (the parishes of Albourne and Twineham). It also proposed a Hassocks division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Victoria and Hassocks. It noted that in order to form single-member divisions with acceptable electoral equality ‘it is … necessary to combine [Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint & Downs districts wards] with one of the Burgess Hill wards’. In the rest of Burgess Hill it proposed a Burgess Hill Town division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Leylands and Burgess Hill Meeds, and a Burgess Hill East division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill St Andrews and Burgess Hill Franklands. 143 The County Council stated that it had ‘looked at a number of options for a scheme in the Haywards Heath area’ and had submitted a scheme that reflected community identities. It proposed a Haywards Heath Town division comprising the district wards of Haywards Heath Heath and Haywards Heath Ashenground. It stated that this forms ‘the centre strip of the town to the east of the London to Brighton railway line’. It proposed a Haywards Heath East division comprising the district wards of Haywards Heath Bentswood and Haywards Heath Franklands. It also proposed a Cuckfield division comprising the district wards of Cuckfield, Haywards Heath Lucastes and part of Bolney (the parish of Bolney and Slaugham & Warninglid parish ward of Slaugham parish).

44

144 In the north of the district the County Council proposed an East Grinstead Meridian division comprising the district wards of East Grinstead Ashplats and East Grinstead Baldwins, and an East Grinstead South division comprising the district wards of Ashurst Wood, East Grinstead Herontye and East Grinstead Town. It also proposed an Imberdown division comprising East Grinstead Imberhorne district ward and part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill district ward (Crawley Down parish ward of Worth parish) and a Worth Forest division comprising the district wards of Ardingly & Balcombe and Copthorne & Worth and the remainder of Crawley Down & Turners Hill (Turners Hill parish). It stated that these two divisions are based on the existing divisions. In the east of the district it proposed a Lindfield division comprising the district wards of High Weald and Lindfield. 145 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 67% coterminosity would be secured between district wards and county divisions. Burgess Hill East, Burgess Hill Town, East Grinstead Meridian, Haywards Heath East, Haywards Heath Town and Imberdown divisions would initially contain 15%, 17%, 13%, 14%, 10% and 9% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (16%, 18%, 15%, 14%, 12% and 12% fewer by 2007). The proposed East Grinstead South, Hassocks, Hurstpierpoint, Lindfield and Worth Forest divisions would initially contain 5%, 13%, 14%, 10% and 5% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (3%, 13%, 10%, 7% and 4% more by 2007). The proposed Cuckfield division would initially contain 9% fewer electors than the county average (16% more by 2007). 146 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a different council size and therefore the councillor:elector ratio is different to that under our proposed council size. The divisions in his scheme are of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size and it has therefore been difficult to incorporate divisions from his scheme into our proposals. 147 Mid Sussex District Council supported the County Council’s scheme and noted that the principle of coterminosity ‘justifies the relatively small variation from … 10%’. Burgess Hill Town Council opposed the County Council’s proposals as they ‘do not reflect the growth, dynamism and way that Burgess Hill serves its community’. It proposed that ‘Burgess Hill, as the largest town in Mid Sussex, should be represented by three County Councillors and not shared with rural communities’. It proposed a Burgess Hill East division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill St Andrews and Burgess Hill Franklands and a Burgess Hill Town division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Leylands and Burgess Hill Meeds. It also proposed a Burgess Hill West division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Victoria and Burgess Hill Dunstall, and a division, which it did not name, comprising Bolney, Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint & Downs district wards. 148 Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Parish Council ‘do not wish to see Hurstpierpoint included with Burgess Hill Dunstall’. It opposed combining rural and urban areas in the same division and consider that ‘similarity of environment is more important than strict equality of numbers’. The Hurstpierpoint Society stated that the ‘neighbouring rural villages’ of Hurstpierpoint and Albourne should be united in the same division. It stated that ‘Albourne residents use the Hurstpierpoint facilities, shops, cash-points and numerous Albourne residents are members of Hurstpierpoint organisations’. 149 Haywards Heath Town Council opposed the County Council’s proposals as they considered ‘it was inappropriate for [a Haywards Heath district ward] to be shared with Bolney and Cuckfield. The area is too spread out and the town would have nothing in common with either of the two villages.’ It stated that it would ‘be better to divide the Haywards Heath Lucastes district ward … between Ashenground and Heath wards. Bolnore Village and the part of the ward up to Butlers Green Road could go into Ashenground [division] and the other side of Butlers Green Road could go into the Heath [division].’

