dacorum borough periodic electoral review 2005 · 2 1. introduction this report sets out dacorum...
TRANSCRIPT
DACORUM BOROUGH FURTHER ELECTORAL REVIEW
2005
PROPOSALS OF DACORUM BOROUGH COUNCIL
abcdefgh
2
1. INTRODUCTION
This report sets out Dacorum Borough Council’s proposals to meet the requirementsof the Further Electoral Review being undertaken by the Boundary Committee forEngland.
The last review of electoral arrangements in the borough took place in 1998 but, as aresult of population changes, significant inequalities have arisen that need to beaddressed.
The Boundary Committee for England (BCFE) will therefore look at the:
number of councillors on the borough council; number of councillors in each ward; boundaries and names of wards; electoral arrangements of parish and town councils;
In the process of its deliberations it will consider all submissions made by 9 August2005.
In determining its recommendations to the Electoral Commission, the BCFE will haveregard to its obligations under the Local Government Act 1972, which requirescompliance, as far as practicable, with Schedule 11 of the Local Government Act1972 (Rules to be Observed in considering Electoral Arrangements. Within theserules it is stated that:
In relation to districts (metropolitan, shire or unitary) and Londonboroughs, the Rules provide that, having regard to any changes in thenumber or distribution of the local government electors of the district orLondon borough likely to take place within the period of five yearsimmediately following the start of the review:
a. the number of local government electors represented by eachcouncillor shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every ward ofthe district/borough and London borough;
However, the BCFE also make clear that the task of achieving equality is not merelyarithmetical, but that:
in undertaking reviews and in considering final recommendations TheElectoral Commission and the BCFE must have regard to the desirability offixing identifiable electoral area boundaries, and to local ties which mightbe broken by those boundaries. An approach which is too rigorouslymathematical could harm both of those interests. These are issues whichare also clearly relevant to our statutory criteria under section 13(5) of the[Local Government Act 1992] of having regard to the need to reflect theinterests and identities of local communities; and
we must have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient localgovernment, and reflect the interests and identities of local communities.
These guidelines have been central to the preparation of the Borough Council’sproposals.
3
2. PROCESS UNDERTAKEN BY DACORUM BOROUGH COUNCIL
In producing a submission, the Borough Council has adopted an open and cross-party process to discuss the issues and investigate solutions. All three politicalgroups had representation on the Council’s Periodic Electoral Review (PER)Committee, and the meetings gave the opportunity for interested parties to input intotheir deliberations. Copies of the Committee’s agendas are given in Annex A.
Copies of the material considered by the Committee, with the exception of maps,were made available on the Borough Council’s website through publication ofagendas.
In addition, the Further Electoral Review process was publicised around the boroughthrough the distribution of posters and leaflets.
Over the course of 5 meetings the Borough Council’s PER Committee considered theissues and suggested solutions as follows:
1 June 2005 – Consideration of appropriate Council size.
15 June 2005 – Consideration of officers suggested ward models for Councilsize of 50, and 43 members. The latter had been suggested by the Labourgroup. Both these models were rejected by the Committee for not preservinglocal communities.
29 June 2005 – Consideration of officers alternative ward model for Councilsize of 50 members. This was rejected by the Committee for not preservinglocal communities. An alternative model for 51 members was proposed bythe Labour group.
12 July 2005 – Consideration of models put forward by the three politicalgroups, the Conservative group model being for 52 members and theLabour and Liberal Democrat groups models being for 51 members.
19 July 2005 – Consideration of amended models put forward by the threepolitical groups: the Conservative group model being for 52 members andthe Labour and Liberal Democrat groups models being for 51 members.Vote to proceed with proposal of majority, Conservative, group as BoroughCouncil submission to the Boundary Committee for England (Vote: 4 For, 2Against)
3 August 2005 – Consideration of Borough Council’s proposed submissionby full Council. An amendment to the proposals was put forward by theLabour Group (set out at Annex B), to replace the wards set out for theHemel Hempstead area with an alternative that produced a Council of 53members. The proposals for the rest of Dacorum were unaffected by thisamendment. The amendment was lost (Vote: For 10; Against 32).
The majority, Conservative, group proposals were then moved and it wasagreed that these be submitted to the Boundary Committee for England asthe Borough Council’s submission (Vote: For 27; Against 16). It wasacknowledged that these proposals were supported by the majority and notthe entire Council. Both minority groups voted against the proposals.
4
While the proposals being submitted are not supported by all political parties of theBorough Council, the discussion and debate that took place through the process hasenabled a submission to be prepared that is both robust and appropriate.
Furthermore, similarities do exist between the models that were suggested by eachpolitical group and considered by the PER Committee on 12 and 19 July 2005. Forexample a general consensus was achieved on the appropriate Council size; andfour wards remained unchanged in each model (Ashridge; Kings Langley; Watling;Bovingdon, Flaunden and Chipperfield).
It was also a feature of each model that numerous distinct communities across theborough were identified and preserved. Examples in Hemel Hempstead includedGadebridge, Woodhall Farm, Adeyfield, Bennetts End, Leverstock Green, andApsley; while Kings Langley, Tring, Northchurch and Berkhamsted were examplesacross the rest of the borough. It was in the interpretation of geographic range, andthe accommodation of distinct communities within an electoral ward, that differencesexisted.
5
3. PROPOSED COUNCIL SIZE
The Borough Council are proposing that the Council size should remain unchanged,at 52 elected members.
It is the Borough Council’s opinion that 52 elected members are necessary toachieve effective local democracy while preserving the local communities that exist.
It is acknowledged that this is view is not supported by all elected members of theCouncil. Both the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups have advocated a Councilsize of 51 members.
The appropriate Council size was considered early in the Borough Council’s FurtherElectoral Review process, at the meeting of 1 June 2005 (a copy of the agenda isincluded at annex A).
Analysis of the current situation was presented to members, as were the results of asurvey of local Councillors.
At this meeting it was the majority opinion that a decrease in Council size may bepossible, if it helped to tackle the electoral equalities that existed. However, any suchreduction should be minimal – and a Council size of 50-52 members was anticipatedas the most appropriate.
A Council size of 50-52 members is considered appropriate because:
Dacorum borough is forecast to have a rising population. Retention of theCouncil size of 52 members would still involve an increase in electoratefor an average Councillor (from 2043 to 2065 electorate). A reduction to50 or 51 members would involve concomitantly larger increases and itwas the majority view that any reduction entailing an average Councillor’selectorate being greater than 2150 (resulting in 50 elected members)would place unreasonable demands on members.
Although not considered relevant to the deliberations of the BoundaryCommittee, the Borough Council’s PER Committee did note thatDacorum Borough already has a higher number of electors per councillorthan many of its ‘nearest neighbour’ authorities.
The new political management structure has changed members roles atthe authority. Significant decision-making responsibility rests with anumber of members (Portfolio Holders, and Chairmen) while others havea diversified role of overview and scrutiny, policy development and,increasingly, area working. The diversified role, with numerousCommittee memberships, has increased demands on elected membersand the Council size proposed is considered the minimum to effectivelyservice the structure in place.
The borough is undergoing significant change at the present time. It is anarea of high housing growth, being required to accommodate extensivedevelopment at the present time and into the future. The Borough Councilare also seeking significant regeneration of the local area, while reducingtheir budget and establishing more efficient and effective structures andprocesses . A Council size of 50-52 members is considered necessary to
6
adequately represent the interests of local people on these issues at alocal, regional and national level.
As part of the changing role and operation of local authorities, there hasbeen development of more extensive partnership working with otheragencies. For example, the Borough Council are partners withHertfordshire County Council on the Dacorum Joint Highways Panel, andalso the County Council and local health agencies on the Dacorum JointHealth Scrutiny Committee. A reduction below 50 councillors wouldrestrict efforts to contribute positively to these forums and foster thepartnerships that will deliver benefits to the local area.
The survey of Councillors undertaken indicated that the demands beingmade on them had increased in the past year. This is due, in part, to theincreasing expectations of residents with regards to both what theCouncil, and the members, should achieve. The suggested Council sizeis that anticipated as the minimum to continue to meet these expectationsand respond to the concerns of local residents.
On subsequent modelling of wards, it was the majority of view that a reduction inCouncil size – even to 50 or 51 elected members - necessitated boundaryamendments that were to the detriment of local communities. The gains in equalitywere not considered sufficient justification for proposing these boundaries. It waspossible to tackle the issue of inequality within a Council size of 52 members, and atthis size minimal disruption would be caused to established wards and communities.
7
4. PROPOSED WARDS
The wards being proposed by the Borough Council attempt to solve the currentinequalities through minimal changes to the current ward structure. This retains thecommunities as far as practicable in their current form, which is considered desirable.
As a result, it is proposed that no changes are made to the following wards:
Gadebridge Hemel Hempstead Central Corner Hall Tring West Tring Central Tring East Aldbury & Wigginton Northchurch Berkhamsted West Ashridge Watling Bovingdon, Flaunden & Chipperfield Kings Langley
It is proposed that boundary changes are made to the following wards:
Woodhall Farm Grovehill Warners End Chaulden & Shrubhill Boxmoor Highfield & St. Paul’s Adeyfield West Adeyfield East Leverstock Green Bennetts End Nash Mills Berkhamsted Castle Berkhamsted East
It is proposed to create two new wards:
Grovehill West Tile Kiln
It is proposed that while no boundary change is made to the following ward, a changeto the number of Councillors representing the ward takes place:
Apsley
The wards proposed are set out below. Each table sets out the polling districts thatform the ward, with any roads that are proposed for removal or addition alsoindicated.
8
For each road that has been moved, the concomitant electorate affected has beencalculated by multiplying the number of properties by the average electorateoccupancy for a property in the borough (1.83 people).
9
1. WOODHALL FARM
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AMA - 1956
Polliing district: AMB - 2334
Additions:
Three Cherry Trees Lane(caravan site) (from ADA)
30 55
TOTAL: 4345
Councillors: 2
2. GROVEHILL WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Additions: (from APA)
Ninian Road 112 205
Tintagel Close 48 88
Dunlin Road 87 159
Helston Grove 14 26
Leven Way 48 88
Trevalga Way 35 64
Isenburg Way 47 86
Rannoch Walk 36 66
Katrine Square 26 48
Laidon Square 16 29
Tremaine Grove 43 79
Camborne Drive 76 139
Penrose Court 50 92
Lomond Road 92 168
Argyll Road 120 220
10
Claymore 196 359
Washington Avenue (part,20%)
26 48
TOTAL: 1964
Councillors: 1
3. GROVEHILL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: APA - 3502
Deletions: (from APA)
Ninian Road 112 205
Tintagel Close 48 88
Dunlin Road 87 159
Helston Grove 14 26
Leven Way 48 88
Trevalga Way 35 64
Isenburg Way 47 86
Rannoch Walk 36 66
Katrine Square 26 48
Laidon Square 16 29
Tremaine Grove 43 79
Camborne Drive 76 139
Penrose Court 50 92
Lomond Road 92 168
Argyll Road 120 220
Claymore 196 359
Washington Avenue (part,80%)
102 187
Polling district: APB - 2155
11
Additions:
Redbourn Road (fromADA)
14 26
TOTAL: 3720
Councillors: 2
4. GADEBRIDGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AJ - 3894
TOTAL: 3894
Councillors: 2
5. WARNERS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AHA - 1591
Polling district: AHB - 2083
Additions: (from AKC)
Youngfield Road 21 38
Ravensdell 18 33
East Flint 11 20
Briarcliff 16 29
Roseheath (part) 26 48
TOTAL: 3842
Councillors: 2
6. CHAULDEN & SHRUBHILL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AKA - 2161
Polling district: AKB - 650
12
Polling district: AKC - 993
Deletions:(from AKC)
Youngfield Road 21 38
Ravensdell 18 33
East Flint 11 20
Briarcliff 16 29
Roseheath (part) 26 48
Additions: (from AGB)
Cangels Close 12 22
Grove Road 16 29
Moorland Road 37 68
Old Fishery House, OldFishery lane
1 2
Windybeg, 1-13 (odds)Northridge Way
8 15
TOTAL: 3772
Councillors: 2
7. BOXMOOR
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AGA 1578
Polling district: AGB 1670
Deletions: (from AGB)
Cangels Close 12 22
Grove Road 16 29
Moorland Road 37 68
Old Fishery House, OldFishery lane
1 2
Windybeg, 1-13 (odds)Northridge Way
8 15
13
Polling district: AGC 1100
TOTAL: 4212
Councillors: 2
8. CENTRAL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AAA - 1311
Polling district: AAB - 1227
Polling district: AAC - 1650
TOTAL: 4188
Councillors: 2
9. HIGHFIELD
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: ABA - 3416
Deletions: (from ABA)
Randalls Ride 14 26
Taverners 24 44
Bowyers 3 6
Mercers 10 18
Allandale (part) 20 37
Catsdell (part) 20 37
Polling district: ABB - 1290
TOTAL: 4538
Councillors: 2
10. ADEYFIELD WEST & ST. PAUL’S
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AC - 3624
14
Polling district: ABC - 691
Additions: (from ABA)
Randalls Ride 14 26
Taverners 24 44
Bowyers 3 6
Mercers 10 18
Allandale (part) 20 37
Catsdell (part) 20 37
TOTAL: 4483
Councillors: 2
11. ADEYFIELD EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated occupancy:
Polling district: ADA - 2249
Deletions: (from ADA)
Redbourn Road 14 26
Three Cherry Trees Lane(caravan site)
30 55
Polling district: ADB - 2213
TOTAL: 4382
Councillors: 2
12. APSLEY
Composition: Properties: Estimated occupancy:
Polling district: AFA - 2922
Polling district: AFB - 882
TOTAL: 3804
Councillors: 2
15
13. CORNER HALL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AEA - 3206
Polling district: AEB - 1127
TOTAL: 4333
Councillors: 2
14. LEVERSTOCK GREEN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: ALB - 2854
Polling district: ALC - 756
Additions: (from ALA)
Tile Kiln Crescent 26 48
Brickfield Avenue 22 40
Kiln Close 8 15
The Wayside 7 13
TOTAL: 3726
Councillors: 2
15. TILE KILN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: ALA - 1754
Deletions: (from ALA)
Tile Kiln Crescent 26 48
Brickfield Avenue 22 40
Kiln Close 8 15
The Wayside 7 13
Additions: (from AQA)
16
Rant Meadow 40 73
Three Corners 25 46
Flatfield Road 36 66
Goldcroft 51 93
Peascroft Road 54 99
TOTAL: 2015
Councillors: 1
16. BENNETTS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: AQA - 1819
Deletions: (from AQA)
Rant Meadow 40 73
Three Corners 25 46
Flatfield Road 36 66
Goldcroft 51 93
Peascroft Road 54 99
Polling district: AQB - 2533
Additions: (from BAB)
Chambersbury Lane (part) - 34
TOTAL: 4009
Councillors: 2
17. NASH MILLS
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: BA - 1822
Polling district: BAA - 234
Polling District: BAB 68
17
Deletions: (from BAB)
Chambersbury Lane (part) - 34
TOTAL: 2089
Councillors: 1
18. BERKHAMSTED CASTLE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: KBA - 2044
Polling district: KBB - 573
Polling district: KBC - 2238
Deletions: (from KBC)
Chapel Street (part) 16 29
Manor Street 55 101
Ravens Lane 51 93
Holliday Street 22 40
High Street (part) 50 92
TOTAL: 4500
Councillors: 2
19. BERKHAMSTED EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: KCA - 1208
Polling district: KCB - 1881
Polling district: KCC - 1019
Additions: (from KBC)
18
Chapel Street (part) 16 29
Manor Street 55 101
Ravens Lane 51 93
Holliday Street 22 40
High Street (part) 50 92
TOTAL: 4463
Councillors: 2
20. BERKHAMSTED WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: KAA - 1964
Polling district: KAB - 2439
TOTAL: 4403
Councillors: 2
21. TRING WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: DCA - 1982
Polling district: DCB - 1189
Polling district: DDA - 622
Polling district: DDB - 407
TOTAL: 4200
Councillors: 2
22. TRING CENTRAL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: DBA - 1122
Polling district: DBB - 1606
19
Polling district: DBC - 1142
TOTAL: 3870
Councillors: 2
23. TRING EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: DA - 2063
TOTAL: 2063
Councillors: 1
24. ALDBURY & WIGGINTON
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: EAA - 552
Polling district: EAB - 163
Polling district: EB - 1132
TOTAL: 1847
Councillors: 1
25. NORTHCHURCH
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: JA - 2220
TOTAL: 2220
Councillors: 1
26. ASHRIDGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: FA - 915
Polling district: FB - 1253
TOTAL: 2168
20
Councillors: 1
27. WATLING
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: GA - 1085
Polling district: GB - 2325
Polling district: GCA - 441
Polling district: GCB - 308
TOTAL: 4159
Councillors: 2
28. BOVINGDON, FLAUNDEN & CHIPPERFIELD
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: LA - 3463
Polling district: LB - 263
Polling district: LC - 1334
Polling district: LD - 225
Polling district: LE - 977
TOTAL: 6262
Councillors: 3
29. KINGS LANGLEY
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:
Polling district: PA - 765
Polling district: PB - 2603
Polling district: PC - 535
TOTAL: 3903
Councillors: 2
21
Equality under the proposals:
The proposals produce a borough council of 52 members. As the electorate of theborough is forecast to be 107,372 in 2009 this results in an average Councillor beingexpected to represent 2065 electorate.
