New electoral arrangements for Readings3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/South East... · The...
Transcript of New electoral arrangements for Readings3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/South East... · The...
New electoral arrangements for ReadingDraft RecommendationsFebruary 2020
Translations and other formats:To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:Tel: 0330 500 1525Email: [email protected]
Licensing:The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020
A note on our mapping:The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.
Contents
Introduction 1
Who we are and what we do 1
What is an electoral review? 1
Why Reading? 2
Our proposals for Reading 2
How will the recommendations affect you? 2
Have your say 3
Review timetable 3
Analysis and draft recommendations 5
Submissions received 5
Electorate figures 5
Number of councillors 6
Ward boundaries consultation 6
Draft recommendations 7
Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights 8
Abbey, Battle, Kentwood and Thames 10
Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst 13
Coley and Katesgrove 15
Church, Park, Redlands and Whitley 17
Conclusions 23
Summary of electoral arrangements 23
Have your say 25
Equalities 29
Appendices 31
Appendix A 31
Draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council 31
Appendix B 33
Outline map 33
Appendix C 34
Submissions received 34
Appendix D 35
Glossary and abbreviations 35
1
Introduction
Who we are and what we do
1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an
independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any
political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs
chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out
electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.
2 The members of the Commission are:
• Professor Colin Mellors OBE
(Chair)
• Andrew Scallan CBE
(Deputy Chair)
• Susan Johnson OBE
• Peter Maddison QPM
• Amanda Nobbs OBE
• Steve Robinson
• Jolyon Jackson CBE
(Chief Executive)
What is an electoral review?
3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a
local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:
• How many councillors are needed.
• How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their
boundaries are and what they should be called.
• How many councillors should represent each ward or division.
4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main
considerations:
• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each
councillor represents.
• Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity.
• Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local
government.
5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when
making our recommendations.
1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
2
6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance
and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found
on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk
Why Reading?
7 We are conducting a review of Reading Borough Council (‘the Council’) as the
value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in
Reading. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than
others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where
votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.
8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:
• The wards in Reading are in the best possible places to help the Council
carry out its responsibilities effectively.
• The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the
same across the borough.
Our proposals for Reading
9 Reading should be represented by 48 councillors, two more than there are now.
10 Reading should have 16 wards, the same number as present.
11 The boundaries of all wards, except Park, should change.
How will the recommendations affect you?
12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the
Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are
in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward
name may also change.
13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or
result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary
constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local
taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to
consider any representations which are based on these issues.
3
Have your say
14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 4
February 2020 to 13 April 2020. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to
comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more
informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.
15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this
report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.
16 You have until 13 April 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations.
See page 25 for how to send us your response.
Review timetable
17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of
councillors for Reading. We then held a period of consultation with the public on
warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation
have informed our draft recommendations.
18 The review is being conducted as follows:
Stage starts Description
20 August 2019 Number of councillors decided
27 August 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards
4 November 2019 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and
forming draft recommendations
4 February 2020 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second
consultation
13 April 2020 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and
forming final recommendations
1 September 2020 Publication of final recommendations
4
5
Analysis and draft recommendations
19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how
many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five
years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to
recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.
20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same
number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the
number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the
council as possible.
21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual
local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on
the table below.
2019 2025
Electorate of Reading 113,590 121,002
Number of councillors 46 48
Average number of electors per
councillor 2,469 2,521
22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the
average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All
of our proposed wards for Reading will have good electoral equality by 2025.
Submissions received
23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may
be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk
Electorate figures
24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on
from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These
forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the
electorate of around 7% by 2025.
25 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that
the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these
figures to produce our draft recommendations.
2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.
6
Number of councillors
26 Reading Borough Council currently has 46 councillors. We have looked at
evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that increasing this number by
two will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.
27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be
represented by 48 councillors.
28 As Reading Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three
out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a
uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern
of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an
alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.
29 We received no submissions about the number of councillors in response to our
consultation on ward patterns. Therefore, we have based our draft recommendations
on a 48-member council.
Ward boundaries consultation
30 We received 19 submissions in response to our consultation on ward
boundaries. These included one borough-wide proposal from the Council, which
developed its proposals through a cross-party working group. This was approved at
a full Council meeting on 4 November 2019. The remainder of the submissions
largely provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of
the borough.