45

150 Councillor Collins (member for East Grinstead division) and Ashurst Wood Parish Council requested that the County Council’s proposed East Grinstead South division be renamed East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wood in order to recognise the parish of Ashurst Wood. East Grinstead Town Council supported the name East Grinstead South. Ardingly Parish Council stated that it supported the County Council’s proposed council size of 70, which would allocate Mid Sussex 12 councillors. It also supported a uniform pattern of single-member divisions and ‘would prefer to see no change in the parishes with which it is grouped’ although it noted that ‘if change has to occur Ardingly would prefer to be grouped with Copthorne, Worth, Turners Hill and Balcombe’. Turners Hill Parish Council supported the County Council’s proposals. Worth Parish Council had no comment to make regarding the review. 151 We note that in Mid Sussex the size of the wards in Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and East Grinstead makes it difficult to form divisions that provide a good level of both coterminosity and electoral equality without mixing urban and rural areas. Although we recognise that joining urban and rural wards in one division is not ideal, we are constrained by the need to provide divisions with good electoral equality and coterminosity and therefore in Mid Sussex we consider that a number of divisions that mix urban and rural areas provide the best balance between the statutory criteria given the constraints. We note the comments of Burgess Hill Town Council who proposed that three county councillors should represent the town. However, the size of the district wards in Burgess Hill mean that this would result in three divisions with variances between 15% and 19% below the county average and we do not consider that we have received sufficient evidence and argumentation to adopt such levels of inequality. 152 In Burgess Hill we are proposing a two-member division. This unites the majority of Burgess Hill in a wholly urban division and also improves electoral equality and coterminosity in the south of the district. We are proposing a Burgess Hill division comprising the district wards of Burgess Hill Dunstall, Burgess Hill Franklands, Burgess Hill Leylands, Burgess Hill Meeds and Burgess Hill St Andrews. The remaining urban Burgess Hill Victoria district ward would be joined with Hassocks district ward in a Hassocks division, as proposed by the County Council. As mentioned earlier, we recognise that this arrangement is not ideal, but it facilitates the rest of Burgess Hill being contained within a wholly urban division. We are proposing a Hurstpierpoint & Bolney division comprising only rural areas, as proposed by Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Parish Council and the Hurstpierpoint Society. This coterminous division will comprise the district wards of Bolney and Hurstpierpoint & Downs. 153 In Haywards Heath we have again been constrained by the size of the urban district wards. We note that there are too many electors to justify the whole town being represented by two councillors and too few electors for three councillors. We have therefore proposed two divisions in this area that combine urban and rural areas. We are adopting the County Council’s proposed Haywards Heath East, Haywards Heath Town and Lindfield divisions and are proposing our own Cuckfield division comprising the district wards of Cuckfield and Haywards Heath Lucastes. We note Haywards Heath Town Council’s proposal to divide Haywards Heath Lucastes ward but we have not been persuaded to adopt this division as this would reduce coterminosity and would not provide a good level of electoral equality in either of its proposed divisions. We consider that by joining only Cuckfield district ward with the urban Haywards Heath Lucastes ward we are minimising the number of divisions containing both rural and urban areas. 154 In East Grinstead, in the north of the district, we are using the County Council’s proposals as a basis for our draft recommendations. We are adopting its proposed Imberdown division comprising East Grinstead Imberhorne district ward and part of Crawley Down & Turners Hill (Turners Hill parish ward of Worth parish) and its Worth Forest division comprising the district wards of Ardingly & Balcombe and Copthorne & Worth and the