The following table illustrates the electorate proposed for each ward, the number ofelected members proposed, and the resulting ratio of member to electorate. It alsosets out how close each ward is to the ideal ratio of 1:2065.
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Woodhall Farm 4345 2 2172.5 +5.2
Grovehill West 1964 1 1964 -4.9
Grovehill 3720 2 1860 -9.9
Gadebridge 3894 2 1947 -5.7
Warners End 3842 2 1921 -7.0
Chaulden & Shrubhill 3772 2 1886 -8.7
Boxmoor 4212 2 2106 +2.0
Central 4188 2 2094 +1.4
Highfield 4538 2 2269 +9.9
Adeyfield West & St.Paul’s
4483 2 2241.5 +8.6
Adeyfield East 4382 2 2191 +6.1
Apsley 3804 2 1902 -7.9
Corner Hall 4333 2 2166.5 +4.9
Leverstock Green 3726 2 1862.5 -9.8
Tile Kiln 2015 1 2015 -2.4
Bennetts End 4009 2 2004.5 -2.9
Nash Mills 2089 1 2089 +1.2
Berkhamsted Castle 4500 2 2250 +9.0
Berkhamsted East 4463 2 2231.5 +8.1
Berkhamsted West 4403 2 2201.5 +6.6
22
Tring West 4200 2 2100 +1.7
Tring Central 3870 2 1935 -6.3
Tring East 2063 1 2063 -0.1
Aldbury & Wigginton 1847 1 1847 -10.6
Northchurch 2220 1 2220 +7.5
Ashridge 2168 1 2168 +5.0
Watling 4159 2 2079.5 +0.7
Bovingdon, Flaunden& Chipperfield
6262 3 2087 +1.1
Kings Langley 3903 2 1951.5 -5.5
23
ANNEX A
DACORUM BOROUGH COUNCILPERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW (PER) COMMITTEE
(i) Agenda of 1 June 2005
(ii) Agenda of 15 June 2005
(iii) Agenda of 29 June 2005
(iv) Agenda of 12 July 2005
(v) Liberal Democrat proposal distributed at meeting of 12 July 2005
(vi) Agenda of 19 July 2005
(vii) Graphs of model deviations distributed at meeting of 19 July 2005
Note: The maps that were used for the officer recommendations of 15 and 29 Junehave not been included as they were first drafts of possible ward arrangements that,due to their rejection by the Committee, were not modelled to the detail ofsubsequent political group models. Therefore, although the numbers presentedindicated possible levels of equality achievable, there was not an opportunity tofinalise the maps.
The maps for the Labour and Liberal Democrat group models of 12 and 19 July havenot been included but are expected to form the basis of independent submissions ofboth Labour and Liberal Democrat group to the BCFE.
24
PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 1 JUNE 2005 AT 7.30 PM
BULBOURNE ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
The Councillors listed below are requested to attend the above meeting, on the dayand at the time and place stated, to consider the business set out in this agenda.
Cook WhiteHarden WilliamsMrs Rance Mrs Wyatt-LoweReay
(Substitute Members: Councillors Bannister, Flint, Lythgoe, Mills, Tiley, Townsend)
For further information please contact Jim Doyle on Tel: 01442 228222, Fax: 01442228218, e-mail [email protected]. Information about the Council is also tobe found on our web-site: www.dacorum.gov.uk
PART IItem No. Page
No.
1. Arrangements for Chairing meetings 2
2. Introductions 2
3. Apologies for Absence 2
4. Declarations of Interest 2
5. Public Participation 2
6. Initial assessment of Full Council requirement 3
* * *
abcdefgh
25
1. ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHAIRING MEETINGS
To decide how this and future meetings will be Chaired.
2. INTRODUCTIONS
3. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of interest.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation.
26
AGENDA ITEM: 6
SUMMARY
Title of report: ASSESSMENT OF FULL COUNCIL REQUIREMENT
Contact: Michelle Evans-Riches, Member Support Manager (ext. 2633)Jim Doyle, Senior Member Support Officer (ext. 2222)
Purpose of report: To contribute to the Dacorum Borough Council BoundaryCommittee’s consideration of an appropriate Council size, as part ofthe Periodic Electoral Review being undertaken.
Recommendations That members consider the information presented and indicate theratio of councillor to electorate that they would seek to achieve in thisperiodic electoral review.
Corporate vision/objectives:
This report contributes to the corporate objective of becoming an“Excellent” Council, through seeking equitable representation andthe appropriate Council size in the Borough.
Implications: PoliticalEquitable representation will improve resident’s access to decision-making at the Borough Council. A reduction in the number ofCouncillors will result in each Councillor representing more residents,and may involve each attending an increased number of meetings.
FinancialReducing or increasing the Council size may result in increasing ordecreasing the total budget provided for members. However, thisdecision will need to be the subject of an Independent RemunerationPanel, and will not be made as part of the Periodic Electoral Reviewprocess.
Consultees: Members have been asked to contribute their opinions through abrief questionnaire. Further opportunities for them, and the widercommunity, to input into the proposals to be submitted will be animportant part of the Periodic Electoral Review process.
Backgroundpapers:
“Guidance and procedural advice for periodic electoral reviews” (TheElectoral Commission, July 2002)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. To begin preparation of proposals to be submitted to the Boundary Committeefor England (BCFE), which will seek to solve current and expectedinequalities in representation, it is a necessary first step to have a target forthe councillor to electorate ratio, and therefore the Council size. This sets theparameters of investigation and discussion.
27
2. This report sets out background information that is consideredimportant in these deliberations, including:
The projected electorate size for 2009, both for the borough as a wholeand for individual wards, and the calculations that justify this projection.
The impact of variations in Council size on councillor to electorate ratios.
The current responsibilities and workloads of borough councillors.
The distribution of inequalities in representation that will exist in 2009.
3. In reaching a decision on Council size to submit to the BCFE the following,taken from their guidance, is highlighted:
“…representations and submissions should address the statutorycriteria and the Schedule 11 Rules, and consist of three mainelements:
the proposition for change or, indeed, against change; the arguments to support the proposition; and the evidence which justifies the arguments.”
4. Therefore, any proposal will need to provide reasons why it is being putforward and the evidence that supports these reasons. The newarrangements should represent the best solution to deliver effective andconvenient local government.
Projected Electorate for 2009
5. In reviewing electoral arrangements for Dacorum borough, it is necessary toensure their future validity through the use of projected electorate figures. TheBCFE are required by Schedule II to the Local Government Act 1972:
“…to have regard not only to the current electorate of an area but alsoto changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to takeplace over the next five years. This ensures that the BCFE’srecommendations do not relate to a single point in time, but takeaccount of expected population movements in the short- to medium-term.”
Therefore, for the purposes of the Dacorum Borough 2005 Review, theelectorate is being projected to 2009.
6. The total Dacorum electorate for 2009 is estimated as 107,362. This has beencalculated as follows:
Total Dacorum electorate of 2009 = Sum (Ward sizes 2005 + population change until 2009 + impacts of major
developments)
The following detail how the various parts of the formula have been produced.
2005 ward sizeWard sizes of 2005 are obtained from the electoral register of 2005.
28
Population change 2005 - 2009The population change until 2009 is estimated from examining the changesthat have occurred in each ward in the period 1999-2005, set out in Annex A,and subsequently projecting the average change to 2009.
Major development impactThe impacts of major developments are estimated from:
Impact = units in major development x average electorate per unit
A major development is defined as one involving the construction of 50 ormore units. In the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1999 - 2011, development at5 sites satisfy the definition:
Plough site, St Albans Road, Hemel Hempstead (Ward: Hemel HempsteadCentral)
TA Centre, Queensway, Hemel Hempstead (Ward: Highfield and St. Pauls) Manor Estate, Hemel Hempstead (Ward: Apsley) Gas Board site, London Road, Hemel Hempstead (Ward: Apsley) Land at Gossoms End/ Stag Lane, Berkhamsted (Ward: Apsley)
The average electorate per unit is estimated as 1.83. This is the averageelectorate per household determined from data from previous years.
The total ward sizes, taking into account population and development change,projected for 2009 are given in Table 1.
7. Special circumstances – Berkhamsted Castle and Apsley wardsThe formula detailed above is not followed in two instances in Table 1. This isthe result of known developmental circumstances for both wards.
Apsley Ward
This ward has been subject to significant development in recent years,resulting in an average change from 1999 to 2005 of more than 100 peopleper year. In the period 2005 to 2009 it is expected that another majordevelopment will be completed, which will add an estimated 816 people to theelectorate. However, this is expected to be the overwhelming majority ofpopulation change that takes place in this ward. As a result the averagechange per year has not also been included in the final projected figure. Toinclude both would inflate the projection beyond what is regarded as anaccurate prediction of electorate change.
Therefore, the change in Apsley ward has been calculated as:
2009 electorate = 2005 electorate + impact of major development.
Berkhamsted Castle ward
Again, this ward has been subject to significant development in recent years,resulting in an average change per year from 1999 to 2005 of 70 people. Incontrast to Apsley ward, no further significant development is expected.Therefore, to predict the 2009 electorate using the average change per yearwould inaccurately inflate the expected total in 2009. It is not expected that
29
sufficiently significant population migration or development will take place thatwill result in changes of 70 people per year. Instead, it is expected thatcircumstances will result in a total for this ward that remains, to practicaleffect, static. Therefore, the projected total for this ward in 2009 is the sameas the known total for 2005.
Table 1: Projections for Dacorum Borough wards in 2009
Electorate2005
Net change1999 to 2005
Averagechange per
year
Projectedchange to
2009
Projectedchangethroughmajor
developments to 2009
Projectedtotal 2009
Hemel HempsteadCentral
3923 136 19.43 77.71 187.00 4188
Highfield & StPaul's
5272 28 4.00 16.00 109.00 5397
Adeyfield West 3702 -136 -19.43 -77.71 0.00 3624
Adeyfield East 4405 100 14.29 57.14 0.00 4462
Corner Hall 4392 -103 -14.71 -58.86 0.00 4333
Apsley* 2988 739 105.57 422.29 816.00 3804
Boxmoor 4358 -18 -2.57 -10.29 0.00 4348
Warners End 3699 -43 -6.14 -24.57 0.00 3674
Gadebridge 3894 -16 -2.29 -9.14 0.00 3885
Chaulden &Shrubhill
3861 -99 -14.14 -56.57 0.00 3804
Leverstock Green 5445 -142 -20.29 -81.14 0.00 5364
Woodhall 4302 -21 -3.00 -12.00 0.00 4290
Grovehill 5744 -153 -21.86 -87.43 0.00 5657
Bennetts End 4332 35 5.00 20.00 0.00 4352
Nash Mills 2098 43 6.14 24.57 0.00 2123
Tring East 2104 -71 -10.14 -40.57 0.00 2063
Tring Central 3849 36 5.14 20.57 0.00 3870
Tring West 4148 91 13.00 52.00 0.00 4200
Aldbury andWigginton
1862 -26 -3.71 -14.86 0.00 1847
30
Ashridge 2166 3 0.43 1.71 0.00 2168
Watling 4136 41 5.86 23.43 0.00 4159
Northchurch 2191 50 7.14 28.57 0.00 2220
Berkhamsted West 4155 -12 -1.71 -6.86 255.00 4403
BerkhamstedCastle*
4855 490 70.00 280.00 0.00 4855
Berkhamsted East 4137 -51 -7.29 -29.14 0.00 4108
Bovingdon,Flaunden andChipperfield
6331 -121 -17.29 -69.14 0.00 6262
Kings Langley 3889 24 3.43 13.71 0.00 3903
*see notes on Special Circumstances
Impact of variations in Council size
8. In the Electoral Commission publication “Guidance and procedural advice forperiodic electoral reviews” it is stated that
“Section 27 of the [Local Government Act 1992] requires both TheElectoral Commission and the BCFE to comply, so far as practicable,with Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 (Rules to beObserved in Considering Electoral Arrangements)”
and that within these rules
“In relation to districts (metropolitan, shire or unitary) and Londonboroughs, the Rules provide that, having regard to any changes in thenumber or distribution of the local government electors of the district orLondon borough likely to take place within the period of five yearsimmediately following the start of the review:
b. the number of local government electors represented by eachcouncillor shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every ward ofthe district/borough and London borough;”1
1 The BCFE also make clear that in seeking this equality set out in the statutory criteria, thetask is not merely arithmetical, stating: “in undertaking reviews and in considering final recommendations The Electoral
Commission and the BCFE must have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiableelectoral area boundaries, and to local ties which might be broken by those boundaries.An approach which is too rigorously mathematical could harm both of those interest.These are issues which are also clearly relevant to our statutory criteria under section13(5) of the [Local Government Act 1992] of having regard to the need to reflect theinterests and identities of local communities; and
we must have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government,and reflect the interests and identities of local communities."
31
9. Clearly absolute equality is expected to be difficult to achieve, given the needto have regard to considerations such as community identity. However, theBCFE make clear that deviations from the ideal ratio of more than 10% willrequire particular justification, and imbalances of more than 20% would beacceptable in only the most exceptional circumstances.
10. Therefore, with a projected total Dacorum electorate of 107, 362 in 2009, andassuming the retention of the current Council size of 52 elected members,the ideal ratio of Councillor to electorate is
1: 2065
11. Taking into account the 10% tolerances of the BCFE guidelines, the rangefor each ward would be between 1933 and 2362 – though, as previouslynoted, it would remain important to achieve as equitable a ratio aspracticable throughout the borough while having regard to considerationssuch as identifiable communities and local identity.
12. The Dacorum Borough Council ratio in 2009 would be higher than many ofits ‘nearest neighbour’ authorities, as shown in Table 2. However, as theBCFE state:
“In considering the issue of council size, we are of the view that each areashould be considered on its own merits and that the BCFE should not aim forequality of council size between authorities of similar types andpopulations…We agree with the view that local government should be asdiverse as the communities it serves, providing services, leadership andrepresentation tailored to the characteristics and needs of individual areas.”