31 One submission was signed by 24 electors from Church ward and contained
two partial warding schemes. We gave this submission careful consideration but
concluded that the proposal was descriptive in nature and lacked the evidence to
support some of its proposals. In particular, we noted that the schemes often
mentioned moving electors from certain wards into others without specifying exactly
where this should take place. It was therefore difficult to accommodate these
suggestions. The submission also reasoned that parliamentary constituency
boundaries should be taken into account and used this as an explanation for some of
its proposals. However, parliamentary constituencies are not a point of consideration
for the Commission as they do not form part of our statutory criteria for assessing
ward boundaries. Where possible, and where evidence was provided, we have
sought to take account of the points raised in the submission. This submission also
received support from the Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association.
4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).
7
32 Some of the submissions made comments regarding the possibility of
amending the external borough boundary. We have been unable to have regard to
this issue in our draft recommendations as amendments to authority boundaries are
not considered as part of an electoral review.
33 The borough-wide scheme provided for a uniform pattern of three-councillor
wards for Reading. We carefully considered this scheme and were of the view that
the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most
areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.
34 Our draft recommendations are therefore based on the borough-wide scheme.
However, we have also taken account of more localised evidence, which provided
information regarding community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some
areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between
our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.
35 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the
ground. This tour of Reading helped us to decide between the different boundaries
proposed.
Draft recommendations
36 Our draft recommendations are for 16 three-councillor wards. We consider that
our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting
community identities and interests where we received such evidence during
consultation.
37 The tables and maps on pages 8–21 detail our draft recommendations for each
area of Reading. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the
three statutory5 criteria of:
• Equality of representation.
• Reflecting community interests and identities.
• Providing for effective and convenient local government.
38 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page
31 and on the large map accompanying this report.
39 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the
location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.
5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
8
Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Caversham 3 0%
Emmer Green 3 3%
The Heights 3 0%
Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights
40 We have based our draft recommendations for north Reading on the Council’s
proposals for the three-member wards of Caversham, Emmer Green and The
Heights. These proposals received support from the Bell Tower Community
Association. The proposed ward of The Heights was also supported by two local
residents who suggested combining Mapledurham and Caversham Heights. One of
these residents reasoned that the two areas had similar community groups and
should therefore be combined in the same ward.
41 One of the local residents also suggested moving the boundary between The
Heights and Emmer Green wards to Kidmore Road but did not provide any evidence
for this. Moving the boundary here would not achieve good electoral equality as a
three-councillor ward. As the Council elects by thirds, we are minded to recommend
a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards and will only move away from this pattern
of wards should we receive compelling evidence that an alternative pattern will better
9
reflect our statutory criteria. We do not believe that to be the case in relation to this
suggestion, and so we will not be recommending this boundary.
42 A local resident stated that they lived in Mapledurham but objected to being
represented by only one councillor. However, they did not elaborate further or
provide alternative warding arrangements for the area. In any event, our draft
recommendations will provide for three-member wards across Reading, including the
Mapledurham area.
43 On balance, we consider that the Council’s proposals for this area offer strong
and clearly identifiable ward boundaries, whilst also reflecting the identity of local
communities. Under our draft recommendations, Caversham, Emmer Green and The
Heights will all have good electoral equality by 2025.
10
Abbey, Battle, Kentwood and Thames
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Abbey 3 -3%
Battle 3 2%
Kentwood 3 -8%
Thames 3 -6%
Kentwood
44 The Council’s proposed Kentwood ward is broadly similar to the current
Kentwood ward, with one minor amendment to the south-eastern boundary to
exclude one dwelling. This proposal received support from the Bell Tower
Community Association. A submission signed by 24 Church residents reasoned that
Scours Lane should be kept in Kentwood ward because it can only be reached via
this ward. This is in line with the Council’s proposal.
45 A local resident proposed that Winslet Place, which is located in the existing
Kentwood ward, should be transferred to either Battle or Norcot wards, with the
former being the preferred option. It was argued that this specific area had more in
common with areas to the east and that this would better reflect the pattern of travel
of local residents. During our visit to the borough, we noted that this area seems
better placed in the adjacent Battle ward, as it is separated from the housing in
Kentwood by two major roads and a roundabout.
