electoral review sub committee monday, 10 august 2015 … review... · subject to approval at the...

Arun District Council Civic Centre Maltravers Road Littlehampton West Sussex BN17 5LF

Tel: (01903) 737500 Fax: (01903) 730442 DX: 57406 Littlehampton

Minicom: 01903 732765 e-mail: [email protected]

30 July 2015 Committee Manager: Jane Fulton (Ext 37611) ELECTORAL REVIEW SUB COMMITTEE A meeting of the Electoral Review Sub-Committee will be held in Committee Room 1 at the Arun Civic Centre, Maltravers Road, Littlehampton on Monday, 10 August 2015 at 6.00 pm and you are requested to attend. Members: Councillors Gammon (Chairman), Charles [Vice-Chairman], Bower, Brooks,

Mrs Brown, Chapman, Dendle and Oppler.

A G E N D A 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members and Officers are reminded to make any declaration of personal and/or prejudicial/pecuniary interests that they may have in relation to items on this agenda.

You should declare your interest by stating: a) the item you have the interest in b) whether it is a personal interest and the nature of the interest c) whether it is also a prejudicial/pecuniary interest You then need to re-declare your prejudicial/pecuniary interest at the commencement of the item or when the interest becomes apparent.

3. *MINUTES To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 September

2014 (as attached). 4. ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING IS OF

THE OPINION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A MATTER OF URGENCY BY REASON OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

abcd

of 28

Arun District Council ELECTORAL REVIEW SUB COMMITTEE-10/08/2015

5. *BOUNDARY REVIEW OF WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is undertaking

a boundary review of West Sussex County Council's electoral divisions. This Report outlines the aims of this review and requests Members to consider the LGBCE's proposals and provide consultation feedback on behalf of Arun District Council.

6. FUTURE MEETING DATES The Committee is requested to agree the future meeting dates as follows: 17 December 2015 at 6pm 11 February 2015 at 6pm 13 April 2016 at 6pm (Note: *Indicates report is attached for all Members of the Council and the press

(excluding exempt items). Copies of reports can be obtained on request from the Committee Manager or can be viewed on the Council’s web site by visiting www.arun.gov.uk).

(Note: Members are also reminded that if they have any detailed questions, would

they please inform the Chairman and/or relevant Lead Officer in advance of the meeting in order that the appropriate Officer/ Cabinet Member can attend the meeting.) ELECTORAL REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE ELECTORAL REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE 10th August 2015

of 28


Subject to approval at the next meeting

ELECTORAL REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE

18 September 2014 at 6.00pm

Present:- Councillors Gammon (Chairman), L Brown (Vice-Chairman), Bower, Brooks, Mrs Brown and Wensley [substituting for Councillor Dendle].

Councillors English, Haymes and Mrs Oakley were also present

for Minutes 6 to 9. 6. APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence had been received from Councillor Dendle, who was substituted by Councillor Wensley. 7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest made. 8. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2014 were approved by the Sub-Committee as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

9. COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW – RECOMMENDATIONS TO

FULL COUNCIL In presenting his report, the Head of Policy and Partnerships explained that this was the final stage of the community governance review process with the Sub-Committee being asked to make recommendations to Full Council. He also reminded Members of the background to this review and the basis of the three proposals under consideration, namely:

• Proposal 1 : Request by Yapton Parish Council to move their boundary with Ford Parish Council eastwards to encompass the new housing development due to be built off Goodhew Close.

• Proposal 2 : Request by Yapton Parish Council to align the southern boundary of their parish with Middleton to the line of the A259.

• Proposal 3 : Request by Felpham Parish Council to align their parish boundary with Yapton in line with the District and County electoral boundaries.

ITEM 3

of 28



The process taken to this review had included a number of

opportunities for views to be presented by the relevant Parish Councils and members of the public. In addition to the presentations made by Felpham, Middleton and Yapton Parish Councils, together with a written submission from Ford Parish Council in the early stages of the review process; the detailed results of the consultation exercise had been reported to the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 24 July 2014.