32
Table 2: Comparison of councillor to electorate ratio of Dacorum and ‘NearestNeighbour’ authorities
Local Authority Number ofCouncillors
Electorate ('000s) Electorate perCouncillor
Welwyn Hatfield 48 70.174 1462
Tonbridge &Malling
53 82.667 1560
Tunbridge Wells 48 79 1646
Hertsmere 39 67.57 1733
Test valley 48 88.356 1841
North Hertfordshire 49 94.228 1923
Maidstone 55 108.458 1972
Eastleigh 44 90.382 2054
Dacorum (2009) 52 107.362 2065
Warwick 46 96.826 2105
Chelmsford 57 126.974 2228
13. A reduction in the number of Councillors will increase the electorate for eachCouncillor. For example, at a Council size of 50 each elected member wouldideally represent 2147 people. This would represent an increase of 82 fromthe ratio for an unchanged Council size of 52 members.
14. For Council sizes of less than 50, the electorate represented by eachcouncillor continues to increase, as illustrated in Table 3. It should be notedthat although data on a reduced Council size is given this does not precludethe adoption of a recommendation to increase the size of Dacorum’s Council.Any recommendation, whether it be retention of the status quo or adjustmentof Council size, will need to be justified and supported by evidence.
33
Table 3: Changes in councillor to electorate ratios with reducing Council size
If number ofCouncillors
is:
Then eachrepresents
the followingnumber of
people:
Tolerance(10%)
Minimumelectorate
represented(ratio - 10%)
Maximumelectorate
represented(ratio + 10%)
52 2065 206 1858 2271
51 2105 211 1895 2316
50 2147 215 1933 2362
49 2191 219 1972 2410
48 2237 224 2013 2460
47 2284 228 2056 2513
46 2334 233 2101 2567
45 2386 239 2147 2624
44 2440 244 2196 2684
43 2497 250 2247 2746
42 2556 256 2301 2812
41 2619 262 2357 2880
40 2684 268 2416 2952
Data regarding current responsibilities and workloads of elected members
15. Any proposal on the appropriate overall size of Dacorum Borough Councilwill need to take account of the demands that are, and will be, placed on theelected representatives. The burden on Councillors should not be excessiveas this will undermine their ability to deliver services to their constituents, andbe detrimental to resident’s access to democratic representation.
The following therefore presents data on the current responsibilities ofCouncillors.
16. Further, the current review represents the first opportunity to examine whetherCouncil size is appropriate to the new political management arrangements ofDacorum Borough Council that came into force in September 2001. Thesechanges were made in response to the government’s modernising agenda,and try to make local government more accessible and open to the people itserves. The structure as it currently operates in Dacorum is shown in Figure1.
34
17. On this issue, the BCFE state:
“We have no particular view on whether the move towards new politicalmanagement structures should result in increases, reductions or,indeed, no change in council size, although we expect the tendencytowards reductions [in Council size] is likely to continue. Nevertheless,whatever council size interested parties may be considering proposingto the BCFE, it will be important that they can demonstrate that theirproposals have been fully thought through, and have been developedin the context of a review of internal political management and the roleof councillors in the new structures.”
Figure 1: Political management structures of Dacorum Borough Council
FULL COUNCIL
CABINET
Leader & Community LeadershipEconomic ProsperityHousingEnvironmental ServicesPlanningCommunity ServicesResources
OVERVIEW ANDSCRUTINY
Economic Prosperity &Community Leadership
EnvironmentResources
Social
TASK ANDFINISH GROUPS
PROGRAMMINGPANEL
ADVISORY / CONSULTATIVE / STRATEGICPARTNERSHIP BODIES
35
18. One of the primary ways elected members become involved indecision processes and represent their constituent’s interests is throughmembership of, and involvement in, Committees and Task and Finish Groups.There are many Committees within the Dacorum structure, resulting in theaverage number of committee memberships for each councillor of 4.9, withthe majority of current councillors having 5 or fewer memberships, as shownin Figure 2.
Figure 2: Distribution of membership responsibilities among Dacorum councillors
19. In addition to the number of memberships, frequency of meetings is anotherkey determinant of the impact of Council meetings on workloads. Table 4lists the number of timetabled meetings for some of the most importantDacorum Committees2.
2 Task and Finish Groups have not been included. Although their membership forms 25% oftotal committee memberships, they are typically short, project-based groups that meetinfrequently to fulfil an investigative or review function. Totals of 4-6 meetings are notuncommon, but are dependent on the nature of the project.
Committee memberships
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Councillors
Mem
bers
hips
Number of Councillors:
36
Table 4: Frequency of Dacorum Borough Council Committees 2004/05
Number of scheduled meetings2004/05:
Cabinet 13
Social OSC 13
EPCL OSC 12
Environment OSC 10
Resources OSC 11
Joint Health OSC 5
Audit Committee 5
Development Control 16
Housing Advisory Panel 10
Standards 4
Appeals 15
Licensing and Health and SafetyEnforcement
11
Full Council 8
20. Finally, although committee involvement is one of the primary ways electedmembers interact with the functions of the Council, of equal importance istheir interaction with constituents in a variety of ways. The Dacorum BoroughCouncil Constitution states that the roles and functions of all Councillorsincludes responding to constituents’ enquiries and representations, andactively encouraging community participation and citizen involvement indecision making.
21. In an effort to assess the non-Council demands on members, and to providetheir opinions on the appropriate Council size, councillors were asked tocomplete a brief questionnaire. 15 of 52 questionnaires (28.9%) werereturned, and the following presents the results:
Question: On average how many DBC Committees and Task & FinishGroups do you feel you attend each week?
Respondents:1-3 124-6 27-9 0
10-12 012+ 0
37
Question: On average, how many other meetings, for example ward andneighbourhood meetings, do you feel you attend each week?
Respondents:1-3 114-6 27-9 2
10-12 012+ 0
Question: How many enquiries and correspondence do you estimate youreceive each week from your constituents? (including telephone calls,letters and emails)
Respondents:1-5 2
6-10 711-20 421-30 030+ 1
Question: How many hours do you estimate you spend on your duties as aBorough Councillor each week?
Respondents:1-5 0
6-10 511-15 116-20 520+ 3
Question: In your experience, in the past year have the demands beingmade on you as a Borough Councillor:
Respondents:Increased 10
Remained thesame
5
Decreased 0
Question: Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the followingstatements:
Stronglyagree
Agree Neitheragree/
disagree
Disagree Stronglydisagree
The political management structure of DacorumBorough Council, with Cabinet and OSCs etc.,provides all members with an opportunity to influencedecision-making
0 4 0 6 4
38
With regards to delivering effective and convenientlocal government in Dacorum I think the currentBorough Council size of 52 elected members is:
Too high and should be reduced * 0 2 0 3 0
The appropriate size and should remain thesame
6 4 1 0 0
Too low and should be increased 0 1 0 1 1
Inequalities in representation in 2009
22. As previously noted, for the ratio calculated for Dacorum Borough in 2009,based on 52 councillors, 10% tolerances result in a ratio of Councillor:electorate of:
1: 1858 – 2271
Given the projected electorate of Dacorum Borough in 2009, even withretention of the current Council size of 52 members, seven wards will not fallwithin the 10% tolerances of the ideal ratio:
Highfield and St Pauls Adeyfield West Apsley Warners End Leverstock Green Aldbury & Wigginton Berkhamsted Castle
23. In submitting eventual proposals to the BCFE, even with no change inCouncil size, there will thus be a need to either find suitable justification forthese significant inequalities or amend ward boundaries to remove them andproduce more equitable representation.
24. It is also the case that amending boundaries to solve the current projectedinequalities may affect neighbouring wards, requiring their assessment andpotential amendment. Changes in Council size will also have this affect.
25. At this time, members are not being asked to suggest amendments tospecific ward boundaries. Instead, they are asked to suggest their target ratioof Councillor to Electorate. This will enable officers to produce information onwhere inequalities are projected to exist, and where the necessaryamendments could best be accommodated. These can then be discussed atfuture meetings.
39
Annex A: Change in electorate in Dacorum wards 1999 – 2005
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Net change1999 to
2005
Hemel HempsteadCentral
3787 72 3859 -6 3853 -5 3848 -50 3798 117 3915 8 3923 136
Highfield & StPaul's
5244 69 5313 -26 5287 8 5295 -40 5255 59 5314 -42 5272 28
Adeyfield West 3838 -34 3804 -6 3798 -93 3705 11 3716 17 3733 -31 3702 -136Adeyfield East 4305 -21 4284 8 4292 49 4341 16 4357 47 4404 1 4405 100
Corner Hall 4495 -127 4368 -7 4361 -16 4345 22 4367 41 4408 -16 4392 -103Apsley 2249 13 2262 -36 2226 13 2239 306 2545 360 2905 83 2988 739
Boxmoor 4376 6 4382 -25 4357 -59 4298 55 4353 39 4392 -34 4358 -18Warners End 3742 10 3752 -11 3741 -28 3713 10 3723 12 3735 -36 3699 -43Gadebridge 3910 66 3976 -18 3958 15 3973 -60 3913 45 3958 -64 3894 -16Chaulden &
Shrubhill3960 -6 3954 -18 3936 -9 3927 -32 3895 2 3897 -36 3861 -99
Leverstock Green 5587 -6 5581 -18 5563 -60 5503 -37 5466 2 5468 -23 5445 -142Woodhall 4323 66 4389 -101 4288 13 4301 -21 4280 69 4349 -47 4302 -21Grovehill 5897 -7 5890 -26 5864 -62 5802 -25 5777 -1 5776 -32 5744 -153
Bennetts End 4297 163 4460 -43 4417 -27 4390 -47 4343 25 4368 -36 4332 35Nash Mills 2055 29 2084 -24 2060 36 2096 28 2124 9 2133 -35 2098 43Tring East 2175 6 2181 -7 2174 -41 2133 -32 2101 -3 2098 6 2104 -71
Tring Central 3813 10 3823 -49 3774 19 3793 -33 3760 138 3898 -49 3849 36Tring West 4057 61 4118 -18 4100 30 4130 -14 4116 91 4207 -59 4148 91
Aldbury andWigginton
1888 24 1912 0 1912 -13 1899 -28 1871 -10 1861 1 1862 -26
Ashridge 2163 -26 2137 23 2160 -11 2149 24 2173 38 2211 -45 2166 3Watling 4095 21 4116 1 4117 40 4157 -22 4135 50 4185 -49 4136 41
Northchurch 2141 -14 2127 16 2143 5 2148 -20 2128 46 2174 17 2191 50
40
Berkhamsted West 4167 32 4199 -44 4155 21 4176 -25 4151 41 4192 -37 4155 -12Berkhamsted
Castle4365 73 4438 12 4450 185 4635 80 4715 140 4855 0 4855 490
Berkhamsted East 4188 -25 4163 38 4201 -42 4159 -33 4126 29 4155 -18 4137 -51Bovingdon,
Flaunden andChipperfield
6452 27 6479 -10 6469 -20 6449 -58 6391 18 6409 -78 6331 -121
Kings Langley 3865 13 3878 -5 3873 14 3887 18 3905 4 3909 -20 3889 24
Dacorum total: 105434 495 105929 -400 105529 -38 105491 -7 105484 1425 106909 -671 106238 804
41
PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 15 JUNE 2005 AT 7.30 PM
BULBOURNE ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
The Councillors listed below are requested to attend the above meeting, on the dayand at the time and place stated, to consider the business set out in this agenda.
Cook WhiteHarden WilliamsMrs Rance Mrs Wyatt-LoweReay
(Substitute Members: Councillors Bannister, Flint, Lythgoe, Mills, Tiley, Townsend)
For further information please contact Jim Doyle on Tel: 01442 228222, Fax: 01442228218, e-mail [email protected]. Information about the Council is also tobe found on our web-site: www.dacorum.gov.uk
PART IItem No. Page
No.
7. Apologies for Absence 2
8. Declarations of Interest 2
9. Public Participation 2
10. Options for Elector / Member Ratios 2
* * *
abcdefgh
42
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of interest.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation.
4. ELECTOR / MEMBER RATIO OPTIONS
An opportunity for members to consider two options for elector/member ratios.Proposals for the elector/member ratio will be circulated electronically prior tothe meeting and Maps will be available at the meeting.
43
PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW COMMITTEE15 June 2005
1:2147 (50) MODEL
Ward Population(estimate)
Councillors Ratio 1: Deviation fromideal (%)
Tring West 4053 2 2026.5 -5.6
Tring Central 4053 2 2026.5 -5.6
Tring East 2026 1 2026 -5.6
Aldbury, Wigginton &Northchurch
4067 2 2033.5 -5.3
Ashridge 2168 1 2168 +1.0
Berkhamsted West 4456 2 2228 +3.8
Berkhamsted castle 4456 2 2228 +3.8
Berkhamsted East 4456 2 2228 +3.8
Watling 4159 2 2079.5 -3.1
Bovingdon, Flaundenand Chipperfield
6262 3 2087 -2.8
Kings Langley & NashMills
6908 3 2303 +7.3
Grovehill 4332 2 2166 +0.9
Cupid Green 2166 1 2166 +0.9
Woodhall 4290 2 2145 -0.1
Adeyfield East 4462 2 2231 +3.9
Adeyfield West 4332 2 2166 +0.9
Leverstock Green East 4592 2 2296 +6.9
Leverstock Green West 4592 2 2296 +6.9
Hemel Hempstead South 6888 3 2296 +6.9
Boxmoor 3930 2 1965 -8.4
Counters End &Hammerfield
3930 2 1965 -8.4
Chaulden 2161 1 2161 +0.6
Warners End 3930 2 1965 -8.4
Gadebridge 4194 2 2097 -2.3
Highfield & St. Paul’s 6498 3 2166 +0.9
44
1:2497 (43) MODEL
Ward Population(estimate)
Councillors Ratio 1: Deviation fromideal (%)
Tring West 5067 2 2533.5 +1.5
Tring East 5066 2 2533 +1.5
Aldbury, Wigginton,Northchurch and LittleGaddesdon
4982 2 2491 -0.2
Watling & Nettleden withPotten End (part)
4659 2 2329.5 -6.7
Berkhamsted West 4706 2 2353 -5.8
Berkhamsted Castle andNettleden with PottenEnd (part)
4706 2 2353 -5.8
Berkhamsted East 4706 2 2353 -5.8
Bovingdon, Flaunden &Felden
4928 2 2464 -1.3
Kings Langley &Chipperfield
5237 2 2618.5 +4.9
Grovehill 4974 2 2487 -0.4
Woodhall 4974 2 2487 -0.4
Adeyfield 5048 2 2524 +1.1
Leverstock Green 4994 2 2497 0.0
Jarmans 2497 1 2497 0.0
Bennetts End and NashMills
7491 3 2497 0.0
Corner Hall & Apsley 4994 2 2497 0.0
Boxmoor 5240 2 2620 +4.9
Hemel HempsteadCentral
5048 2 2524 +1.1
Highfield & St. Paul’s 7572 3 2524 +1.1
Warners End andGadebridge North
2620 1 2620 +4.9
Warners End andGadebridge South
5240 2 2620 +4.9
Chaulden 2620 1 2620 +4.9
45
PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 29 JUNE 2005 AT 7.30 PM
DACORUM ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
The Councillors listed below are requested to attend the above meeting, on the dayand at the time and place stated, to consider the business set out in this agenda.
Cook WhiteHarden WilliamsMrs Rance Mrs Wyatt-LoweReay
(Substitute Members: Councillors Bannister, Flint, Lythgoe, Mills, Tiley, Townsend)
For further information please contact Jim Doyle on Tel: 01442 228222, Fax: 01442228218, e-mail [email protected]. Information about the Council is also tobe found on our web-site: www.dacorum.gov.uk
PART IItem No. Page
No.