46 Subject to placing the housing between Oxford Road and Portman Road into
Battle ward, we are basing our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals for
this ward. Our proposed Kentwood ward will have good electoral equality by 2025.
11
Abbey, Battle and Thames
47 We have broadly based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposed
Battle ward, with some minor amendments to better reflect community identities and
create more identifiable boundaries. As outlined in paragraph 46, we have included
the housing between Oxford Road and Portman Road in Battle ward as we consider
this area more likely to share community identities with adjoining housing in Battle
ward. The Bell Tower Community Association and the 24 signatories of Church ward
argued that the Little John’s Farm area to the west of Cow Lane should be placed in
Battle ward and not Thames ward, as proposed by the Council. They reasoned that
the farm is only directly accessible via Battle ward. On visiting the area, we also
noted that the entrance point to the farm was via roads in Battle ward and have
adopted this change as part of our draft recommendations.
48 We also visited the housing to the east of the railway line between Oxford Road
and George Street, which the Council placed in its proposed Battle ward. The
Council scheme placed the housing to the south of this, which sits between the
railway line, Oxford Road, Prospect Street and Tilehurst Road in the adjacent Abbey
ward, reasoning that the railway line acts as a strong boundary. We agree with the
view that the railway line acts as a clear and identifiable boundary, and noted that
whilst the railway line had an access point, that the housing between the railway line
and George Street would have more affinity with the adjacent ward, rather than
Battle ward. Furthermore, the Council’s proposed boundary of George Street is only
accessible via Great Knollys Street, which is in the adjacent Abbey ward. Therefore,
we propose that this housing be placed in Abbey ward, and the railway line be used
as the eastern ward boundary for our proposed Battle ward.
49 We have based our recommendations for Abbey ward on the Council’s
proposal, with two minor amendments. The Council’s proposal for this ward was
supported by the Bell Tower Community Association. We received a resident
submission for Abbey ward, which stated that Abbey ward should be defined by
Vastern Road and Tesco on Napier Way. The reasoning given was that this would
take into account the different needs of those in traditional housing compared with
those in flat dwellings. Whilst we considered this submission, we noted a lack of
evidence or clarity on the other boundaries proposed for the ward which made it
difficult to accommodate. Furthermore, the areas highlighted appear to be largely
placed in the Council’s proposed Thames ward. We are therefore of the view that the
residents’ comments have been broadly addressed in the Council’s scheme.
50 Our first proposed amendment to the ward, where we propose moving the area
of housing between the railway line and George Street into Abbey ward, is discussed
above. Our second proposed change is to south-eastern boundary of the ward. At
present, this boundary takes in the area south of Queen’s Road, between Eldon
Road and London Road. On visiting the area, we noted that Queen’s Road appeared
to form a clearer and more identifiable boundary than that proposed by the Council.
12
Whilst the Council stated that it had considered this option and subsequently chose
not to adopt it, limited evidence was provided in justification, except to state that
such a change was not necessary to achieve better electoral equality. This proposed
change will be discussed further in the next section of this report, in the context of
our proposed Redlands ward (paragraph 69).
51 Our recommendations for Thames ward largely follow the Council’s proposal
except for the ward boundary amendment discussed in paragraph 47, which moves
the proposed western boundary to Cow Lane. We received one submission from the
Bell Tower Community Association which stated that the area around Orts Road to
the south of the River Kennet should be placed in the adjacent Park ward due to the
lack of accessibility and strong boundaries formed by the river and railway line.
Whilst we acknowledge that the river does act as a clear and identifiable boundary,
we note that accommodating this proposal would result in an electoral variance of
-20% for Thames ward by 2025. Furthermore, the Council contended in its own
submission that this area is made up of the Orts Estate which has its own school and
looks onto the town centre, therefore suggesting that it has more affinity with
communities in the proposed Thames ward. On this basis, we have not
recommended this alternative proposal.
52 Under our draft recommendations, Abbey, Battle and Thames wards will all
have good electoral equality by 2025 and, in our view, reflect community identities.