In bringing the review to its conclusion, the Head of Policy and Partnerships explained to Members that they must take into account the evidence in front of them and follow the principles of the guidance produced by the Department of Communities & Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, a copy of which was appended to the report. The report had included options against each proposal for the Sub-Committee’s consideration. The Head of Policy and Partnerships also advised that the only appeal process from any decision taken was through Judicial Review. Therefore, the Sub-Committee was asked to give clear reasons for each of the recommendations made.

At this point in the meeting, the Chairman explained to the Ward Councillors present that he would be inviting them to give any further views as they considered each of the proposals in turn.

Proposal 1 – Yapton Parish Council’s request to move their boundary with Ford Parish Council The Head of Policy and Partnerships referred Members to the detail of the survey results set out in Appendix 3 to the report. This confirmed that there was support from both parishes to the request by Yapton Parish Council to move their boundary with Ford Parish Council eastwards to encompass the new housing development due to be built off Goodhew Close. No adverse feedback had been received from the consultation, although it had to be recognised that many of the properties had yet to be built/occupied. Clarification was sought on the boundary line of any realignment and it was agreed that this should form the boundary of the planning application for this development. A question was asked about the current Yapton Neighbourhood Plan and whether this was affected by this proposal. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that this plan had been through the independent examination stage and the examiner had recommended that properties in the eastern part of the Ford parish area should be included within the neighbourhood area so would all be invited to vote in the forthcoming referendum. On the basis of the evidence presented, Councillor Bower proposed Option 1 from the report, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs Brown.

ITEM 3

of 28



On putting this to the vote, the Sub-Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That the boundary between Ford and Yapton be altered to include all of the new housing estate that is being built off Goodhew Close in the parish of Yapton, with the boundary line to be based on the boundary of the planning application for this development. Reason: There was unanimous support from both Ford and Yapton Parish Councils to this proposal and no adverse comment. It also made common sense based on the location of the new development to adjoining properties in the Yapton parish area.

Proposal 2 – Yapton Parish Council’s request to re-align their southern boundary with Middleton-on-Sea Parish Council The Head of Policy and Partnerships referred to the views expressed by each Parish Council, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report. These highlighted the difference of opinion and that Yapton Parish Council’s request had not been supported by Middleton Parish Council. It was noted that no member of the public had made any representations on this proposal. Councillor Haymes spoke as a Ward Councillor about this proposal which aimed to address anomalies in present arrangements. He referred to there being no further use of the capped oil well which had been referred to in the representations and also to the planned improvement works by West Sussex County to Comet Corner which he believed were separate to this review. Finally, he commented on the points made in the representations about surface water flooding and that he believed that a realignment of the boundary would not be an issue as there would be continued liaison between the two parishes. Councillor Mrs Oakley spoke as a Ward Councillor, advising that although she was not a Middleton Parish Councillor, she supported the Parish Council's view that there should be no change to the current boundary. Councillor English spoke as a Ward Councillor from the neighbouring parish and highlighted that he believed it was wrong to take a decision about any change to the boundary at this stage whilst the design for Comet Corner was still being developed as it was unclear what implications this might bring forward. The Sub-Committee considered the views expressed by the Ward Councillors and also whether the decision could be deferred until the design scheme had been confirmed for Comet Corner. In reviewing

ITEM 3

of 28



the guidance for the timescale for completing a community governance review and receiving further officer advice, the view of the majority of the Sub-Committee was that the decision should be taken now and no deferral considered. On the basis of the difference of opinion from the consultation exercise, Councillor Wensley proposed option 2 in the officer report, which was seconded by Councillor Brooks. On putting this to the vote, the Sub-Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL That there is no change to the parish boundary between Yapton Parish Council and Middleton Parish Council. Reason – There was insufficient evidence to support a change based on the two Parish Councils having opposing views and no comments in support or against from members of the public.