11. Apologies for Absence 2
12. Declarations of Interest 2
13. Public Participation 2
14. Elector / member ratio options 3
* * *
abcdefgh
46
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of interest.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation.
47
AGENDA ITEM: 4
SUMMARY
Title of report: ELECTOR / MEMBER RATIO OPTIONS
Contact: Jim Doyle, Senior Member Support Officer (ext. 2222)Daniel Boucher, Member Support Officer (ext. 2224)
Purpose of report: To set out the revised model for Dacorum Borough Council wards atthe 1:2147 (50) model, and explain the suggestions being putforward.
Recommendations That members consider the information and options presented andsuggest the next steps they would like to take on this issue.
Corporate vision/objectives:
This report contributes to the corporate objective of becoming an“Excellent” Council, through seeking equitable representation andthe appropriate Council size in the Borough.
Implications: PoliticalEquitable representation will improve resident’s access to decision-making at the Borough Council. A reduction in the number ofCouncillors will result in each Councillor representing more residents,and may involve each attending an increased number of meetings.
FinancialReducing or increasing the Council size may result in increasing ordecreasing the total budget provided for members. However, thisdecision will need to be the subject of an Independent RemunerationPanel, and will not be made as part of the Periodic Electoral Reviewprocess.
Consultees: Members have been asked to contribute their opinions through abrief questionnaire. Further opportunities for them, and the widercommunity, to input into the proposals to be submitted will be animportant part of the Periodic Electoral Review process.
Backgroundpapers:
“Guidance and procedural advice for periodic electoral reviews” (TheElectoral Commission, July 2002)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The accompanying overlays set out the revised proposals for the Dacorum BoroughCouncil wards, at the Councillor to Electorate ratio of 1:2147.
It is thought that this ratio represents a level that will effectively deliver equitablerepresentation to the Dacorum population, having regard to the new politicalmanagement structure that operates within the Borough and the geographic spreadof population.
This report aims to set out explanations for proposals made, and options for changesto the pattern where choices are available.
48
1. The balance of Hemel Hempstead and the rest of Dacorum
The revised model proposes 21 Councillors for areas of the Borough outside ofHemel Hempstead. This means that there is a division in representation of 21:29councillors between these two parts of the Borough. This is a division of 42%:58%and represents a slight change in the current arrangement (40%:60%). It maintainsthe majority presence of Hemel Hempstead within Dacorum Borough Council,reflecting that this is where the majority of the population lives, while ensuring thatthe rest of Dacorum, which is significantly larger geographically and has 40% of thetotal population dispersed among small towns and villages, is not disadvantaged.
The 21:29 division represents a change of –2 Councillors for Hemel Hempstead. Thejustification for removing both Councillors from Hemel Hempstead, rather than onefrom Hemel Hempstead and one from the rest of the Borough, is that to reconfigurethe rest of the Borough to accommodate the loss of one Councillor would requireextensive disruption to parishes and small towns. To prevent inequalities arisingsmall communities would be artificially divided and aligned, detrimentally affecting thecommunity identities that exist. The concentration of population within HemelHempstead mean that the reduction of two Councillors can be accommodatedwithout significant detriment to any part of the town. Community identities can bemaintained, and inequality minimised across the Borough as a whole under thisproposal.
Another option considered was to provide an additional Councillor within HemelHempstead, resulting in an overall Council size of 51. While this would assist infurther reducing the predicted inequality in Hemel Hempstead at a 1:2147 ratio – itactually does result in a perfect ‘fit’ of the model across the borough. This is becausethe ‘ideal’ ratio changes to 1: 2105, and the distribution of deviations changeaccordingly. For example, under 1:2105 the ‘fit’ of wards in Tring improves whilethose in Berkhamsted decline:
Ratio Deviation under1:2147 model
Deviation under1:2105 model
Tring 1: 2026.5 -5.6% -3.7%
Berkhamsted 1:2228 +3.8% +5.8%
In other words, the ‘fit’ of each model must be considered across the Borough as awhole. This is not to say that the decision cannot be taken to propose a Council of51, or 49, Councillors but it should not be assumed that the ‘fit’ of either model will beinherently better than that for 50. Deviations will still be present, and it is expectedthat they will be of the similar magnitudes and distribution (Appendix A presentssome evidence on this idea). If the ratio of 1:2147 is thought to represent the Councilsize that will achieve the most effective local democracy at this time, then it isimportant to try and ensure that this is the ratio sought across the borough. Theobjective becomes to minimise deviations under this ratio.
The accompanying maps represent what is regarded as one way to achieve the ‘bestfit’ for the ratio of 1:2147.
49
2. The model across the rest of Dacorum
Given the argument that seeking extensive division and realignment of parish areas,including the creation of parish wards in many areas, to achieve exact equalityacross the rest of Dacorum does not preserve the Community identities that exist thefollowing wards have been suggested under this model3:
Ward Population(estimate)
Councillors Ratio Deviation fromideal (%)
Tring West 4053 2 1:2026.5 -5.6
Tring Central 4053 2 1:2026.5 -5.6
Tring East 2026 1 1:2026 -5.6
Aldbury, Wigginton& Northchurch
4067 2 1:2033.5 -5.3
Ashridge 2168 1 1:2168 +1.0
Berkhamsted West 4456 2 1:2228 +3.8
Berkhamsted castle 4456 2 1:2228 +3.8
Berkhamsted East 4456 2 1:2228 +3.8
Watling (withPiccotts End)
4459 2 1:2229.5 +3.8
Bovingdon,Flaunden andChipperfield
6262 3 1:2087 -2.8
The following is noted: The model provides two options for resolving the issue of Aldbury & Wigginton.
The first suggests that Aldbury and Wigginton be joined with the Parish ofNorthchurch. The alternative aligns Tring East with the current ward of Aldburyand Wigginton and retains Northchurch as separate. The latter, which may bemore appropriate for community identity reasons, would result in the followingdeviations:
Ward Population(estimate)
Councillors Ratio Deviation fromideal (%)
Tring West 3994 2 1:1997 -7.0
Tring Central 3994 2 1:1997 -7.0
Tring East, Aldbury& Wigginton
3994 2 1:1997 -7.0
Northchurch 2220 1 1:2220 +3.4
3 In this model, it is assumed that the populations within Tring and Berkhamsted can beexactly distributed among the wards envisaged. This produces the similar population, ratioand deviation figures given. Practically, this level of balance will probably not be achievablehaving regard to community boundaries and identities. However, the modelled figures providea ‘target’ for future mapping, and the eventual figures will not deviate substantially from thosegiven.
50
3. The model across Hemel Hempstead and Kings Langley
It should be noted that in Hemel Hempstead, excluding Kings Langley and NashMills, a general division of wards into three ‘groups’ has been utilised for this model:
Hemel Hempstead (western part) covering the following current wards:Gadebridge, Warners End, Chaulden & Shrubhill, Boxmoor, Hemel HempsteadCentral (polling district AAB)
Hemel Hempstead (eastern part) covering the following current wards: Grovehill,Woodhall Farm, Highfield and St. Paul’s, Adeyfield East, Adeyfield West, HemelHempstead Central (polling districts AAA and AAC)
Hemel Hempstead (southern part) covering the following current wards:Leverstock Green, Bennetts End, Corner Hall, Apsley (polling district AFA).
Apsley (polling district AFB), Kings Langley and Nash Mills were combined toform a 3 member ward.
Finally, Piccotts End was removed from Hemel Hempstead Central (pollingdistrict AAA) and placed into the Watling ward (an estimated reduction of 300people from the AAA polling district)
In estimating the populations and ratios produced by the model, it was assumed thatan exact distribution of people within these ward groups would be possible. Thisresults in similar numbers for several proposed wards (as for the Tring andBerkhamsted examples given earlier). Practically, community boundaries will meanthat these exact distributions will not be achievable. However, the eventual deviationsshould not be too different to those modelled, and the examples given do provide aworking ‘target’ for future detailed mapping.
The following wards have been suggested:
Ward Population(estimate)
Councillors Ratio 1: Deviation fromideal (%)
Kings Langley, NashMills (parish) & theManor Estate
6607 3 1:2202 +2.6
Grovehill 4366 2 1:2183 +1.7
Cupid Green 2155 1 1:2155 +0.4
Woodhall 4290 2 1:2145 -0.1
Adeyfield 6549 3 1:2183 +1.7
Hemel HempsteadCentral
4366 2 1:2183 +1.7
Leverstock GreenOption1:Option2:
43186477
23
1:21591:2159
+0.6+0.6
Bennetts End
51
Option 1:Option 2:
43186477
23
1:21591:2159
+0.6+0.6
Apsley & Corner Hall 6477 3 1:2159 +0.6
Boxmoor 6354 3 1:2118 -1.4
Chaulden &Shrubhill
4236 2 1:2118 -1.4
Warners End &Gadebridge
6354 3 1:2118 -1.4
Highfield & St.Paul’s
4366 2 1:2183 +1.7
The following is noted:
It has been suggested that the Parish of Nash Mills be divided and placed withina new Apsley ward and the existing Bennetts End ward. This has not beenproposed because of both the concomitant necessity to divide the localcommunity of Nash Mills and the existing inequality within the Kings Langleyward. The ratio of Kings Langley stands at 1:1951.5 with a deviation of –9.1%.Under the proposed model this has been significantly reduced, while attemptingto retain a geographic sense and keeping several small communities together.
The model offers two possible options for Leverstock Green/Bennetts End. In thefirst, Bennetts End is extended to become a 3-member ward, while LeverstockGreen is reduced to a 2-member ward. In the second option the opposite isproposed. It is unclear which proposal best serves the communities that exist inthis area, and the Committee’s views are therefore sought.
The political Groups have had the opportunity to comment and proposealternative arrangements for the Dacorum borough. The following has beenreceived:
The Labour Group comments/proposals:
1. Greater Bennetts End to be treated as a 'community'; taking in the followingareas:
New parish ward of Nash Mills (excluding Longdean area) but includingall of Barnacares, Bennetts End School area and down as far as MillClose and surrounds.
Northern boundary to be expanded to take in Acorn Rd and surroundsup to western end of Tlie Kiln Lane.
2. 'Roughdown' to be moved into Boxmoor, which becomes a 3 member wardwith this addition plus extending the eastern boundary to the LeightonBuzzard Rd.
3. Reduce Central Ward to a single seat.
4. Belswains Lane to become the northern/north eastern boundary of a newApsley ward - in particular taking in the new Apsley Lock, Kingfisher and
52
Swan Mead developments from the parished area of Nash Mills.
5. Adeyfield east and west to be retained pretty much intact with Longlandsremaining as the boundary between them.
6. Current Highfield ward increased to include 'Townsend'.
The current model was prepared prior to receipt of these proposals.
53
Appendix A – Proposing different ratios4
As outlined in the report, it is possible to propose a Council size of 51 or 49members. But it is not expected that these will be an inherently better ‘fit’ than themodel for 50.
If a ratio of 1:2105 were proposed – resulting in a Council size of 51 members – itwould be expected that the result would be a reduction in one Councillor withinHemel Hempstead and none across the rest of the Borough. If an exact distributionof population were possible at this level, a standard deviation of +0.3% would bepossible within Hemel Hempstead. A similarly good fit would be possible across therest of Dacorum if a strictly arithmetical calculation were made. However, thisapproach would have no regard to community identity, particularly in rural areas, andwould require an extensive division of parish areas. More likely, the currentdistribution would be used to retain the community identities across the rest ofDacorum, with the resulting deviations:
Population(estimate)
Councillors Ratio Deviationfrom ideal
(%)Tring West 4053 2 1:2026.5 -3.7
Tring Central 4053 2 1:2026.5 -3.7
Tring East 2026 1 1:2026 -3.7
Aldbury, Wigginton &Northchurch
4067 2 1:2033.5 -3.4
Ashridge 2168 1 1:2168 +3.0
Berkhamsted West 4456 2 1:2228 +5.8
Berkhamsted castle 4456 2 1:2228 +5.8
Berkhamsted East 4456 2 1:2228 +5.8
Watling 4159 2 1:2079.5 -1.2
Bovingdon, Flaundenand Chipperfield
6262 3 1:2087 -0.8
Kings Langley 3903 2 1:1951.5 -7.3
At 49 Councillors, it is expected that one Councillor would be removed from the restof Dacorum and two from Hemel Hempstead. At this time, it is suggested that thisreduction would best be accommodated within the Tring wards but would requireremodelling of several parishes and the creation of parish wards.
However, again, deviations will remain. The total population of Hemel Hempsteadwards in this scenario would require 28.9 Councillors. However, under the proposal28 Councillors would be provided, resulting in a standard deviation across all HemelHempstead of +3.2%.
4 NOTE: In both these cases the argument is accepted that extensive division andreconfiguration of parish areas unnecessarily disrupts local communities and isdisproportionate to the possible gain to be made in achieving exact equality as far as possibleacross the borough.
54
PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 12 JULY 2005 AT 7.30 PM
DACORUM ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
The Councillors listed below are requested to attend the above meeting, on the dayand at the time and place stated, to consider the business set out in this agenda.
Cook WhiteHarden WilliamsMrs Rance Mrs Wyatt-LoweReay
(Substitute Members: Councillors Bannister, Flint, Lythgoe, Mills, Tiley, Townsend)
For further information please contact Jim Doyle on Tel: 01442 228222, Fax: 01442228218, e-mail [email protected]. Information about the Council is also tobe found on our web-site: www.dacorum.gov.uk
PART IItem No. Page
No.
15. Apologies for Absence 2
16. Declarations of Interest 2
17. Public Participation 2
18. Elector / member ratio options 3
* * *
abcdefgh
55
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of interest.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation.
56
AGENDA ITEM: 4
SUMMARY
Title of report: ELECTOR / MEMBER RATIO OPTIONS
Contact: Jim Doyle, Senior Member Support Officer (ext. 2222)Daniel Boucher, Member Support Officer (ext. 2224)
Purpose of report: To set out data comparing the ward models proposed by politicalgroups.
Recommendations That members consider the data and issues highlighted.
Corporate vision/objectives:
This report contributes to the corporate objective of becoming an“Excellent” Council, through seeking equitable representation andthe appropriate Council size in the Borough.
Implications: PoliticalEquitable representation will improve resident’s access to decision-making at the Borough Council. A reduction in the number ofCouncillors will result in each Councillor representing more residents,and may involve each attending an increased number of meetings.
FinancialReducing or increasing the Council size may result in increasing ordecreasing the total budget provided for members. However, thisdecision will need to be the subject of an Independent RemunerationPanel, and will not be made as part of the Periodic Electoral Reviewprocess.
Consultees: Members have been asked to contribute their opinions through abrief questionnaire. Further opportunities for them, and the widercommunity, to input into the proposals to be submitted will be animportant part of the Periodic Electoral Review process.
Backgroundpapers:
“Guidance and procedural advice for periodic electoral reviews” (TheElectoral Commission, July 2002)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. The following sets out an examination of the ward models put forward by boththe Conservative Group (Model A) and Labour Group (Model B) to meet therequirements of the current Periodic Electoral Review.
2. It has been previously noted that in the Electoral Commission publication“Guidance and procedural advice for periodic electoral reviews” it is statedthat
“Section 27 of the [Local Government Act 1992] requires both TheElectoral Commission and the BCFE to comply, so far as practicable,with Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 (Rules to beObserved in Considering Electoral Arrangements)”
57
and that within these rules
“In relation to districts (metropolitan, shire or unitary) and Londonboroughs, the Rules provide that, having regard to any changes in thenumber or distribution of the local government electors of the district orLondon borough likely to take place within the period of five yearsimmediately following the start of the review:
c. the number of local government electors represented by eachcouncillor shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every ward ofthe district/borough and London borough;”5
3. For the purposes of comparison, a previously rejected model (from the agenda
of 29 June 2005) is included as a control (Model C).