13
Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Norcot 3 4%
Southcote 3 3%
Tilehurst 3 -2%
Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst
53 We have based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposed Norcot,
Southcote and Tilehurst wards. These are largely based on the current warding
arrangements and this proposal received support from the Bell Tower Community
Association. The changes to the current warding arrangements included extending
the Tilehurst ward boundary slightly further south into the current Norcot ward, as
well as extending the southern boundary of the proposed Norcot ward to take in
housing south of Cockney Hill. The proposal also shortened the eastern boundary of
the proposed Norcot ward. The boundary now runs to the rear of properties on
Wantage Road instead of running along it. The north-eastern boundary of Southcote
14
ward was also extended further out, along the railway line instead of Parkside Road.
On visiting the area, we noted that this appears to be a stronger and more
identifiable boundary.
54 We consider that the Council’s proposals for this area offer strong and clearly
identifiable boundaries, whilst also reflecting the identity and interests of the local
community. Under our draft recommendations, Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst
wards will all have good electoral equality by 2025.
15
Coley and Katesgrove
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Coley 3 -7%
Katesgrove 3 3%
Coley and Katesgrove
55 We have based our draft recommendations for this area on the Council’s
proposals, which proposed the three-member wards of Minster and Katesgrove.
These were broadly similar to the current warding arrangements, with an extension
of Minster to the north, and an adjustment to the boundary between the two wards so
that the boundary follows the A33 rather than the River Kennet. This proposal was
supported by the Bell Tower Community Association.
16
56 A submission from Church ward residents contended that there was no need to
move the boundary between Katesgrove and Minster wards from the River Kennet
as it provided a strong feature on which to base a ward boundary. On visiting the
area, we noted that whilst the River Kennet acts as a strong boundary, we were
minded to agree with the Council in moving the boundary to the A33. We observed
that the A33 acted as a stronger and more identifiable boundary. The road has very
few crossing points along the stretch between the two wards. We were also of the
view that the housing along Temple Place would have more community affinity with
Katesgrove than the adjacent ward.
57 The Reading Liberal Democrats and a local resident argued that Minster ward
should be renamed. They stated that those within the ward view the name of Minster
as a ‘historic anomaly’. The resident stated that the ward should be renamed Coley
whilst the Liberal Democrats suggested either Berkeley or Coley.
58 We have therefore decided to base our draft recommendations on the Council’s
proposals, subject to Minster ward being renamed Coley. This name change is in
line with the evidence received which suggested that this was more identifiable name
to the local community. Under our draft recommendations, Coley and Katesgrove
wards will have good electoral equality by 2025. We would be interested in hearing
from local views in relation to our proposed draft recommendations for this area. In
particular, we would like to know opinions on the proposed ward name change, as
well as our proposed warding arrangements for the Temple Place area.
17
Church, Park, Redlands and Whitley
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Church 3 7%
Park 3 -8%
Redlands 3 0%
Whitley 3 10%
Park
59 We are recommending that the current ward boundaries for Park ward remain
the same. The Council proposed a slight change to the current warding
arrangements, by extending the western boundary to De Beauvoir Road rather than
keeping the boundary on Eastern Avenue. Its proposal was supported by the Bell
Tower Community Association. We also received a submission from Councillor
18
White who opposed this change, arguing that the ward should retain its current
boundaries as it is currently within an acceptable range for electoral equality.
Councillor White did suggest some possible alternatives which would involve moving
some of Redlands ward to the west of Eastern Avenue, should it be considered
necessary to improve electoral equality. The Councillor reasoned these alternatives
would line up the catchment areas of some of the local schools.
60 On visiting the area, we agreed with Councillor White that the current
boundaries do not require the Council’s suggested amendment. De Beauvoir Road is
only accessible via one side; to do as the Council proposed would not reflect local
road and transport links. Furthermore, we consider the current boundary of Eastern
Avenue to be much clearer and more identifiable than De Beauvoir Road. In respect
of Councillor White’s alternative suggestions, we contend that Eastern Avenue is
again a more identifiable boundary than these alternatives. Furthermore, any
extension of the ward to the west of Eastern Avenue has the potential to cut off the
small roads in this area from their access point and place them in a separate ward.
We consider our proposed Park ward, which maintains the current ward boundaries,
to be reflective of community identity and will have good electoral equality by 2025.