Proposal 3 – Felpham Parish Council request to realign their parish boundary with Yapton Parish Council The Head of Policy and Partnerships introduced the approach taken to consultation on this proposal and the findings of this exercise. In this case, there had been consultation with residents of Hoe Lane who would be directly affected by any change as well as with other interested parties and the affected parish councils. The survey results at Appendix 3 highlighted that 96% of residents living in Hoe Lane expressed a view. Comments were received from the Flansham Residents Association, as well as the parish councils and ward councillors. The view of the residents of Hoe Lane was that they wanted to see no change to current arrangements. Views from the other consultees were mixed, each supporting the relevant parish council in which they lived. Councillor Haymes spoke as a Ward Councillor and gave a history to where the hamlet of Hoe Lane had moved from one county electoral division, district ward and parish to another over the past decade. He supported the Parish Council's view that there should be no change to the current boundary with Hoe Lane remaining in the parish of Yapton. Councillor English gave his views as a Ward Councillor. He believed that the most recent electoral review of Arun District Council had confirmed that the area should form part of the Felpham parish to retain coterminosity between the district and parish ward boundaries. However, he also accepted the overwhelming request for no change from the residents of Hoe Lane and did not envy the Sub-Committee their decision.

ITEM 3

of 28



In discussing the varying views, it was recognised that although it made sense for ward and parish boundaries to be coterminous; it also had to be recognised that a local community must have affinity with the electoral area in which they lived. The residents directly affected by this proposal had made it perfectly clear that they wished no change to current arrangements as they felt aligned with the Yapton parish area. It was felt that this evidence was sufficient to support making no change to current arrangements. Councillor Bower therefore proposed Option 2 which was seconded by Councillor Mrs Brown. On putting this to the vote, the Sub-Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL That there is no change to the parish boundary between Felpham and Yapton Parish Councils. Reason – The overwhelming view of the community directly affected by this proposal was that they wished to see no change to current arrangements. It was felt that this finding should be given the most weight in the evidence presented.

10. REVIEW OF POLLING DISTRICTS AND POLLING STATIONS IN THE

ARUN DISTRICT 2013/15 – STAGE 2 The Sub-Committee considered a report from the Head of Democratic Services setting out the findings from the final stage of the statutory review of polling districts and polling stations within the Arun District.

In presenting the report, the Head of Democratic Services advised that the proposals being put forward were for limited change to current arrangements. The Returning Officer's view had been that with combined Parliamentary, District and Parish elections due to be held on 7 May 2015, it was important to keep to the familiar for the majority of electors. The report highlighted 3 polling stations where steps were being taken to improve accessibility following feedback from the May 2014 election; and also 3 polling districts where investigations were still underway to identify alternative venues for a polling station as the current location was no longer available.

In discussing the report, a question was asked about the commentary received in response to the consultation exercise. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that all the responses received to the survey undertaken following the European Parliamentary Election in May 2014 had been included in the appendix to the report.

A question was asked about the suitability of the Fire Station as a polling station to cover the Angmering South polling district as it was felt that a venue needed to be identified north of the railway line. The Head of Democratic Services advised that although it was recognised that there were

ITEM 3

of 28



some issues with the suitability of these premises, no alternative had been identified in the locality. Further, the venue was a long standing one and well recognised by voters. The Chief Executive supported this assessment. The Head of Democratic Services was asked to keep this polling district under review.

A concern was raised about the confusion some voters faced where they voted at a combined polling station. Feedback was that they were often confused at which station applied to them and the poll card only held limited information, particularly the reference to the polling district abbreviation. The Head of Democratic Services explained that road lists were provided at these polling stations to direct voters and where possible one of the staff would offer a 'meet and greet' service to assist voters. She agreed to review the wording of the poll card, against the legislation, and see whether additional information could be provided beyond the polling district code.

In reviewing options for new polling stations, there was a view that the use of portacabins should not be ruled out, although it was accepted that the accessibility of these needed to be carefully managed based on recent experience.

The Sub-Committee therefore

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL - That (1) the Returning Officer’s report on Stage 2 of the

2013/15 Review of Polling Districts, Polling Places and Polling Stations for the Arun District, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, be agreed; and

(2) the use of the polling stations listed in Appendix 1 be agreed for future elections, including the Parliamentary, District and Parish elections to be held on 7 May 2015.

(The meeting concluded at 7.05pm)

ITEM 3

of 28


AGENDA ITEM NO.5

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

ELECTORAL REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE – 10 AUGUST 2015 Recommendation Paper Subject : West Sussex County Council Boundary Review Report by : Liz Futcher, Head of Democratic Services Report date 23 July 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is undertaking a boundary review of West Sussex County Council’s electoral divisions. The aim of this Electoral Review is to recommend electoral division boundaries that mean each county councillor represents approximately the same number of voters. Another aim is to ensure that the pattern of divisions in the West Sussex area reflects the interests and identities of local communities as well as promoting effective local government. In order to achieve these aims, the Local Government Boundary Commission has identified a need to re-draw division boundaries across the County. The Electoral Review Sub Committee is invited to represent the views of the Arun District by submitting written comments to both West Sussex County Council and the Local Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) as part of their consultations.