4. Model A
The Conservative Group model is based on a Councillor to electorate ratio of1:2065, resulting in 52 elected members.
An examination of the proposed wards is given below with those who exceedthe 10% tolerance level highlighted.
Table (i) Model A: Hemel Hempstead wards
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2065 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Gadebridge 4022 1.95 2 2011 -2.6
Warners End 3546 1.72 2 1773 -14.1
Chaulden &Shrubhill
3804 1.84 2 1902 -7.9
Boxmoor 4348 2.10 2 2174 +5.3
Central 4188 2.03 2 2094 +1.4
Adeyfield East 4372 2.12 2 2186 +5.9
Adeyfield West 4006 1.94 2 2003 -3.0
5 The BCFE also make clear that in seeking this equality set out in the statutory criteria, thetask is not merely arithmetical, stating: “in undertaking reviews and in considering final recommendations The Electoral
Commission and the BCFE must have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiableelectoral area boundaries, and to local ties which might be broken by those boundaries.An approach which is too rigorously mathematical could harm both of those interest.These are issues which are also clearly relevant to our statutory criteria under section13(5) of the [Local Government Act 1992] of having regard to the need to reflect theinterests and identities of local communities; and
we must have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government,and reflect the interests and identities of local communities."
58
Highfield &St. Paul’s
5015 2.43 2 2507.5 +21.4
Grovehill6 5674 2.75 3 1891 -8.4
WoodhallFarm
4363 2.11 2 2181.5 +5.6
LeverstockGreen7
5984 2.90 3 1995 -3.4
Bennetts End 3780 1.83 2 1890 -8.5
Corner Hall 4333 2.10 2 2166.5 +4.9
Apsley 3804 1.84 2 1902 -7.9
Nash Mills 2075 1.00 1 2075 +0.5
Table (ii) Model A: Other Dacorum wards
Population(estimate)
Pop/2065 Councillors Ratio Deviationfrom ideal
(%)Tring West 3994 1.93 2 1997 -3.3
Tring Central 3994 1.93 2 1997 -3.3
Tring East &Aldbury andWigginton
3992 1.93 2 1996 -3.3
Northchurch 2220 1.08 1 2220 +7.5
Ashridge 2168 1.05 1 2168 +5.0
BerkhamstedWest
4403 2.13 2 2201.5 +6.6
Berkhamsted 4482 2.17 2 2241 +8.5 6 It was requested that the opportunity to divide the Grovehill ward be modelled. Thesuggested boundary produces the following result:
Grovehill 3923 1.90 2 1961.5 +5.0
Grovehill West 1751 0.85 1 1751 -15.2
7 It was requested that the opportunity to divide the Leverstock Green ward be modelled. Thesuggested boundary produces the following result:
LeverstockGreen
3610 1.75 2 1805 -12.6
Tile Kiln ward 2374 1.15 1 2374 +15.0
59
castle
BerkhamstedEast
4481 2.17 2 2240.5 +8.5
Watling 4159 2.01 2 2079.5 +0.7
Bovingdon,Flaunden andChipperfield
6262 3.03 3 2087 +1.1
Kings Langley 3903 1.89 2 1951.5 -5.5
5. Model B
The Labour Group model is based on a Councillor to electorate ratio of1:2105, resulting in 51 elected members.
An examination of the proposed wards is given below with those who exceedthe 10% tolerance level highlighted.
Table (iii) Model B: Hemel Hempstead wards
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2105 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Gadebridge 4022 1.91 2 2011 -4.5
Warners End 4958 2.36 2 2479 +17.8
Chaulden &Shrubhill
2923 1.39 1 2923 +38.9
Boxmoor 5500 2.61 3 1833 -12.9
Central 2154 1.02 1 2154 +2.3
AdeyfieldWest
3624 1.72 2 1812 -13.9
Adeyfield East 4445 2.11 2 2222.5 +5.6
Highfield & St.Paul’s
5979 2.84 3 1993 -5.3
Grovehill 5899 2.80 3 1966 -6.6
WoodhallFarm
4290 2.04 2 2145 +1.9
LeverstockGreen
5220 2.48 2 2610 +24.0
Bennetts End 6619 3.14 3 2206 +4.8
60
Corner Hall 4333 2.06 2 2166 +2.9
Apsley8 3427 1.63 2 1713.5 -18.6
Table (iv) Model B: Other Dacorum wards
Population(estimate)
Pop/2105 Councillors Ratio Deviationfrom ideal
(%)Tring West 3994 1.90 2 1997 -5.1
Tring Central 3994 1.90 2 1997 -5.1
Tring East &Aldbury andWigginton
3992 1.90 2 1996 -5.1
Northchurch 2220 1.06 1 2220 +5.5
Ashridge 2168 1.03 1 2168 +3.0
BerkhamstedWest
4456 2.12 2 2228 +5.8
Berkhamstedcastle
4456 2.12 2 2228 +5.8
BerkhamstedEast
4456 2.12 2 2228 +5.8
Watling 4159 1.98 2 2079.5 -1.2
Bovingdon,Flaunden andChipperfield
6262 2.98 3 2087 -0.8
Kings Langley 3903 1.85 2 1951.5 -7.3
6. Model C
This previous model is based on a Councillor to electorate ratio of 1:2147,resulting in 50 elected members. The models arrangement of wards in HemelHempstead was rejected by the Committee on 29 June 2005, and is providedhere as a control for comparison purposes only.
It is useful as a control model because it assumed that, while certain coreareas should be retained, the most important factor was to reduce as far aspossible the inequalities in representation that existed. As a result it acceptedthe ideas of significant amendment to current boundaries, as well as ‘untidy’ward boundaries if necessary to achieve a balance. The argument for such
8 As an alternative it was suggested that the previous Crabtree ward boundary be usedbetween the proposed wards of Apsley and Corner Hall. The estimated result is:
Apsley 2790 1.32 1 2790 +32.5
Corner Hall 4970 2.36 2 2485 +18.0
61
assumptions was that the ward boundaries were primarily a feature ofrepresentation and the benefit in electorate equality outweighed thedisadvantage to residents whose borough council wards changed.
An examination of the proposed wards is given below.
Table (v) Model C: Hemel Hempstead wards
Ward Population(estimate)
Pop/2065 Councillors Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal
(%)Kings Langley,Nash Mills(parish) & theManor Estate
6607 3.08 3 2202 +2.6
Grovehill 4366 2.03 2 2183 +1.7
Cupid Green 2155 1.00 1 2155 +0.4
Woodhall 4290 2.00 2 2145 -0.1
Adeyfield 6549 3.05 3 2183 +1.7
HemelHempsteadCentral
4366 2.03 2 2183 +1.7
LeverstockGreenOption1:Option2:
43186477
2.013.02
23
21592159
+0.6+0.6
Bennetts EndOption 1:Option 2:
43186477
2.013.02
23
21592159
+0.6+0.6
Apsley &Corner Hall
6477 3.02 3 2159 +0.6
Boxmoor 6354 2.96 3 2118 -1.4
Chaulden &Shrubhill
4236 1.97 2 2118 -1.4
Warners End& Gadebridge
6354 2.96 3 2118 -1.4
Highfield & St.Paul’s
4366 2.03 2 2183 +1.7
62
Table (vi) Model C: Other Dacorum wards
Population(estimate)
Pop/2147 Councillors Ratio Deviationfrom ideal
(%)Tring West 3994 1.86 2 1997 -7.0
Tring Central 3994 1.86 2 1997 -7.0
Tring East &Aldbury andWigginton
3992 1.86 2 1996 -7.0
Northchurch 2220 1.03 1 2220 +3.4
Ashridge 2168 1.01 1 2168 +1.0
BerkhamstedWest
4456 2.08 2 2228 +3.8
Berkhamstedcastle
4456 2.08 2 2228 +3.8
BerkhamstedEast
4456 2.08 2 2228 +3.8
Watling 4459 2.08 2 2079.5 +3.8
Bovingdon,Flaunden andChipperfield
6262 2.92 3 2087 -2.8
7. Comparison of modelsAlthough the Periodic Electoral Review process is not exclusively arithmetical,it is valuable to examine how successful each model will be in tackling thegeographic inequalities in representation that exist. Three considerations thatare important in this assessment are: the number of wards that would bebeyond the 10% tolerances adopted; the difference between maximumdeviations; and the consistency of deviations achieved.
7.1 Number of wards in Dacorum that are beyond 10% tolerances:This illustrates how much further amendment may be necessary to achievethe expected minimum requirement of the Periodic Electoral Review: nowards in excess of 10% from ideal.
Model A: 2Model B: 6Model C: 0
7.2 Spread of maximum deviations:The spread of maximum deviations illustrates the difference in electorate thatwill exist in a Council based on the proposed model. For example, the firsttable below suggests that there will be members at Full Council whorepresent 1773 and 2507.5 electorate for Model A, a difference of 734.5people.
63
Minimising the difference is beneficial in aiding equitable access for residentsto the elected member, and representation of their interests in the decisionsof the Borough Council.
Table (vii) Maximum deviations (total)
Maximum positivedeviation
Maximumnegative deviation
Total difference:
Model A: 21.4%
(electorate: 2507.5)
14.1%
(electorate: 1773)
35.5%
(difference: 734.5)
Model B: 38.9%
(2923)
18.6%
(1713.5)
57.5%
(1209.5)
Model C: 3.8%
(2228)
7.0%
(1997)
10.8%
(231)
Excluding those wards that currently exceed the 10% tolerance adopted, thevariance in maximums becomes:
Table (viii) Maximum deviations (excluding +10% wards)
Maximum positivedeviation
Maximumnegative deviation
Total difference:
Model A: 5.9
(2186)
8.5
(1890)
14.4
(296)
Model B: 5.8
(2228)
7.3
(1951.5)
13.1
(276.5)
Model C: 3.8
(2228)
7.0
(1997)
10.8
(231)
It appears that there will be significant and continuing difference between theelectorates represented by members under the two new models proposed.Furthermore, this deviation is particularly acute in Hemel Hempstead wards,as detailed below:
64
Table (ix) Maximum deviations within Hemel Hempstead (total)
Maximum positivedeviation
Maximumnegative deviation
Total difference:
Model A: 21.4%
(2507.5)
14.1%
(1773)
35.5%
(734.5)
Model B: 38.9%
(2923)
18.6%
(1713.5)
57.5%
(1209.5)
Model C: 2.6%
(2202)
1.4%
(2118)
4.0%
(84)
Excluding those wards that currently exceed the 10% tolerance adopted, thevariance in maximums becomes:
Table (x) Maximum deviations within Hemel Hempstead (excluding +10% wards)
Maximum positivedeviation
Maximumnegative deviation
Total difference:
Model A: 5.9
(2186)
8.5
(1890)
14.4
(296)
Model B: 5.6%
(2222.5)
6.6%
(1966)
12.2%
(256.5)
Model C: 2.6%
(2202)
1.4%
(2118)
4.0%
(84)
7.3 Consistency of deviations from ideal:In addition to the maximum deviations experienced in each model, anotherconsideration is the consistency of deviation from ideal. This compares eachward and illustrates how successful each model has been in producing a“level playing field” whereby each Councillor represents a similar number ofpeople.
This comparison is considered useful because it assumes that it is moreequitable to the electorate if three wards, and their concomitant members,each deviate by +3.0% than for one to deviate by +7.0% and the remainingtwo by +1.0%.
The consistency of deviation is shown in Figure 1.
65
66
Figure 1: Consistency of deviations from ideal
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Tring W
est
Tring C
entra
l
Tring E
ast, A
ldbury
& Wigg
inton
Northc
hurch
Berkha
msted W
est
Berkha
msted C
astle
Berkha
msted E
ast
Boving
don,
Flaund
en & C
hippe
rfield
Ashrid
geWatl
ingGad
ebrid
geWarn
ers End
Chauld
en & Shru
bhill
Boxmoo
rCen
tral
Adeyfi
eld W
est
Adeyfi
eld Eas
t
Highfie
ld & St. P
aul's
Groveh
ill
Woodh
all Farm
Leve
rstoc
k Gree
nBen
netts
EndCorn
er Hall
Apsley
Nash M
ills
Kings L
angle
y
Wards
% D
evia
tions
Model AModel BModel C
67
68
8. Conclusions
The models proposed by the Conservative and Labour groups have potentialfor achieving what is thought to be the minimum requirement of the PeriodicElectoral Review: no wards with deviations in excess of the 10% tolerancesadopted.
Both models require work to achieve this minimum, with Model B requiringsignificantly more amendment than Model A.
In achieving only the minimum requirement, both models will leave substantialdeviation between wards in Dacorum. Evidence and argument will need to bemade to the Boundary Committee for England to justify this situation, given itsopposition to the requirement within Schedule 11 that “the number of localgovernment electors represented by each councillor shall be, as nearly asmay be, the same in every ward of the district/borough and London borough “
Community identity and ties have been suggested as the primary rationale forthe models. The explanation for the substantial deviations will, therefore, relyheavily on the idea that this is necessary to successfully reflect and preserveexisting communities.
However, the submission will need to adequately explain why, if communityidentity and preservation are the explanation for particular boundaries, thecommunities presented are not consistent. For example, a comparison of theboundaries of Apsley, Bennetts End, Nash Mills, Central, Highfield & St.Paul’s, and Boxmoor wards proposed by Models A and B show that theperceived boundaries of the communities vary considerably. It is a concernthat if a consensus does not exist on the location and range of a community,then the retention of a particular boundary and its inherent inequality may becriticised as the result of a subjective consideration of boundaries.
Therefore, the Committee is asked to consider the data that has beenpresented and advise officers how they would like to proceed given the issuesthat have been highlighted.
69
Liberal Democrat proposal distributed at PER Committee on 12 July 2005
TRING AREA 6 Cllrs LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PROPOSAL(based on 51 Cllrs = 2105 each)
TRING EAST, ALDBURY & WIGGINTON 2 CllrsTring East DA +2063
less Albany Terrace/Grove Rd -20 (see note)less New Mill Terrace/New Mill Pub -0 (see note)
Aldbury EAA (Village) +552Aldbury EAB (Tring Station) +163
Wigginton EB +1132
plus Dunsley Place +24 from West (DCB)plus High St (Bank Alley to London Rd) +5 from West (DCB)
plus London Road +14 from West (DCB)plus Mansion Drive & Arts Ed School +42 from West (DCB)
+3975 -5.6%
note - the boundary between Tring East and Central at the New Mill End is shown on the maps with New Mill Terrace inEast and Albany Terr/Grove Rd in Central. On the electoral register New Mill Terr is Central (New Mill) and Albany
Terr/Grove Rd is in East. Our proposal is to correct the boundary for New Mill Terr to the Register and AlbanyTerr/Grove Rd to the maps. Because the 2009 projected numbers are based on the register and not the maps the
change of New Mill Terr has no effect while the correction of Albany Terr moves electors.