46

remainder of Crawley Down & Turners Hill district ward (the parish of Turners Hill). We consider that in this instance the lower level of coterminosity resulting from dividing Crawley Down & Turners Hill district ward is outweighed by the improved level of electoral equality. In the town of East Grinstead itself we are combining the County Council’s proposed East Grinstead Meridian and East Grinstead South divisions in a two-member East Grinstead division. This improves electoral equality and unites the majority of the town in one division. We note the comments regarding the inclusion of the name Ashurst Wood in the division that contains it. However, we consider that the name East Grinstead better reflects the majority of the composition of this division and we have not been persuaded to adopt this name. We would welcome comments on the name of this division at Stage Three. 155 We recognise that combining urban and rural areas in the same division is not ideal. However, in Mid Sussex the size of the electorate in the three towns is not conducive to forming divisions that contain only urban wards. The primary objective of the review is to attain a good degree of electoral equality across the district, and we consider that combining urban and rural district wards has been necessary to achieve this. 156 Under our draft recommendations the district of Mid Sussex will have 80% coterminosity between district ward and county division boundaries. Cuckfield, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath East, Haywards Heath Town, Hurstpierpoint & Bolney and Imberdown divisions will initially contain 25%, 4%, 14%, 10%, 12% and 9% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (5%, 6%, 14%, 12%, 9% and 12% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Lindfield and Worth Forest divisions will initially contain 5%, 13%, 10% and 5% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (3%, 13%, 7% and 4% more by 2007). Our draft proposals are illustrated on the large maps at the back of the report. Worthing borough 157 Under the current arrangements the borough of Worthing is represented by 10 county councillors serving 10 divisions. Broadwater, East Worthing, Goring-by-Sea, Maybridge, Richmond, Salvington and West Tarring divisions currently contain 10%, 4%, 4%, 15%, 15%, 4% and 7% fewer electors than the county average respectively (12%, 5%, 7%, 19%, 11%, 8% and 10% fewer by 2007). Cissbury and West Parade divisions currently contain 3% and 4% more electors than the county average respectively (1% fewer and 2% more by 2007). Durrington division currently has an electoral variance equal to the county average (8% more by 2007). 158 At Stage One we received three submissions in relation to the borough of Worthing. The County Council, Councillor Jones and Councillor Deedman all proposed single-member borough-wide schemes. 159 The County Council proposed a decrease in the number of councillors representing Worthing from 10 to nine, to which it would be entitled to under a council size of 70. It noted that the Portsmouth to Brighton railway line ‘which runs east – west forms a natural boundary that has been used in establishing the warding structure in the Borough [and the] County Council has continued this approach in its review of county electoral arrangements’. It proposed a Durrington division comprising the borough wards of Durrington and Northbrook. To the north of the railway line it proposed a Salvington division comprising Salvington borough ward and ‘that part of the Offington ward that turns southwards from the northern boundary of the borough through the Findon valley’. It proposed a Broadwater division comprising Broadwater borough ward and the remainder of Offington borough ward, ‘which includes Broadwater Green’. It also proposed a Palatine division comprising Castle borough ward and part of Tarring borough ward, the area broadly to the west of Rectory Road, north of Parkfield Road and to the west of Upton Gardens and the allotment gardens. It noted that ‘the boundary that splits [Tarring borough ward] has been drawn to keep the

47

older part of Tarring in one division’. The County Council proposed a Gaisford division comprising Gaisford borough ward and the remainder of Tarring borough ward. 160 To the south of the railway line the County Council proposed a Goring division comprising Goring borough ward only. It stated that this division was proposed to improve coterminosity and is ‘an identifiable community’. It proposed a Worthing West division comprising Marine borough ward and part of Heene borough ward. It stated that ‘the A259 has been chosen to provide the eastern boundary … as it is a clear physical feature in the area’. It proposed a Worthing Pier division comprising parts of Central and Heene borough wards. It stated that the ‘eastern boundary of the division is formed by the A24, North Street and High Street on the basis that it keeps the main shopping area in one division and provides good electoral equality’. It proposed a Worthing East division comprising Selden borough ward and the remainder of Central ward. 161 Under the County Council’s proposals electoral equality would improve and 22% coterminosity would be secured between borough ward and county divisions. Goring and Worthing East divisions would initially contain 19% and 4% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (22% and 6% fewer by 2007). The proposed Broadwater, Gaisford, Palatine and Salvington divisions would initially contain 15%, 12%, 19% and 18% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (12%, 8%, 13% and 13% more by 2007). The proposed Durrington, Worthing Pier and Worthing West divisions would initially contain 5% fewer, 1% fewer and 1% more electors than the county average (2% more, 3% more and 2% fewer by 2007). 162 Councillor Deedman proposed a scheme that was similar to the County Council’s scheme, but breached the Portsmouth to Brighton railway line by including part of Castle borough ward in a Goring division to improve electoral equality. His scheme would secure just 11% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. 163 Having decided to adopt a council of 70 members, it was very difficult for us to adopt any of the divisions proposed by Councillor Jones. His scheme was based on a different council size and therefore the councillor:elector ratio is different to that under our proposed council size. The divisions in his scheme are of different size to those which would provide good electoral equality under our proposed council size and it has therefore been difficult to incorporate divisions from his scheme into our proposals. 164 We note the poor levels of coterminosity provided in the schemes proposed by the County Council and Councillor Deedman and have looked at ways of improving this. However, with the exception of Durrington and Northbrook, the borough wards in Worthing are forecast to have an electorate of between 6,117 and 6,876 by 2007, which would provide an electoral variance of between 21% and 30% below the county average if each single-member division comprised one borough ward. If two borough wards were contained in a single-member division this would provide an electoral variance of at least 40% above the county average. We do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to justify such high levels of electoral inequality and are therefore proposing a number of two-member divisions to improve the level of coterminosity while providing an acceptable level of electoral equality. 165 We are proposing a two-member Salvington division comprising the borough wards of Durrington, Offington and Salvington, and a two-member Gaisford division comprising the borough wards of Broadwater, Gaisford and Tarring. We are also proposing a two-member Castle division comprising the borough wards of Castle, Goring and Northbrook. We have named these divisions after the central ward in the relevant divisions but would welcome further comments on division names at Stage Three. We consider that the urban nature of Worthing borough allows for the provision of two-member divisions that are not ‘unworkably’ large geographically and we are proposing these two-member divisions as they provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. We note that the proposed Castle division breaches the Portsmouth to Brighton railway line, which the County Council