Church, Redlands and Whitley
61 We received the largest number of residents’ submissions in relation to this
area. It is worth noting that the Council’s proposal for this area differs somewhat to
the current warding arrangements and the area is also set to have the largest growth
in the borough. The Council’s scheme was supported by the Bell Tower Community
Association, but we have not chosen to adopt it in this area. We received one
submission from Councillor White who contended that the north of Cressingham
Road, which currently sits in Church ward, could be moved to Redlands ward to add
the required number of electors for this area. The Councillor reasoned that this a
primary school catchment area boundary and that the housing is similar to that found
on Northumberland Avenue and the Hexman Road Estate. Councillor White also
stated that people in this area use the same library and children’s centre as others in
the existing Redlands ward.
62 We also received a submission signed by 24 residents of Church ward. The
submission provided detail about what constitutes the current Church community
and listed some suggestions for the rest of the borough. The submission stated its
dissatisfaction with the Council’s proposal and said the Council’s ‘rationale for
redrawing the ward boundaries across the Council area’ failed to ‘retain the
character and content of Church ward’. The summary of the submission listed factors
which the residents regarded as being key identifiers of the ward. These included
shops along Northumberland Avenue and Shinfield Road, key bus services and the
community café on Northumberland Avenue. They also contended that, whilst the
ward is named after a church which is no longer in the ward, they are still content
19
with this name. The submission was supported by the Northcourt Avenue Residents’
Association because it would enable Northcourt Avenue to remain in Church ward.
Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association represents the areas of Northcourt
Avenue, Wellington Avenue and Stansfield Close. We have carefully considered the
evidence provided but consider that the alternative suggestions were not always
specific in stating where electors should be moved. Furthermore, they also often
lacked sufficient community evidence to justify making these changes. While we
have therefore not adopted all of these proposals, we have tried to accommodate
them where possible.
63 We received two further submissions from residents in relation to the new
developments being built to the south of the borough. One resident proposed that
the new developments at Kennet Island and Green Park should have their own ward
called Southside. The second submission largely followed this sentiment that the
new developments should be placed in a new and separate ward, noting that those
residing in the new developments are likely to have different needs from those in
Minster, Southcote and Whitley. We examined whether it was possible to create this
new ward, but we could not create a ward with good electoral equality which could
house the new developments in their entirety, even as a one- or two-councillor ward.
Furthermore, as the Council elects by thirds, there is a presumption that it will have a
uniform pattern of three-member wards. We will only move away from this pattern of
wards should we receive compelling evidence that an alternative pattern of wards
will better reflect our statutory criteria. We do not believe this to be the case in
relation to this suggestion, particularly given the high electoral variances that would
result. We have therefore decided to not base our draft recommendations on these
proposals.
64 The Council proposed reconfiguring Church ward. The reasoning for doing so
was largely premised on the new developments being built to the south of the
borough. Due to the location of the new developments in the existing Whitley ward,
there are limitations to how the new electors can be accommodated in relation to the
surrounding areas. The Council reasoned in its proposal that Whitley ward should
have a negative electoral variance by 2025 to allow for more development, which will
continue to occur after 2025. Whilst this not a legislative requirement which the
Commission considers, we do note the logic behind this reasoning.
65 In light of the evidence received, we have tried to accommodate the points
raised by some of the Church ward residents, but stress that we are constrained by
the factors listed above, in particular ensuring that the electoral variance for Whitley
ward is kept to a minimum. We have considered the points raised by the Church
ward residents and have therefore decided to draw the boundary between Church
and Whitley wards along Basingstoke Road. The Church ward residents have stated
that they would accept being placed with those residing on the east of this road.
Furthermore, this reflects the broad thrust of these proposals in terms of community
20
identities. Whilst we considered placing some of the housing on the western side of
Basingstoke Road in Katesgrove ward, it was not possible to do so without creating
poor electoral equality for this ward. Furthermore, we received no community
evidence to support this nor for any other changes to the surrounding Coley and
Redlands wards.
66 The current ward boundary between Church and Whitley runs down the end of
Northumberland Avenue and we note from the Council submission that this currently
divides a community. The Church ward residents stated that they would accept this
boundary in order to achieve better electoral equality but did not provide compelling
evidence for this. Therefore, we have chosen to run the ward boundary behind the
housing on Hartland Road. We consider this keeps the community together, but also
ensures good electoral equality. The western boundary of Whitley ward will follow
the railway line, which we consider provides a strong and clear boundary. While this
produces a relatively high electoral variance of +10% by 2025, we consider this
necessary in order to try and reflect the evidence raised by the Church residents.