TRING CENTRAL 2 CllrsTring Central DBA +1122Tring Central DBB +1606
70
Tring Central DBC +1142plus Albany Terrace/Grove Rd +20 (see note)
plus New Mill Terrace/New Mill Pub +0 (see note)
plus Christchurch Rd 37-67 odd +33 from West (DCA)plus Fantail Lane +76 from West (DCA)
+3999 -5.0%
TRING WEST 2 CllrsTring West DCA +1982
less Christchurch Rd 37-67 odd -33 to Centralless Fantail Lane -76 to Central
Tring West DCB (Tring Triangle) +1189less Dunsley Place -24 to East
less High St (Bank Alley to London Rd) -5 to Eastless London Road -14 to East
less Mansion Drive & Arts Ed School -42 to East
Tring Rural (DDA & DDB) +1029
+4006 -4.8%
BERKHAMSTED & NORTHCHURCH 7 Cllrs LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PROPOSAL(based on 51 Cllrs = 2105 each)
NORTHCHURCH 1 CllrJA +2220 +5.5%
71
BERKHAMSTED WEST 2 CllrsKAA +1964KAB +2439
+4403 +4.6%
BERKHAMSTED CASTLE 2 CllrsKBA +2044KBB +573KBC +2238
Less Bank Mill -24 to EastLess Bank Mill Ln -20 to East
Less Bulbeggers Ln -2 to EastLess George St HP4 2EW & South View
Villas-39 to East
Less Ivy House Ln -72 to EastLess London Rd -16 to East
Less Lorinda Court & Terrace -25 to EastLess Meadway -86 to East
Less Old Mill Gdns -59 to EastLess Pix Farm Ln -10 to East
+4502 +6.9%
BERKHAMSTED EAST 2 CllrsKCA +1208KCB +1881KCC +1019
plus Bank Mill +24 from Castle (KBC)plus Bank Mill Ln +20 from Castle (KBC)
72
plus Bulbeggers Ln +2 from Castle (KBC)plus George St HP4 2EW & South View
Villas+39 from Castle (KBC)
plus Ivy House Ln +72 from Castle (KBC)plus London Rd +16 from Castle (KBC)
plus Lorinda Court & Terrace +25 from Castle (KBC)plus Meadway +86 from Castle (KBC)
plus Old Mill Gdns +59 from Castle (KBC)plus Pix Farm Ln +10 from Castle (KBC)
+4461 +6.0%
73
HEMEL SOUTH EAST 9 Cllrs LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PROPOSAL(based on 51 Cllrs = 2105 each)
APSLEY & CORNER HALL 3 Cllrs BENNETTS END & NORTHEND 2 CllrsApsley AFA (Apsley main) +2922 Plus Belmont Rd (Athelstan to
Stonelea)+97 from Belswains & Nash Mills
Apsley AFC (Manor) +882 plus Athelstan Rd +47 from Belswains & Nash Millsplus Lime Walk +19 from Belswains & Nash Mills
Corner Hall AEA (crabtree) +3206less St Albans Hill -150 to Belswains & Nash Mills Bennetts End AQA (bennetts end
main)+2533
less Ivory Ct -40 to Belswains & Nash Mills Plus Horselers +62 from Belswains & Nash Millsless Sempill Rd -131 to Belswains & Nash Mills plus Hill Common +47 from Belswains & Nash Mills
plus Stonelea Rd +152 from Belswains & Nash Mills6,689 +5.9% plus Deansway +23 from Belswains & Nash Mills
plus Hobbs Hill Rd HP3 9QG +62 from Belswains & Nash MillsBELSWAINS & NASH MILLS 2 Cllrs plus Upper Barn +60 from Belswains & Nash Mills
plus St Albans Hill +150 from Aplsey & CornerHall
plus Barnfiled +105 from Belswains & Nash Mills
plus Ivory Ct +40 from Aplsey & CornerHall
plus Barn Cl +27 from Belswains & Nash Mills
plus Sempill Rd +131 from Aplsey & CornerHall
plus Lower Barn +54 from Belswains & Nash Mills
plus Gt Elms Rd HP3 9UD +19 from Belswains & Nash MillsCorner Hall AEB (belmont) +1127 plus Saunders Cl +26 from Belswains & Nash Mills
less Belmont Rd (Athelstan toStonelea)
-97 to Bennetts End &Northend
plus Saunders Rd +54 from Belswains & Nash Mills
less Athelstan Rd -47 to Bennetts End &Northend
less Lime Walk -19 to Bennetts End &Northend
Leverstock Green ALC (Northend) +756
74
Bennetts End AQB (hobbs hill/gtelms)
+1819 Plus Acorn Rd +74 from Leverstock Green
less Horselers -62 to Bennetts End &Northend
Plus Belsize Rd +75 from Leverstock Green
less Hill Common -47 to Bennetts End &Northend
Plus Belsize Cl +26 from Leverstock Green
les Deansway -23 to Bennetts End &Northend
Plus Keiths Rd +23 from Leverstock Green
less Stonelea Rd -152 to Bennetts End &Northend
Plus Sylvan Cl +46 from Leverstock Green
less Hobbs Hill Rd HP3 9QG -62 to Bennetts End &Northend
Plus Rant Meadow HP3 8EQ +7 from Leverstock Green
less Upper Barn -60 to Bennetts End &Northend
less Barnfield -105 to Bennetts End &Northend
Nash Mills BAB (chambersburylane)
+68
less Barn Close -27 to Bennetts End &Northend
less Lower Barn -54 to Bennetts End &Northend
4,462 +6.0%
less Gt Elms Rd HP3 9UD -16 to Bennetts End &Northend
less Saunders Cl -26 to Bennetts End &Northend
LEVERSTOCK GREEN 2 Cllrs
less Saunders Rd -54 to Bennetts End &Northend
Leverstock Green ALB (leverstockmain)
+2854
Leverstock Green ALA (tile kiln) +1754Nash Mills BA (parish) +1822 less Acorn Rd -74 to Benntts End & Northend
Nash Mills BAA (pine croft) +234 less Belsize Rd -75 to Benntts End & Northendless Belsize Cl -26 to Benntts End & Northend
4,472 +6.2% less Keiths Rd -23 to Benntts End & Northend
75
less Sylvan Cl -46 to Benntts End & Northendless Rant Meadow HP3 8EQ -7 to Benntts End & Northend
TOTAL HEMEL SOUTH EAST 19,980 +5.5% 4,357 +3.5%
76
HEMEL NORTH EAST 5 Cllrs LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PROPOSAL(based on 51 Cllrs = 2105 each)
WOODHALL 2 Cllrs GROVEHILL & PICCOTTS END 3 CllrsWoodhall AMA +1956 Grovehill APA +3502Woodhall AMB +2334 Grovehill APB +2155
4290 +1.9% plus Redbourne Rd +27 from Adeyfield East
plus Piccotts End/Marchmont +202 from Hemel Central
TOTAL HEMEL NORTH EAST 10176 -3.3% 5886 -6.8%
HEMEL EAST CENTRAL 8 Cllrs LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PROPOSAL(based on 51 Cllrs = 2105 each)
ADEYFIELD EAST 2 Cllrs ADEYFIELD WEST 2 CllrsADA +2249 AC +3624less Redbourne Rd -27 to Grovehill & Piccotts Endless Adeyfield Gardens -111 to Adeyfield West plus Adeyfield Gardens +111 from Adeyfield Eastless Adeyfield Road -144 to Adeyfield West plus Adeyfield Road +144 from Adeyfield Eastless Great Rd -82 to Adeyfield West plus Great Rd (2-38 +Pirton Ct) +82 from Adeyfield East
ADB +2213 plus Queens Square +71 from Adeyfield Eastless Queens Square -71 to Adeyfield West plus Hammer Lane +19 from Adeyfield Eastless Hammer Lane -19 to Adeyfield West
4,051 -3.8%4,008 -4.8%
HEMEL CENTRAL 2 CllrsHIGHFIELD 2 Cllrs plus Berefiled +30 from Highfield
77
Highfield ABA (Highfield main) +3416 plus Boxhill +29 from Highfieldless Berefield -30 to Central plus Broadcroft +37 from Highfieldless Boxhill -29 to Central plus Church St +53 from Highfieldless Braodcroft -37 to Central plus Cloiser Walk +7 from Highfieldless Church St -53 to Central plus Lavender Walk +27 from Highfieldless Cloister Walk -7 to Central plus Layhill +35 from Highfieldless Lavender Walk -27 to Central plus Sharpcroft +39 from Highfieldless Layhill -35 to Central plus Smithfield/Phyllis Courtnage +63 from Highfieldless Sharpcrof -39 to Central plus Summer Court +49 from Highfieldless Smithfield/PhyllisCourtnage
-63 to Central plus The Bounce +60 from Highfield
less Summer Court -49 to Central plus Thriftfield +132 from Highfieldless The Bounce -60 to Central plus Townsend +142 from Highfieldless Thriftfield -132 to Central plus Typleden Cl +40 from Highfieldless Townsend -142 to Central plus Wheatfield +59 from Highfieldless Typleden Cl -40 to Centralless Wheatfield -59 to Central Highfield ABC (St Pauls) +691
less Catsdale -51 to HighfieldHignfield ABB (Planets) +1290 less Baylie Lane/Court -50 to Highfield
plus Cattsdell +51 from Central (St Pauls) Central AAA +1311plus Baylie Lane/Court +50 from Central (St Pauls) less Piccotts End/Marchmont -202
4,005 -4.9% Central AAC +1650
TOTAL HEMEL EASTCENTRAL
16,215 -3.7% 4,151 -1.4%
HEMEL WEST 8 Cllrs LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PROPOSAL(based on 51 Cllrs = 2105 each)
78
GADEBRIDGE 2 Cllrs WARNERS END 2 CllrsGadebridge AJ +3894 Warners End AHA +1591
plus Astley Road +123 from AAB Warners End AHB +2083plus Bury Court +32 from AAB less Northfield Way HP1 2AA -36plus Bury Green +10 from AABplus Bury Hill +53 from AAB plus Briarcliff +19 from Chaulden (AKC)plus Bury Hill Close +8 from AAB plus East Flint +18 from Chaulden (AKC)plus Bury Road +54 from AAB plus Frimley Rd +31 from Chaulden (AKC)plus Cemmaes Court Road +100 from AAB plus Juniper Green +17 from Chaulden (AKC)plus Cemmaes Meadow +48 from AAB plus Merrow Drive +22 from Chaulden (AKC)
plus Myrtle Green +19 from Chaulden (AKC)+4322 +2.7% plus Newlands Rd +83 from Chaulden (AKC)
plus Ravensdell +36 from Chaulden (AKC)plus Ripley Way +50 from Chaulden (AKC)plus Roseheath +110 from Chaulden (AKC)
BOXMOOR & HAMMERFIELD 2 Cllrs plus Youngfiled +51 from Chaulden (AKC)Boxmoor AGA +1578 plus Warners End Rd +35 from Boxmoor (AGA)less Barberry Road -13 to Chauldenless Counters Cl -21 to Chaulden +4129 -1.9%less Fulmat Crescent -39 to Chauldenless Gravel hill Terrace -33 to Chaulden CHAULDEN & GREEN END 2 Cllrsless Gravel Lane HP1 1SB -68 to Chaulden Chaulden AKA +2161less Green End Road -53 to Chaulden Chaulden AKB +650less Lovell Close -30 to Chaulden Chaulden AKC +993less Warners End Rd -35 to Warners End less Briarcliff -19 to Warners End
less East Flint -18 to Warners EndBaxmoor AGB +1670 less Frimley Rd -31 to Warners Endless Ashtree Way -52 to Chaulden less Juniper Green -17 to Warners Endless Bargrove Ave -92 to Chaulden less Merrow Drive -22 to Warners Endless Cangels Cl -19 to Chaulden less Myrtle Green -19 to Warners End
79
less Fishery Rd (West) -55 to Chaulden less Newlands Rd -83 to Warners Endless Gravel Hill Terrace -42 to Chaulden less Ravensdell -36 to Warners Endless Green End Gardens -27 to Chaulden less Ripley Way -50 to Warners Endless Green End Road -89 to Chaulden less Roseheath -110 to Warners Endless Grove Rd -27 to Chaulden less Youngfiled -51 to Warners Endless Moorland Rd -73 to Chauldenless Rosehill Court -10 to Chaulden plus Northfield Way HP1 2AA +36 from Warners End
Boxmoor AGC +1100 plus Barberry Rd +13 from Boxmoor (AGA)plus Counters Cl +21 from Boxmoor (AGA)
Central AAB +1227 plus Fulmar Crescent +39 from Boxmoor (AGA)less Astley Road -123 to Gadebridge plus Gravel Hill Terrace +33 from Boxmoor (AGA)less Bury Court -32 to Gadebridge plus Gravel Lane HP1 1SB +68 from Boxmoor (AGA)less Bury Green -10 to Gadebridge plus Green End Road +53 from Boxmoor (AGA)less Bury Hill -53 to Gadebridge plus Lovel Close +30 from Boxmoor (AGA)less Bury Hill Close -8 to Gadebridgeless Bury Road -54 to Gadebridge plus Ashtree Way +52 from Boxmoor (AGB)less Cemmaes Court Road -100 to Gadebridge plus Bargrove Ave +92 from Boxmoor (AGB)less Cemmaes Meadow -48 to Gadebridge plus Cangels Cl +19 from Boxmoor (AGB)
plus Fishery Rd (West) +55 from Boxmoor (AGB)+4369 +3.8% plus Gravel Hill Terrace +42 from Boxmoor (AGB)
plus Green End Gardens +27 from Boxmoor (AGB)plus Green End Road +89 from Boxmoor (AGB)plus Grove Rd +27 from Boxmoor (AGB)plus Moorland Rd +73 from Boxmoor (AGB)plus Rosehill Court +10 from Boxmoor (AGB)
TOTAL HEMEL WEST +16947 +0.6% +4127 -2.0%
80
PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 19 JULY 2005 AT 7.30 PM
DACORUM ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
The Councillors listed below are requested to attend the above meeting, on the dayand at the time and place stated, to consider the business set out in this agenda.
Cook WhiteHarden WilliamsMrs Rance Mrs Wyatt-LoweReay
(Substitute Members: Councillors Bannister, Flint, Lythgoe, Mills, Tiley, Townsend)
For further information please contact Jim Doyle on Tel: 01442 228222, Fax: 01442228218, e-mail [email protected]. Information about the Council is also tobe found on our web-site: www.dacorum.gov.uk
PART IItem No. Page
No.
19. Apologies for Absence 2
20. Declarations of Interest 2
21. Public Participation 2
22. Elector / member ratio options 3
* * *
abcdefgh
81
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of interest.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation.
82
AGENDA ITEM: 4
SUMMARY
Title of report: ELECTOR / MEMBER RATIO OPTIONS
Contact: Jim Doyle, Senior Member Support Officer (ext. 2222)Daniel Boucher, Member Support Officer (ext. 2224)
Purpose of report: To set out data comparing the ward models proposed by politicalgroups.
Recommendations That members consider the information presented and adviseofficers which model they would like to be submitted to the BoundaryCommittee for England.
Corporate vision/objectives:
This report contributes to the corporate objective of becoming an“Excellent” Council, through seeking equitable representation andthe appropriate Council size in the Borough.
Implications: PoliticalEquitable representation will improve resident’s access to decision-making at the Borough Council. A reduction in the number ofCouncillors will result in each Councillor representing more residents,and may involve each attending an increased number of meetings.
FinancialReducing or increasing the Council size may result in increasing ordecreasing the total budget provided for members. However, thisdecision will need to be the subject of an Independent RemunerationPanel, and will not be made as part of the Periodic Electoral Reviewprocess.
Consultees: Members have been asked to contribute their opinions through abrief questionnaire. Further opportunities for them, and the widercommunity, to input into the proposals to be submitted will be animportant part of the Periodic Electoral Review process.
Backgroundpapers:
“Guidance and procedural advice for periodic electoral reviews” (TheElectoral Commission, July 2002)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. The following sets out an examination of the ward models put forward by theConservative Group (Model A), Labour Group (Model B), and Liberaldemocrat Group (Model C) to meet the requirements of the current PeriodicElectoral Review.