48

proposed using as a boundary. However, we consider that by breaching the railway we are able to provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, given the constraints in the borough, and we also note that there are numerous roads linking the area north and south of the railway and that Councillor Deedman proposed linking part of Castle borough ward with Goring borough ward. In the remainder of the borough we are adopting the three Worthing divisions proposed by the County Council as these provide excellent levels of electoral equality. 166 Under our draft recommendations the borough of Worthing will have 50% coterminosity between borough ward and county division boundaries. Worthing East and Worthing Pier divisions will initially contain 4% and 1% fewer electors per councillor than the county average respectively (6% fewer and 3% more by 2007). Our proposed Gaisford and Worthing West divisions will initially contain 17% and 1% more electors per councillor than the county average respectively (13% more and 2% fewer by 2007). Our proposed Castle and Salvington divisions will initially contain 2% fewer and 4% more electors than the county average respectively (both will have electoral variances equal to the county average by 2007). Our draft proposals are illustrated on the large maps at the back of the report. Conclusions 167 Having considered all the evidence and submissions received during the first stage of the review, we propose that: • There should be a reduction in council size from 71 to 70. • The boundaries of all divisions, except Northgate & Three Bridges will be subject to

change as the divisions are based on district wards which have themselves changed as a result of the district reviews.

168 As already indicated, we have based our draft recommendations on the County Council’s, Councillor Deedman’s and Councillor Jones’s proposals, but propose to depart from them in some areas to improve electoral equality and coterminosity and to provide a better reflection of community identities: • In Adur district we propose adopting a combination of the County Council’s and

Councillor Jones’s proposals with a number of minor amendments in the east to improve electoral equality.

• In Arun district we propose adopting Councillor Deedman’s scheme in its entirety.

• In Chichester district we are proposing a scheme based on the County Council’s proposals with a number of amendments to improve electoral equality.

• In Crawley borough we are adopting three divisions proposed by the County Council and are also proposing three two-member divisions by combining the County Council’s single-member divisions.

• In Horsham district we are adopting the County Council’s scheme, with one name

change which was proposed locally. • In Mid Sussex district are proposing two two-member divisions, in Burgess Hill and East

Grinstead, to improve electoral equality and coterminosity, and are also making a number of amendments to the County Council’s proposals in the rest of the district.

• In Worthing borough we are adopting three divisions proposed by the County Council

and are also proposing three two-member divisions to improve coterminosity.