RECOMMENDATIONS Members are requested to consider the LGBCE’s proposals and make comment, on behalf of the Arun District, as outlined :

1. to form minutes that will be sent to West Sussex County Council by their deadline of 12 August 2015

2. To formulate a written response to the LGBCE to be sent by their deadline of 31 August 2015.

ITEM 5

of 28


1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is undertaking

a boundary review of West Sussex County Council’s electoral divisions. Full details of this review can be found on the LGBCE’s website. A link is provided in this Report’s Background Papers. The Commission has announced that it is minded to recommend that West Sussex County Council should have 70 county councillors in the future: 1 fewer than the current arrangements. The LGBCE is drawing up a new pattern of electoral divisions to accommodate these 70 county councillors and are currently inviting local people and organisations to provide feedback on where they think the new electoral division boundaries should be drawn across West Sussex.

1.3 As part of this review West Sussex County Council is also consulting with relevant

organisations, including Arun District Council, to formulate a scheme of divisions. The comments received from stakeholders (including councils and political associations) will be shared with the County Council’s Electoral Review Panel, chaired by Mr Bill Acraman and forwarded to their Governance Committee to approve the County Council’s formal response to the Commission’s consultation.

2.0 TIMESCALES 2.1 The LGBCE is running a ten week public consultation inviting proposals for the new

division arrangements. The consultation will close on 31 August 2015. 2.2 The County Council’s response will be submitted to the LGBCE after approval by

their Governance Committee on 24 August 2015 3.0 THE ELECTORAL SUB-COMMITTEE’S ROLE 3.1 As part of the LGBCE and West Sussex County Council consultation the Committee

is requested to consider Arun District Council’s position and provide their feedback by the set deadlines. The Committee is requested to:

i. Make comment at the meeting of the Electoral Review Sub Committee on 10

August 2015 to form minutes that will be sent to West Sussex County Council by their deadline of 12 August 2015.

ii. To formulate a written response to the LGBCE to be sent by their deadline of 31 August 2015.

3.2 When forming a response to this consultation the Electoral Sub-Committee is

requested to form an opinion based on the available information. The LGBCE has written to the returning officer, letter attached at Appendix 1, providing full details of the review and further information that the Electoral Sub-Committee would find

ITEM 5

of 28


useful to help inform feedback. Appendix 2, attached details the West Sussex County Council Electoral Review Panel’s initial work on the Arun District area. Appendix 3 attached notes the electoral equality figures detailed in spreadsheets and gives equality figures for both a 69 member and a 70 member division scheme. This is because the County Council is currently evaluating the Horsham area for schemes of 11 or 12 members. Appendix 4, attached details the Boundary Changes proposed in the Arun District. Appendix 5, attached details, at point 6 Littlehampton Town Council’s response to the review.

3.3 Members can access interactive maps of the current division boundaries across the

County on the LGBCE’s consultation website. The maps also allow the selection of parish boundaries and district ward boundaries to help inform a submission from this Committee. (A link has been provided in the Background Papers section of this report).

3.4 The Chairman of the Committee attended a meeting of the County’s Electoral

Review Panel and will be able to give feedback from the discussions on the proposals for the Arun District area.

4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 After considering all the representations from this consultation phase, the LGBCE

intends to publish draft recommendations in November 2015. There will then be a further period of consultation on the draft recommendations. Final recommendations are expected to be published in April 2016 with the new electoral arrangements coming into effect at the local elections in 2017.