83
MODEL A (Conservative Group)
Summary:
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2065 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Woodhall Farm 4345 2.10 2 2172.5 +5.2
Grovehill West 2033 0.98 1 2033 -1.5
Grovehill 3650 1.77 2 1825 -11.6
Gadebridge 3894 1.89 2 1947 -5.7
Warners End 3842 1.86 2 1921 -7.0
Chaulden 3755 1.82 2 1877.5 -9.1
Boxmoor 4229 2.05 2 2114.5 +2.4
Central 4188 2.03 2 2094 +1.4
Highfield & St.Paul’s
4538 2.20 2 2269 +9.9
Adeyfield West 4483 2.17 2 2241.5 +8.6
Adeyfield East 4382 2.12 2 2191 +6.1
Apsley 3804 1.84 2 1902 -7.9
Corner Hall 4333 2.10 2 2166.5 +4.9
Leverstock Green 3726 1.80 2 1862.5 -9.8
Tile Kiln 2015 0.98 1 2015 -2.4
Bennetts End 4009 1.94 2 2004.5 -2.9
Nash Mills 2089 1.01 1 2089 +1.2
BerkhamstedCastle
4500 2.18 2 2250 +9.0
BerkhamstedEast
4463 2.16 2 2231.5 +8.1
84
Other wards:
Unchanged from current situation.
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2105 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Kings Langley 3903 1.89 2 1951.5 -5.5
Bovingdon,Flaunden &Chipperfield
6262 3.03 3 2087 +1.1
Watling 4159 2.01 2 2079.5 +0.7
Ashridge 2168 1.05 1 2168 +5.0
BerkhamstedWest
4403 2.13 2 2201.5 +6.6
85
1. WOODHALL FARM
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AMA - 1956Polliing district: AMB - 2334
Three Cherry Trees Lane(caravan site)
30 55
TOTAL: 4345
2. GROVEHILL WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Ninian Road 112 205
Tintagel Close 48 88Dunlin Road 87 159
Helston Grove 14 26Leven Way 48 88
Trevalga Way 35 64Isenburg Way 47 86Rannoch Walk 36 66Katrine Square 26 48Laidon Square 16 29
Tremaine Grove 43 79Camborne Drive 76 139Penrose Court 50 92Lomond Road 92 168
Argyll Road 120 220Claymore 196 359
Washington Avenue (part) 64 117
TOTAL: 2033
3. GROVEHILL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: APA - 3502Polling district: APB - 2155
Redbourn Road 14 26
DeletionsNinian Road 112 205
Tintagel Close 48 88Dunlin Road 87 159
Helston Grove 14 26Leven Way 48 88
Trevalga Way 35 64Isenburg Way 47 86Rannoch Walk 36 66Katrine Square 26 48Laidon Square 16 29
Tremaine Grove 43 79
86
Camborne Drive 76 139Penrose Court 50 92Lomond Road 92 168
Argyll Road 120 220Claymore 196 359
Washington Avenue (part) 64 117
TOTAL: 3650
4. GADEBRIDGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AJ - 3894
TOTAL: 3894
5. WARNERS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AHA - 1591Polling district: AHB - 2083
Youngfield Road 21 38Ravensdell 18 33East Flint 11 20Briarcliff 16 29
Roseheath (part) 26 48
TOTAL: 3842
6. CHAULDEN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AKA - 2161Polling district: AKB - 650Polling district: AKC - 993
Cangels Close 12 22Grove Road 16 29
Moorland Road 37 68
DeletionsYoungfield Road 21 38
Ravensdell 18 33East Flint 11 20Briarcliff 16 29
Roseheath (part) 26 48
TOTAL: 3755
87
6. BOXMOOR
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AGA 1578Polling district: AGB 1670Polling district: AGC 1100
Deletions:Cangels Close 12 22
Grove Road 16 29Moorland Road 37 68
TOTAL: 4229
8. CENTRAL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AAA - 1311Polling district: AAB - 1227Polling district: AAC - 1650
TOTAL: 4188
9. HIGHFIELD & ST. PAUL’S
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ABA - 3416Polling district: ABB - 1290
DeletionsRandalls Ride 14 26
Taverners 24 44Bowyers 3 6Mercers 10 18
Allandale (part) 20 37Catsdell (part) 20 37
TOTAL: 4538
10. ADEYFIELD WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AC - 3624
Polling district: ABC - 691
Randalls Ride 14 26Taverners 24 44Bowyers 3 6Mercers 10 18
Allandale (part) 20 37Catsdell (part) 20 37
TOTAL: 4483
88
11. ADEYFIELD EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: ADA - 2249Polling district: ADB - 2213
DeletionsRedbourn Road 14 26
Three Cherry Trees Lane(caravan site)
30 55
TOTAL: 4382
12. APSLEY
Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: AFA - 2922Polling district: AFB - 882
TOTAL: 3804
13. CORNER HALL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AEA - 3206Polling district: AEB - 1127
TOTAL: 4333
14. LEVERSTOCK GREEN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ALB - 2854Polling district: ALC - 756
Tile Kiln Crescent 26 48Brickfield Avenue 22 40
Kiln Close 8 15The Wayside 7 13
TOTAL: 3726
15. TILE KILN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ALA - 1754
Rant Meadow 40 73Three Corners 25 46Flatfield Road 36 66
Goldcroft 51 93
89
Peascroft Road 54 99
DeletionsTile Kiln Crescent 26 48Brickfield Avenue 22 40
Kiln Close 8 15The Wayside 7 13
TOTAL: 2015
16. BENNETTS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AQB - 2533Polling district: AQA - 1819
Chambersbury Lane (part) - 34
DeletionsRant Meadow 40 73Three Corners 25 46Flatfield Road 36 66
Goldcroft 51 93Peascroft Road 54 99
TOTAL: 4009
18. NASH MILLS
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: BA - 1822
Polling district: BAA - 234Polling District: BAB 68
DeletionsChambersbury Lane (part) - 34
TOTAL: 2089
18. BERKHAMSTED CASTLE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: KBA - 2044Polling district: KBB - 573Polling district: KBC - 2238
Deletions:Chapel Street (part) 16 29
Manor Street 55 101Ravens Lane 51 93
Holliday Street 22 40High Street (part) 50 92
90
TOTAL: 4500
19. BERKHAMSTED EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: KCA - 1208Polling district: KCB - 1881Polling district: KCC - 1019
Chapel Street (part) 16 29Manor Street 55 101Ravens Lane 51 93
Holliday Street 22 40High Street (part) 50 92
TOTAL: 4463
91
MODEL B (Labour Group)
Summary:
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2105 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Woodhall Farm 4290 2.04 2 2145 +1.9
Grovehill 5871 2.79 3 1957 -7.0
Gadebridge 4019 1.91 2 2009.5 -4.5
Warners End &Shrubhill
5529 2.63 3 1843 -12.4
Chaulden 2161 1.03 1 2161 +2.7
Boxmoor 5590 2.66 3 1863 -11.50
Central 2301 1.09 1 2301 +9.3
Highfield & St.Paul’s
5869 2.79 3 1956 -7.1
Adeyfield West 3624 1.72 2 1812 -13.9
Adeyfield East 4436 2.11 2 2218 +5.4
Apsley 3452 1.64 2 1726 -18.0
Corner Hall 4333 2.06 2 2166.5 +2.9
Leverstock GreenVillage
3874 1.84 2 1937 -8.0
Tile Kiln 2131 1.01 1 2131 +1.2
Bennetts End 5902 2.80 3 1967 -6.6
92
1. WOODHALL FARM
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AMA - 1956Polliing district: AMB - 2334
TOTAL: 4290
2. GROVEHILL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: APA - 3502Polling district: APB - 2155
Redbourn Road 14 26Piccotts End Road 82 150Piccotts End Lane 12 22
Mill Close 9 16
TOTAL: 5871
3. GADEBRIDGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AJ - 3894
Knights Orchard 38 70Sandalls Spring 20 37Little Catherells 10 18
TOTAL: 4019
4. WARNERS END & SHRUBHILL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AHA - 1591Polling district: AHB - 2083Polling district: AKB - 650Polling district: AKC - 993
Lovel Close 14 26Green End Road 23 42
Ashtree Way 25 46Bargrove Avenue 40 73
Cangels Close 12 22Moorland Road 37 68
Grove Road 16 29Counters Close 10 18Barberry Road 7 13
Deletions:Knights Orchard 38 70Sandalls Spring 20 37
93
Little Catherells 10 18
TOTAL: 5529
5. CHAULDEN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AKA - 2161
TOTAL: 2161
6. BOXMOOR
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AGA 1578Polling district: AGB 1670Polling district: AGC 1100Polling district: AAB - 1227
Roughdown Avenue 36 66Roughdown Road 17 31
Standring Rise 31 57Princes Court 5 9Catlin Street 33 60
Russell Place 33 60Stratford Way 28 51
Moorside 10 18
Deletions:Lovel Close 14 26
Green End Road 23 42Ashtree Way 25 46
Bargrove Avenue 40 73Cangels Close 12 22Moorland Road 37 68
Grove Road 16 29Counters Close 10 18Barberry Road 7 13
TOTAL: 5590
7. CENTRAL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AAA - 1311Polling district: AAC - 1650
DeletionsPiccotts End Road 82 150Piccotts End Lane 12 22
Mill Close 9 16Herbert Street 57 104
94
Church Street 48 88St. Mary’s Road 9 17Garland Close 42 77Union Green 10 18
Sunmead Road (part) 12 22Chapel Street (part) 80 146
TOTAL: 2301
8. HIGHFIELD & ST. PAUL’S
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ABA - 3416Polling district: ABB - 1290Polling district: ABC - 691
Herbert Street 57 104Church Street 48 88
St. Mary’s Road 9 17Garland Close 42 77Union Green 10 18
Sunmead Road (part) 12 22Chapel Street (part) 80 146
TOTAL: 5869
9. ADEYFIELD WEST9
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AC - 3624
TOTAL: 3624
10. ADEYFIELD EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: ADA - 2249Polling district: ADB - 2213
DeletionsRedbourn Road 14 26
TOTAL: 4436
9 The following roads were suggested to be moved from Adeyfield East into Adeyfield West toachieve a better balance: Highfield Lane, Larchwood Road, Widmore Drive, Berrymead,Tannsfield Drive, Orchard Close, Dellcut Road, San Foin End, Connaught Close, Winds EndClose, Ellingham Close, Tannsmore Close, Nicholas Way, The Grazings, Ellingham Road(part), and High Street Green Road (part).However, this resulted in the relocation of 825 residents and did not achieve the equalityanticipated. The wards have therefore been left as before, though movement of some of theaforementioned roads may still be undertaken to improve equality.
95
11. APSLEY10
Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: AFA - 2922Polling district: AFB - 882
DeletionsRoughdown Avenue 36 66Roughdown Road 17 31
Standring Rise 31 57Princes Court 5 9Catlin Street 33 60
Russell Place 33 60Stratford Way 28 51
Moorside 10 18
TOTAL: 3452
12. CORNER HALL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AEA - 3206Polling district: AEB - 1127
TOTAL: 4333
13. LEVERSTOCK GREEN VILLAGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ALB - 2854Polling district: ALC - 756Polling district: BAB - 68
Linsey Close 6 11Longdean Park 31 57Highclere Drive 28 51
Silverthorn Drive 36 66The Leas 6 11
TOTAL: 3874
14. TILE KILN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ALA - 1754
Rant Meadow 40 73Three Corners 25 46
10 The suggested use of the Crabtree boundary to balance the Apsley and Corner Hall wardsdid not achieve the result required. It involved movement of residents into Corner Hall, withworsening equality for both. It is possible to achieve a better balance between these twowards, if part of Corner Hall was moved into Apsley.
96
Flatfield Road 36 66Goldcroft 51 93
Peascroft Road 54 99
TOTAL: 2131
15. BENNETTS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AQB - 2533Polling district: AQA - 1819
Nash Mills ward - 2123
DeletionsLinsey Close 6 11
Longdean Park 31 57Highclere Drive 28 51
Silverthorn Drive 36 66The Leas 6 11
Rant Meadow 40 73Three Corners 25 46Flatfield Road 36 66
Goldcroft 51 93Peascroft Road 54 99
TOTAL: 5902
97
MODEL C (Liberal Democrat group)
Note: the numbers modelled here differ from those given on the original LiberalDemocrat proposal. This is as a result of variations in the method of estimatingpopulation. The tables below follow the same method as for Models A and B –whereby properties in a road are multiplied by a standard occupancy estimate toprovide a population estimate. The original proposal used current occupancies fromthe electoral register to estimate population.
Summary:
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2105 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Woodhall Farm 4290 2.04 2 2145 +1.9
Grovehill 5871 2.79 3 1957 -7.0
Gadebridge 4369 2.08 2 2184.5 +3.8
Warners End &Shrubhill
4112 1.95 2 2056 -2.3
Chaulden 4081 1.94 2 2040.5 -3.1
Boxmoor 4394 2.09 2 2197 +4.4
Central 4265 2.03 2 2132.5 +1.3
Highfield & St.Paul’s
3899 1.85 2 1949.5 -7.4
Adeyfield West 3956 1.88 2 1978 -6.0
Adeyfield East 4104 1.95 2 2052 -2.5
Apsley & CornerHall
6699 3.18 3 2233 +6.1
Leverstock Green 4349 2.07 2 2174.5 +3.3
Bennetts End &North End
4448 2.11 2 2224 +5.6
Belswains &Nash Mills
4481 2.13 2 2240.5 +6.4
BerkhamstedCastle
4497 2.14 2 2248.5 +6.8
BerkhamstedEast
4466 2.12 2 2233 +6.1
98
Tring East,Aldbury &Wigginton
4013 1.91 2 2006.5 -4.7
Tring Central 3974 1.89 2 1987 -5.6
Tring West 3993 1.90 2 1996.5 -5.2
Other wards:
Unchanged from current situation.