67 We have chosen not to follow the Council’s proposed boundary between
Redlands and Church wards, which would follow Cressingham Road. Whilst we note
that this was approved by Councillor White, it is not possible to achieve good
electoral equality if one were to use this boundary. Furthermore, we note a lack of
support from residents for this proposal. The current boundary for Church ward takes
in the university buildings which sit along Northcourt Avenue, Elmhurst Road and
Upper Redlands Road, which would ensure that those represented by the Northcourt
Avenue Residents’ Association would be kept within one ward. It is important to
stress that it is not possible to keep the existing boundaries and achieve good
electoral equality for Church ward. The scale of development in the wider area
means that there has be a divide here. Therefore, we have had to consider which
boundary would effectively balance our statutory criteria.
68 In respect of the boundary between Redlands and Church wards, we
recommend keeping the existing ward boundary where it runs behind Hexham Road.
We then propose deviating from this, so that the boundary runs to the rear of
housing on Stanhope Road and along Wellington Avenue. We consider Wellington
Avenue to be a natural divide between communities as the housing on either side
faces in different directions and is separated on both sides by wooden fencing. We
did examine the possibility of running the boundary behind the housing on Northcourt
Avenue but noted that this option produces a less clear and identifiable ward
boundary. Furthermore, there is a new development being built near the university
which needs to be considered and we would risk cutting off a private close from its
only access point. This proposal also ensures that all university buildings and
accommodation in the borough are kept within one ward, which should provide for
effective and convenient local government.
21
69 In order to accommodate our proposed changes and ensure good electoral
equality for Redlands ward, we propose extending the north-western boundary so
that it runs along Queen’s Road. We consider this to be a stronger boundary than
the existing one which follows Eldon Road and London Road. As discussed in
paragraph 50, we have also deviated from the Council’s proposal for the east of this
ward, where we have used Eastern Avenue as the boundary.
70 We consider our proposed Church, Redlands and Whitley wards to reflect
community identities given the need to ensure good electoral equality and take
account of the significant housing developments that will be constructed over the
next five years. Given that we have largely developed our own proposals for this
area, we would particularly welcome comments on them during this current
consultation.
22
23
Conclusions
71 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft
recommendations on electoral equality in Reading, referencing the 2019 and 2025
electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral
variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of
the wards is provided at Appendix B.
Summary of electoral arrangements
Draft recommendations
2019 2025
Number of councillors 48 48
Number of electoral wards 16 16
Average number of electors per councillor 2,366 2,521
Number of wards with a variance more than 10%
from the average 3 0
Number of wards with a variance more than 20%
from the average 1 0
Draft recommendations
Reading Borough Council should be made up of 48 councillors serving 16 three-
councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated
on the large maps accompanying this report.
Mapping
Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for the Reading Borough Council.
You can also view our draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council on our
interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
24
25
Have your say
72 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every
representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether
it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.
73 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think
our recommendations are right for Reading, we want to hear alternative proposals
for a different pattern of wards.
74 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps
and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at
www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
75 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing
to:
Review Officer (Reading)
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
1st Floor, Windsor House
50 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0TL
76 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Reading Borough
Council which delivers:
• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of
voters.
• Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities.
• Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge
its responsibilities effectively.
77 A good pattern of wards should:
• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as
closely as possible, the same number of voters.
• Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of
community links.
• Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries.
• Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.
26
78 Electoral equality:
• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the
same number of voters as elsewhere in Reading?
79 Community identity:
• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or
other group that represents the area?
• Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from
other parts of your area?
• Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which
make strong boundaries for your proposals?
80 Effective local government:
• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented
effectively?
• Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate?
• Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of
public transport?
81 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public
consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for
public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account
as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on
deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents
will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.
82 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or
organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal
or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is
made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.
83 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft
recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier,
it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and
evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then
publish our final recommendations.
84 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have
proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which
27
brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft
Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out
elections for Reading Borough Council in 2022.
28
29
Equalities
85 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines
set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to
ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review
process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a
result of the outcome of the review.