Background Papers: Full Details of West Sussex County Council Boundary

Review on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s Website: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-east/west-sussex/west-sussex-county-council LGCBE Interactive Map Portal: West Sussex County | Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Contact: (Liz Futcher, Head of Democratic Services, Ext 737610)

ITEM 5

of 28


http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-east/west-sussex/west-sussex-county-council

http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-east/west-sussex/west-sussex-county-council

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5384

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5384

APPE

ND

IX 1

to IT

EM 5

Page

12

of 2

8

Arun

Dis

trict

Cou

ncil

ELEC

TOR

AL R

EVIE

W S

UB

CO

MM

ITTE

E-10

/08/

2015

APPE

ND

IX 1

to IT

EM 5

Page

13

of 2

8

Arun

Dis

trict

Cou

ncil

ELEC

TOR

AL R

EVIE

W S

UB

CO

MM

ITTE

E-10

/08/

2015

APPE

ND

IX 1

to IT

EM 5

Page

14

of 2

8

Arun

Dis

trict

Cou

ncil

ELEC

TOR

AL R

EVIE

W S

UB

CO

MM

ITTE

E-10

/08/

2015

APPE

ND

IX 1

to IT

EM 5

Page

15

of 2

8

Arun

Dis

trict

Cou

ncil

ELEC

TOR

AL R

EVIE

W S

UB

CO

MM

ITTE

E-10

/08/

2015

Appendix 1

Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council – Arun district area

It is considered that the current scheme in the Arun area works fairly well in both terms of electoral equality and in community focus. Minimum changes were therefore considered rather than a complete reworking of the area. Two proposals were discussed and agreed: a) move a group of electors from Bersted division to Bognor Regis West and

Aldwick division as the current Bersted division was too large. This could be achieved by moving the northern section of the district Marine Ward (BMARN) from Bersted to Bognor Regis West and Aldwick. As well as transferring nearly 600 electors and improving the equality of electorate, this would also make the county division boundary co-terminus with the district boundary.

b) move the polling division of BCORN from Arundel & Wick division to Littlehampton Town division – this would better balance the electoral numbers in both divisions and provide better community interest for those living south of the A27.

APPENDIX 2 to ITEM 5

of 28


Polling District Division

ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL

AND WICK BERSTED BOGNOR E

BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON

& FERRING FELPHAM FONTWELL

LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE

TON NYETIMBER RUSTINGTON

no of councillors county ratio 9026 116956 8203 7935 9246 9442 9635 9947 8482 8958 9207 8654 8398 9154 9695

13 district ratio 8997 116956 -9.1% -12.1% 2.4% 4.6% 6.7% 10.2% -6.0% -0.8% 2.0% -4.1% -7.0% 1.4% 7.4%

% proposal with 70 Cllrs 8897 -7.8% -10.8% 3.9% 6.1% 8.3% 11.8% -4.7% 0.7% 3.5% -2.7% -5.6% 2.9% 9.0%

AANGBG bramley green

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 1529 1529

AANGN1 ang north1

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 1947 1947

AANGN2 ang north 2

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 1710 1710

AANGS ang south

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 771 771

ACLA clapham

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 255 255

AFIN findon

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 1635 1635

APAT patching

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 209 209

APOL poling

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 147 147

AARU1 arundel1 ARUNDEL AND WICK 1198 1198

AARU2 arundel 2 ARUNDEL AND WICK 1535 1535

ABUR burpham ARUNDEL AND WICK 152 152

AHOU houghton ARUNDEL AND WICK 77 77

ALYM lyminster ARUNDEL AND WICK 288 288

ASOU south stoke ARUNDEL AND WICK 34 34

AWAR warningcamp ARUNDEL AND WICK 137 137

BCORN wick ARUNDEL AND WICK 241 241

BCWT1 wick 1 ARUNDEL AND WICK 2293 2293


BWICK wick ARUNDEL AND WICK 1626 1626

BBG1

berstyed brooks

1 BERSTED 221 221

BBG2 bersted brooks 2 BERSTED 353 353

BMARN Marine North BERSTED 598 598

BNB1 n bersted 1 BERSTED 2159 2159



BPEV1 pevensey 1 BERSTED 1311 1311

BPEV2 pevesey 2 BERSTED 2302 2302

BSHR shripney BERSTED 270 270

2015 Electorate

APPEND

IX 3 to ITEM 5

of 28

Arun District C

ouncil ELECTO

RAL R

EVIEW SU

B CO

MM

ITTEE-10/08/2015


ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL


BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON


LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE



13 district ratio 8997 116956 -9.1% -12.1% 2.4% 4.6% 6.7% 10.2% -6.0% -0.8% 2.0% -4.1% -7.0% 1.4% 7.4%