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2105 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Northchurch 2220 1.05 1 2220 +5.5
Kings Langley 3903 1.85 2 1951.5 -7.3
Bovingdon,Flaunden &Chipperfield
6262 2.97 3 2087 -0.9
Watling 4159 1.98 2 2079.5 -1.2
Ashridge 2168 1.03 1 2168 +3.0
BerkhamstedWest
4403 2.09 2 2201.5 +4.6
99
1. WOODHALL FARM
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AMA - 1956Polliing district: AMB - 2334
TOTAL: 4290
2. GROVEHILL & PICCOTTS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: APA - 3502Polling district: APB - 2155
Redbourn Road 14 26Piccotts End Road 82 150Piccotts End Lane 12 22
Mill Close 9 16
TOTAL: 5871
3. GADEBRIDGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AJ - 3894
Astley Road 80 146Bury Court 28 51Bury Green 12 22
Bury Hill 32 59Bury Hill Close 4 7
Bury Road 33 60Cemmaes Court Road 43 79
Cemmaes Meadow 28 51
TOTAL: 4369
4. WARNERS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AHA - 1591Polling district: AHB - 2083
Briarcliff 16 29East Flint 11 20
Frimley Road 16 29Juniper Green 9 16Merrow Drive 12 22Myrtle Green 14 26
Newlands Road 42 77Ravensdell 18 33Ripley Way 25 46Roseheath 51 93
100
Youngfield 21 38Warners End Road 20 37
Deletions:Northfield Way HP1 2AA 15 28
TOTAL: 4112
5. CHAULDEN & GREEN END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AKA - 2161Polling district: AKB - 650Polling district: AKC - 993
Northfield Way HP1 2AA 15 28Barberry Road 7 13Counters Close 10 18Fulmar Crescent 16 29
Gravel Hill Terrace 15 28Gravel Lane HP1 1SB 29 53
Green End Road 23 42Lovel Close 30 55Ashtree Way 25 46
Bargrove Avenue 40 73Cangels Close 12 22
Fishery Road (West) 28 51Gravel Hill Terrace 18 33
Green End Gardens 14 26Green End Road 43 79
Grove Road 16 29Moorland Road 37 68Rosehill Court 7 13
DeletionsBriarcliff 16 29
East Flint 11 20Frimley Road 16 29Juniper Green 9 16Merrow Drive 12 22Myrtle Green 14 26
Newlands Road 42 77Ravensdell 18 33Ripley Way 25 46Roseheath 51 93Youngfield 21 38
TOTAL: 4081
6. BOXMOOR & HAMMERFIELD
101
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AGA 1578Polling district: AGB 1670Polling district: AGC 1100Polling district: AAB - 1227
Deletions:Northfield Way HP1 2AA 15 28
Barberry Road 7 13Counters Close 10 18Fulmar Crescent 16 29
Gravel Hill Terrace 15 28Gravel Lane HP1 1SB 29 53
Green End Road 23 42Lovel Close 30 55Ashtree Way 25 46
Bargrove Avenue 40 73Cangels Close 12 22
Fishery Road (West) 28 51Gravel Hill Terrace 18 33
Green End Gardens 14 26Green End Road 43 79
Grove Road 16 29Moorland Road 37 68Rosehill Court 7 13Astley Road 80 146Bury Court 28 51Bury Green 12 22
Bury Hill 32 59Bury Hill Close 4 7
Bury Road 33 60Cemmaes Court Road 43 79
Cemmaes Meadow 28 51
TOTAL: 4394
7. CENTRAL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AAA - 1311Polling district: AAC - 1650Polling district: ABC
Berefield 18 33Boxhill 16 29
Broadcroft 18 33Church Street 36 66Cloiser Walk 6 11
Lavender Walk 13 24Layhill 20 37
Sharpcroft 24 44Smithfield/Phyllis 56 102
102
CourtnageSummer Court 34 62
The Bounce 34 62Thriftfield 80 146Townsend 72 132
Typleden Close 22 40Wheatfield 37 68
DeletionsPiccotts End Road 82 150Piccotts End Lane 12 22
Mill Close 9 16Catsdale 20 37
Baylie Lane/Court 28 51
TOTAL: 4265
8. HIGHFIELD
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ABA - 3416Polling district: ABB - 1290
Catsdell 20 37Baylie Lane/Court 28 51
DeletionsBerefield 18 33Boxhill 16 29
Broadcroft 18 33Church Street 36 66
Cloiser Walk 6 11
Lavender Walk 13 24Layhill 20 37
Sharpcroft 24 44Smithfield/Phyllis
Courtnage56 102
Summer Court 34 62The Bounce 34 62
Thriftfield 80 146Townsend 72 132
Typleden Close 22 40Wheatfield 37 68
TOTAL: 3899
9. ADEYFIELD WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AC - 3624
Adeyfield Gardens 62 114
103
Adeyfield Road 45 82Great Road (2-38 + Pirton
Court)25 46
Queens Square 36 66Hammer lane 13 24
TOTAL: 3956
10. ADEYFIELD EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: ADA - 2249Polling district: ADB - 2213
DeletionsRedbourn Road 14 26
Adeyfield Gardens 62 114Adeyfield Road 45 82
Great Road (2-38 + PirtonCourt)
25 46
Queens Square 36 66Hammer lane 13 24
TOTAL: 4104
11. APSLEY & CORNER HALL
Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: AFA - 2922Polling district: AFB - 882Polling district: AEA 3206
DeletionsSt. Albans Hill 81 148
Ivory Court 25 46Sempill Road 64 117
TOTAL: 6699
12. LEVERSTOCK GREEN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ALB - 2854Polling district: ALA - 1754
DeletionsAcorn Road 43 79
Belsize Road 42 77Belsize Close 15 28Keiths Road 17 31Sylvan Close 20 37
104
Rant Meadow (HP3 8EQ) 4 7
TOTAL: 4349
13. BELSWAINS & NASH MILLS
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AEB - 2533Polling district: AQB - 756Polling district: BA - 68
Polling district: BAA - 234
St. Albans Hill 81 148Ivory Court 25 46
Sempill Road 64 117
DeletionsBelmont Road (Athelstan
to Stonelea)48 88
Athelstan Road 22 40Lime Walk 14 26Horselers 31 57
Hill Common 27 49Stonelea Road 78 143
Deansway 14 26Hobbs Hill Road (HP3
9QG)33 60
Upper Barn 34 62Barnfield 58 106
Barn Close 20 37Lower Barn 28 51
Great Elms Road (HP39UD)
4 7
Saunders Close 16 29Saunders Road 28 51
TOTAL: 4481
14. BENNETTS END & NORTH END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AQA - 1819Polling district: ALC - 2123Polling district: BAB
Horselers 31 57Hill Common 27 49
Stonelea Road 78 143Deansway 14 26
Hobbs Hill Road (HP39QG)
33 60
Upper Barn 34 62Barnfield 58 106
105
Barn Close 20 37Lower Barn 28 51
Great Elms Road (HP39UD)
4 7
Saunders Close 16 29Saunders Road 28 51
Acorn Road 43 79Belsize Road 42 77Belsize Close 15 28Keiths Road 17 31Sylvan Close 20 37
Rant Meadow (HP3 8EQ) 4 7Belmont Road (Athelstan
to Stonelea)48 88
Athelstan Road 22 40Lime Walk 14 26
TOTAL: 4448
15. BERKHAMSTED CASTLE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: KBA - 2044Polling district: KBB - 573Polling district: KBC - 2238
Deletions:Bank Mill 10 18
Bank Mill Lane 13 24Bulbeggers Lane 1 2
George Street (HP4 2EW& South View Villas)
22 40
Ivy House Lane 32 59London Road 7 13
Lorinda Court & Terrace 16 29Meadway 39 71
Old Mill Gardens 51 93Pix Farm Lane 5 9
TOTAL: 4497
16. BERKHAMSTED EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: KCA - 1205Polling district: KCB - 1881Polling district: KCC - 1019
Bank Mill 10 18Bank Mill Lane 13 24
Bulbeggers Lane 1 2George Street (HP4 2EW 22 40
106
& South View Villas)Ivy House Lane 32 59London Road 7 13
Lorinda Court & Terrace 16 29Meadway 39 71
Old Mill Gardens 51 93Pix Farm Lane 5 9
TOTAL: 4466
17. TRING EAST, ALDBURY & WIGGINTON
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: DA - 2063
Polling district: EAA - 552Polling district: EAB - 163Polling district: EB - 1132
Dunsley Place 20 37High Street (Bank Alley to
London Road)3 6
London Road 26 48Mansion Drive & Srts Ed
School15 28
DeletionsAlbany Terrace/Grove
Road9 16
New Mill Terrace/New MillPub
0 0
TOTAL: 4013
18. TRING CENTRAL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: DBA - 1122Polling district: DBB - 1606Polling district: DBC - 1142
Albany Terrace/GroveRoad
9 16
New Mill Terrace/New MillPub
0 0
Christchurch Road (37-67odd)
15 28
Fantail Lane 33 60
TOTAL: 3974
107
19. TRING WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: DCA - 1982Polling district DCB - 1189Polling district: DDA - 622Polling district: DDB - 407
DeletionsDunsley Place 20 37
High Street (Bank Alley toLondon Road)
3 6
London Road 26 48Mansion Drive & Srts Ed
School15 28
Christchurch Road 37-67odd
15 28
Fantail Lane 33 60
TOTAL: 3993
108
Graphs showing distribution of deviations in models A, B, C considered by PER Committee on 19 July 2005
Model A
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Woodh
all Farm
Groveh
ill Wes
tGrov
ehill
Gadeb
ridge
Warners
EndCha
ulden
Boxmoo
rCen
tral
Highfie
ld & St. P
aul's
Adeyfi
eld W
est
Adeyfi
eld Eas
tAps
leyCorn
er Hall
Leve
rstoc
k Gree
nTile
KilnBen
netts
EndNas
h Mills
Berkha
msted C
astle
Berkha
msted E
ast
Kings L
angle
y
Boving
don,
Flaund
en & C
hippe
rfield
Watling
Ashrid
ge
Berkha
msted W
est
Wards
% d
evia
tion
from
idea
l
Model A
109
Model B
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Woodh
all Farm
Groveh
illGad
ebrid
ge
Warners
End & Shru
bhill
Chauld
enBox
moor
Centra
l
Highfie
ld & St. P
aul's
Adeyfi
eld W
est
Adeyfi
eld Eas
t
Apsley
Corner
Hall
Leve
rstoc
k Gree
n Villa
ge
Tile Kiln
Benne
tts End
Wards
% d
evia
tion
from
idea
l
Model B
110
Model C
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Woodh
all Farm
Groveh
illGad
ebrid
ge
Warners
End
Chauld
en & Shru
bhill
Boxmoo
rCen
tral
Highfie
ld & St. P
auls
Adeyfi
eld w
est
Adeyfi
eld Eas
t
Apsley
& Corn
er Hall
Leve
rstoc
k Gree
n
Benne
tts End
& Nort
h End
Belswain
s & N
ash M
ills
Berkha
msted C
astle
Berkha
msted E
ast
Tring E
ast, A
ldbury
& Wigg
inton
Tring C
entra
lTrin
g Wes
tNort
hchu
rch
Kings L
angle
y
Boving
don,
Flaund
en & C
hippe
rfield
Watling
Ashrid
ge
Berkha
msted W
est
Wards
% d
evia
tion
from
idea
l
Model C
111
ANNEX B
LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT SET OUT AT DACORUM BOROUGH COUNCILMEETING ON 3RD AUGUST 2005.
This amendment was lost (Vote: For 10; Against 32)
Amendment to be proposed by Labour Group:
1. To amend the appropriate Council size proposed to 53 members.2. To replace the Hemel Hempstead wards set out in the draft submission
with the model below (Model B, amended)
MODEL B (Labour Group) Amended version for Council on 3 August 2005
Summary: The total number of Councillors proposed is 53. This results in an ideal ratio forCouncillors to Electorate of 1:2026.
Ward Estimatedpopulation:
Pop/2026 ProposedCouncillors:
Ratio 1: Deviationfrom ideal:
(%)
Woodhall Farm 4290 2.12 2 2145 +5.1
Grovehill 5871 2.90 3 1957 -3.4
Gadebridge 4019 1.98 2 2009.5 -0.8
Warners End &Shrubhill
5529 2.73 3 1843 -9.0
Chaulden 2161 1.07 1 2161 +6.7
Boxmoor 5590 2.76 3 1863 -8.0
Central 2301 1.14 1 2301 +13.6
Highfield & St.Paul’s
5869 2.90 3 1956 -3.5
Adeyfield West 3983 1.97 2 1991.5 -1.7
Adeyfield East 4077 2.01 2 2038.5 +0.6
Apsley 3683 1.82 2 1841.5 -9.1
Corner Hall 4102 2.02 2 2051 +1.2
Leverstock GreenVillage
3874 1.91 2 1937 -4.4
112
Tile Kiln 2131 1.05 1 2131 +5.2
Bennetts End 5902 2.91 3 1967 -2.9
1. WOODHALL FARM
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AMA - 1956Polliing district: AMB - 2334
TOTAL: 4290
2. GROVEHILL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: APA - 3502Polling district: APB - 2155
Redbourn Road 14 26Piccotts End Road 82 150Piccotts End Lane 12 22
Mill Close 9 16
TOTAL: 5871
3. GADEBRIDGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AJ - 3894
Knights Orchard 38 70Sandalls Spring 20 37Little Catherells 10 18
TOTAL: 4019
4. WARNERS END & SHRUBHILL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AHA - 1591Polling district: AHB - 2083Polling district: AKB - 650Polling district: AKC - 993
Lovel Close 14 26Green End Road 23 42
Ashtree Way 25 46Bargrove Avenue 40 73
Cangels Close 12 22Moorland Road 37 68
Grove Road 16 29
113
Counters Close 10 18Barberry Road 7 13
Deletions:Knights Orchard 38 70Sandalls Spring 20 37Little Catherells 10 18
TOTAL: 5529
5. CHAULDEN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AKA - 2161
TOTAL: 2161
6. BOXMOOR
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AGA 1578Polling district: AGB 1670Polling district: AGC 1100Polling district: AAB - 1227
Roughdown Avenue 36 66Roughdown Road 17 31
Standring Rise 31 57Princes Court 5 9Catlin Street 33 60
Russell Place 33 60Stratford Way 28 51
Moorside 10 18
Deletions:Lovel Close 14 26
Green End Road 23 42Ashtree Way 25 46
Bargrove Avenue 40 73Cangels Close 12 22Moorland Road 37 68
Grove Road 16 29Counters Close 10 18Barberry Road 7 13
TOTAL: 5590
7. CENTRAL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AAA - 1311Polling district: AAC - 1650
114
DeletionsPiccotts End Road 82 150Piccotts End Lane 12 22
Mill Close 9 16Herbert Street 57 104Church Street 48 88
St. Mary’s Road 9 17Garland Close 42 77Union Green 10 18
Sunmead Road (part) 12 22Chapel Street (part) 80 146
TOTAL: 2301
8. HIGHFIELD & ST. PAUL’S
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ABA - 3416Polling district: ABB - 1290Polling district: ABC - 691
Herbert Street 57 104Church Street 48 88
St. Mary’s Road 9 17Garland Close 42 77Union Green 10 18
Sunmead Road (part) 12 22Chapel Street (part) 80 146
TOTAL: 5869
9. ADEYFIELD WEST
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AC - 3624
Additions:Ranelagh Road 36 66Farland Road 38 70
Field Road 88 161Vauxhall Road (part) 34 62
TOTAL: 3983
10. ADEYFIELD EAST
Composition: Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: ADA - 2249Polling district: ADB - 2213
DeletionsRedbourn Road 14 26
115
Ranelagh Road 36 66Farland Road 38 70
Field Road 88 161Vauxhall Road (part) 34 62
TOTAL: 4077
11. APSLEY
Properties: Estimated occupancy:Polling district: AFA - 2922Polling district: AFB - 882
AdditionsCedar Walk 79 145
Corner Hall Avenue 47 86
DeletionsRoughdown Avenue 36 66Roughdown Road 17 31
Standring Rise 31 57Princes Court 5 9Catlin Street 33 60
Russell Place 33 60Stratford Way 28 51
Moorside 10 18
TOTAL: 3683
12. CORNER HALL
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AEA - 3206Polling district: AEB - 1127
DeletionsCedar Walk 79 145
Corner Hall Avenue 47 86
TOTAL: 4102
13. LEVERSTOCK GREEN VILLAGE
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ALB - 2854Polling district: ALC - 756Polling district: BAB - 68
Linsey Close 6 11Longdean Park 31 57Highclere Drive 28 51
Silverthorn Drive 36 66
116
The Leas 6 11
TOTAL: 3874
14. TILE KILN
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ALA - 1754
Rant Meadow 40 73Three Corners 25 46Flatfield Road 36 66
Goldcroft 51 93Peascroft Road 54 99
TOTAL: 2131
15. BENNETTS END
Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AQB - 2533Polling district: AQA - 1819
Nash Mills ward - 2123
DeletionsLinsey Close 6 11
Longdean Park 31 57Highclere Drive 28 51
Silverthorn Drive 36 66The Leas 6 11
Rant Meadow 40 73Three Corners 25 46Flatfield Road 36 66
Goldcroft 51 93Peascroft Road 54 99
TOTAL: 5902