49

169 Table 9 shows how our draft recommendations will affect electoral equality, comparing them with the current arrangements (based on 2002 electorate figures) and with forecast electorates for the year 2007. Table 9: Comparison of current and recommended electoral arrangements

2002 Electorate 2007 Forecast electorate

Current arrangements

Draft recommendations

Current arrangements

Draft recommendations

Number of councillors 71 70 71 70

Number of divisions 71 62 71 62

Average number of electors per councillor 8,288 8,406 8,583 8,705

Number of divisions with a variance of more than 10% from the average

36 17 34 16

Number of divisions with a variance of more than 20% from the average

8 1 9 1

Level of coterminosity 38%* 74% 38%* 74%

* level of coterminosity following the completion of the LGBC Review in 1984 170 As shown in Table 9, our draft recommendations for West Sussex County Council would result in a reduction in the number of divisions with an electoral variance of more than 10% from 36 to 17. By 2007 one division is forecast to have an electoral variance of more than 20%.

Draft recommendation West Sussex County Council should comprise 70 councillors serving 62 divisions, as detailed and named in Tables 1 and 2, and illustrated on the large maps inside the back cover.

Parish council electoral arrangements 171 When reviewing electoral arrangements we are required to comply as far as possible with the rules set out in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Local Government Act. The Schedule states that if a parish is to be divided between different county divisions it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division of the county. Accordingly, we propose consequential warding arrangements for the parish of Rustington in Arun district to reflect the proposed county divisions in that area. 172 The parish of Rustington is currently served by 16 councillors representing three wards: Rustington East (returning six councillors), Rustington West (returning nine councillors) and West Preston (returning one councillor). In order to reflect the county divisions in the area, the County Council, Councillor Freeman and Littlehampton Town Council proposed rewarding East Preston parish and Councillor Deedman proposed rewarding Rustington parish. All of the proposals that involved rewarding of either of these parishes improved the electoral equality of the schemes. 173 We are proposing to adopt Councillor Deedman’s scheme in its entirety and are therefore proposing to reward Rustington parish. The existing parish wards of Rustington East and West Preston will be retained. Under our draft recommendations part of the existing Rustington West parish ward, the area broadly north of Worthing Road, but also

50

including the electorate of Conbar Avenue and Jubilee Avenue, will become Rustington North parish ward. The remainder of the existing Rustington West parish ward will retain the name Rustington West.

Draft recommendation Rustington Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Rustington East returning six councillors, Rustington North returning two councillors, Rustington West returning seven councillors and West Preston returning one councillor. The boundaries between the parish wards should reflect the proposed county division boundaries, as illustrated on the large maps at the back of the report.

51

5 What happens next? 174 There will now be a consultation period, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for West Sussex County Council contained in this report. We will take fully into account all submissions received by 26 April 2004. Any received after this date may not be taken into account. All responses (including names and addresses of respondents unless specified otherwise) may be inspected at our offices and those of the County Council. A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period. 175 Express your views by writing directly to us: The Team Leader West Sussex County Council Review The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW 176 In the light of responses received, we will review our draft recommendations to consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft recommendations. We will then submit our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. After the publication of our final recommendations, all further correspondence should be sent to The Electoral Commission, which cannot make the Order giving effect to our recommendations until six weeks after it receives them.

53

Appendix A Draft recommendations for West Sussex County Council: Detailed mapping The following maps illustrate our proposed division boundaries for West Sussex County Council. Sheet 1 of 2 inserted at the back of this report illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for West Sussex County Council, including constituent district wards and parishes. Sheet 2 of 2 inserted at the back of this report includes the following maps: Map 1 illustrates the boundaries between the proposed Kingston Buci, Southwick and Shoreham divisions in Adur district. Map 2 illustrates the boundary between the proposed Littlehampton East and Rustington divisions in Arun district. Map 3 illustrates the boundaries between the proposed Worthing East, Worthing Pier and Worthing West divisions in Worthing borough.

55

Appendix B Code of practice on written consultation The Cabinet Office’s November 2000 Code of Practice on Written Consultation, http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/Consultation/Code.htm requires all Government Departments and Agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as The Boundary Committee for England, are encouraged to follow the Code. The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 January 2001, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed. Table B1: The Boundary Committee for England’s compliance with Code criteria Criteria Compliance/departure Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy (including legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

We comply with this requirement.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. We comply with this requirement.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.


Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.


Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.

We consult on draft recommendations for a minimum of eight weeks, but may extend the period if consultations take place over holiday periods.

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.


Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.


57

http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/Consultation/Code.htm

Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements ......18 Nyetimber 1 10,069 10,069 20...

Documents

Transcript of Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements ......18 Nyetimber 1 10,069 10,069 20...