30
31
Appendices
Appendix A
Draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council
Ward name Number of
councillors
Electorate
(2019)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
Electorate
(2025)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
1 Abbey 3 5,883 1,961 -17% 7,315 2,438 -3%
2 Battle 3 7,281 2,427 3% 7,709 2,570 2%
3 Caversham 3 7,470 2,490 5% 7,537 2,512 0%
4 Church 3 8,052 2,684 13% 8,079 2,693 7%
5 Coley 3 6,946 2,315 -2% 7,061 2,354 -7%
6 Emmer Green 3 7,652 2,551 8% 7,804 2,601 3%
7 Katesgrove 3 7,066 2,355 0% 7,825 2,608 3%
8 Kentwood 3 6,795 2,265 -4% 6,975 2,325 -8%
9 Norcot 3 7,645 2,548 8% 7,901 2,634 4%
10 Park 3 6,811 2,270 -4% 6,987 2,329 -8%
11 Redlands 3 7,004 2,335 -1% 7,575 2,525 0%
12 Southcote 3 7,642 2,547 8% 7,763 2,588 3%
32
Ward name Number of
councillors
Electorate
(2019)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
Electorate
(2025)
Number of
electors per
councillor
Variance
from
average %
13 Thames 3 5,612 1,871 -21% 7,124 2,375 -6%
14 The Heights 3 7,543 2,514 6% 7,586 2,529 0%
15 Tilehurst 3 7,255 2,418 2% 7,411 2,470 -2%
16 Whitley 3 6,933 2,311 -2% 8,350 2,783 10%
Totals 48 113,590 – – 121,002 – –
Averages – – 2,366 – – 2,521 –
Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Reading Borough Council.
Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward
varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to
the nearest whole number.
33
Appendix B
Outline map
A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying
this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-
east/berkshire/reading
34
Appendix C
Submissions received
All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at:
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/berkshire/reading
Local Authority
• Reading Borough Council
Political Groups
• Reading Liberal Democrats
Councillors
• Councillor R. White (Reading Borough Council)
Local Organisations
• Bell Tower Community Association
• Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association
Local Residents
• 14 local residents
35
Appendix D
Glossary and abbreviations
Council size The number of councillors elected to
serve on a council
Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements
changes to the electoral arrangements
of a local authority
Division A specific area of a county, defined for
electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors can vote in whichever division
they are registered for the candidate or
candidates they wish to represent them
on the county council
Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the
same as another’s
Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the
number of electors represented by a
councillor and the average for the local
authority
Electorate People in the authority who are
registered to vote in elections. For the
purposes of this report, we refer
specifically to the electorate for local
government elections
Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local
authority divided by the number of
councillors
Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per
councillor in a ward or division than the
average
Parish A specific and defined area of land
within a single local authority enclosed
within a parish boundary. There are over
10,000 parishes in England, which
provide the first tier of representation to
their local residents
36
Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish
which serves and represents the area
defined by the parish boundaries. See
also ‘Town council’
Parish (or town) council electoral
arrangements
The total number of councillors on any
one parish or town council; the number,
names and boundaries of parish wards;
and the number of councillors for each
ward
Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for
electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors vote in whichever parish ward
they live for candidate or candidates
they wish to represent them on the
parish council
Town council A parish council which has been given
ceremonial ‘town’ status. More
information on achieving such status
can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk
Under-represented Where there are more electors per
councillor in a ward or division than the
average
Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per
councillor in a ward or division varies in
percentage terms from the average
Ward A specific area of a district or borough,
defined for electoral, administrative and
representational purposes. Eligible
electors can vote in whichever ward
they are registered for the candidate or
candidates they wish to represent them
on the district or borough council
The Local Government BoundaryCommission for England (LGBCE) was setup by Parliament, independent ofGovernment and political parties. It isdirectly accountable to Parliament through acommittee chaired by the Speaker of theHouse of Commons. It is responsible forconducting boundary, electoral andstructural reviews of local government.
Local Government Boundary Commission forEngland1st Floor, Windsor House50 Victoria Street, LondonSW1H 0TL
Telephone: 0330 500 1525Email: [email protected]: www.lgbce.org.uk www.consultation.lgbce.org.ukTwitter: @LGBCE