2015 Electorate

BBB1 bersted brooks 1 BOGNOR E 176 176


BHATH BOGNOR E 344 344

BHOT1 hotham 1 BOGNOR E 1789 1789


BORC1 orchard 1 BOGNOR E 509 509



BALDE1 aldwick e 1 BOGNOR W ALDWICK 1144 1144



BMAR1 bognor marine 1 BOGNOR W ALDWICK 1743 1743


BSTRIC

aldwick w st

richards BOGNOR W ALDWICK 1063 1063

WEP1 e preston 1 E PRESTON & FERRING 2568 2568


WFER1 ferring 1 E PRESTON & FERRING 1616 1616


WKIN kingston E PRESTON & FERRING 555 555

WWP w preston E PRESTON & FERRING 457 457

BFELE1 felpham e 1 FELPHAM 1772 1772


BFELW1 felpham w 1 FELPHAM 2031 2031


BHOE hoe lane FELPHAM 91 91

AALD aldingbourne FONTWELL 2630 2630

ABAR barnham FONTWELL 1041 1041

AEAS eastergate FONTWELL 2439 2439

APPEND

IX 3 to ITEM 5

of 28

Arun District C

ouncil ELECTO

RAL R

EVIEW SU

B CO

MM

ITTEE-10/08/2015


ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL


BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON


LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE



13 district ratio 8997 116956 -9.1% -12.1% 2.4% 4.6% 6.7% 10.2% -6.0% -0.8% 2.0% -4.1% -7.0% 1.4% 7.4%


2015 Electorate

AFONT fontwell FONTWELL 273 273

AMAD madehurst FONTWELL 92 92

ARACE racecourse FONTWELL 279 279

ASLI slindon FONTWELL 440 440

AWAL1 walberton 1 FONTWELL 1227 1227


BBEA1 beach 1 LITTLEHAMPTON E 2311 2311


BBRO1 brookfield 1 LITTLEHAMPTON E 917 917



WRUSWN rustington w 4 LITTLEHAMPTON E 1453 1453

BELM LITTLEHAMPTON TOWN 455 455

BHAM1 ham 1 LITTLEHAMPTON TOWN 856 856


BRIV1 river 1 LITTLEHAMPTON TOWN 2420 2420


BRIV3A river 3 LITTLEHAMPTON TOWN 1104 1104

BCLI climping MIDDLETON 728 728

BFOR ford MIDDLETON 868 868

BMID1 middleton 1 MIDDLETON 2031 2031


BYAP yapton MIDDLETON 2705 2705

BALDW1 aldwick w 1 NYETIMBER 2376 2376


BALDW3 rose green NYETIMBER 1269 1269

BBARR NYETIMBER 256 256

BPAG1 pagham 1 NYETIMBER 2546 2546

APPEND

IX 3 to ITEM 5

of 28

Arun District C

ouncil ELECTO

RAL R

EVIEW SU

B CO

MM

ITTEE-10/08/2015


ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL


BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON


LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE



13 district ratio 8997 116956 -9.1% -12.1% 2.4% 4.6% 6.7% 10.2% -6.0% -0.8% 2.0% -4.1% -7.0% 1.4% 7.4%


2015 Electorate


WRUSE1 rustington e 1 RUSTINGTON 2470 2470


WRUSW1 rustington w 1 RUSTINGTON 1093 1093

WRUSW2 runstington w 2 RUSTINGTON 2220 2220


APPEND

IX 3 to ITEM 5

of 28

Arun District C

ouncil ELECTO

RAL R

EVIEW SU

B CO

MM

ITTEE-10/08/2015


ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL


BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON


LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE



13 district ratio 8997 116956 -9.1% -12.1% 2.4% 4.6% 6.7% 10.2% -6.0% -0.8% 2.0% -4.1% -7.0% 1.4% 7.4%


2015 Electorate


ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL


BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON


LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE



13 district ratio 9510 123624 -9.1% 4.8% 4.0% -0.3% 2.6% 6.4% -3.9% 1.5% -3.2% -7.9% -7.2% -4.1% 1.6%

% proposal with 70 Cllrs 9481 -7.7% 6.3% 5.5% 1.1% 4.1% 7.9% -2.5% 3.0% -1.8% -6.5% -5.8% -2.7% 3.1%

AANGBG bramley green

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 1537 1537

AANGN1 ang north1

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 2115 2115

AANGN2 ang north 2

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 1878 1878

AANGS ang south

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 939 939

ACLA clapham

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 263 263

AFIN findon

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 1643 1643

APAT patching

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 217 217

APOL poling

ANGMERING AND

FINDON 155 155

AARU1 arundel1 ARUNDEL AND WICK 1205 1205

AARU2 arundel 2 ARUNDEL AND WICK 1542 1542

ABUR burpham ARUNDEL AND WICK 159 159

AHOU houghton ARUNDEL AND WICK 84 84

ALYM lyminster ARUNDEL AND WICK 296 296

ASOU south stoke ARUNDEL AND WICK 41 41

AWAR warningcamp ARUNDEL AND WICK 144 144

BCORN wick ARUNDEL AND WICK 249 249



BWICK wick ARUNDEL AND WICK 2325 2325



BMARN Marine north BERSTED 647 647




BPEV1 pevensey 1 BERSTED 1418 1418

BPEV2 pevesey 2 BERSTED 2490 2490

BSHR shripney BERSTED 292 292



BHATH BOGNOR E 349 349






2021 Electorate

APPEND

IX 3 to ITEM 5

of 28

Arun District C

ouncil ELECTO

RAL R

EVIEW SU

B CO

MM

ITTEE-10/08/2015


ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL


BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON


LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE



13 district ratio 8997 116956 -9.1% -12.1% 2.4% 4.6% 6.7% 10.2% -6.0% -0.8% 2.0% -4.1% -7.0% 1.4% 7.4%


2015 Electorate






BSTRIC

aldwick w st

richards BOGNOR W ALDWICK 1085 1085





WKIN kingston E PRESTON & FERRING 571 571

WWP w preston E PRESTON & FERRING 470 470





BHOE hoe lane FELPHAM 99 99

AALD aldingbourne FONTWELL 2866 2866

ABAR barnham FONTWELL 1134 1134

AEAS eastergate FONTWELL 2658 2658

AFONT fontwell FONTWELL 298 298

AMAD madehurst FONTWELL 100 100

ARACE racecourse FONTWELL 304 304

ASLI slindon FONTWELL 480 480








WRUSWN rustington w 4 LITTLEHAMPTON E 1469 1469

BELM LITTLEHAMPTON TOWN 466 466





BRIV3A river 3 LITTLEHAMPTON TOWN 1130 1130

BCLI climping MIDDLETON 774 774

APPEND

IX 3 to ITEM 5

of 28

Arun District C

ouncil ELECTO

RAL R

EVIEW SU

B CO

MM

ITTEE-10/08/2015


ARUN

ANGMERING

AND FINDON

ARUNDEL


BOGNOR W

ALDWICK

E PRESTON


LTON

East

LTON

TOWN

MIDDLE



13 district ratio 8997 116956 -9.1% -12.1% 2.4% 4.6% 6.7% 10.2% -6.0% -0.8% 2.0% -4.1% -7.0% 1.4% 7.4%


2015 Electorate

BFOR ford MIDDLETON 923 923



BYAP yapton MIDDLETON 2875 2875



BALDW3 rose green NYETIMBER 1279 1279

BBARR NYETIMBER 258 258






WRUSW2 runstington w 2 RUSTINGTON 2238 2238


APPEND

IX 3 to ITEM 5

of 28

Arun District C

ouncil ELECTO

RAL R

EVIEW SU

B CO

MM

ITTEE-10/08/2015

APPENDIX 4 to ITEM 5

of 28


APPE

ND

IX 5

to IT

EM 6

Page

27

of 2

8

Arun

Dis

trict

Cou

ncil

ELEC

TOR

AL R

EVIE

W S

UB

CO

MM

ITTE

E-10

/08/

2015

APPE

ND

IX 5

to IT

EM 6

Page

28

of 2

8

Arun

Dis

trict

Cou

ncil

ELEC

TOR

AL R

EVIE

W S

UB

CO

MM

ITTE

E-10

/08/

2015

electoral review sub committee monday, 10 august 2015 … review... · subject to approval at the...

Documents