DACORUM BOROUGH PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW 2005 · 2 1. INTRODUCTION This report sets out Dacorum Borough Council’s proposals to meet the requirements of the Further Electoral Review

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


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


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


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


Polling district: AJ - 3894

TOTAL: 3894

Councillors: 2

5. WARNERS END


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


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


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


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


Polling district: AAA - 1311

Polling district: AAB - 1227

Polling district: AAC - 1650

TOTAL: 4188

Councillors: 2

9. HIGHFIELD


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


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


Polling district: AEA - 3206

Polling district: AEB - 1127

TOTAL: 4333

Councillors: 2

14. LEVERSTOCK GREEN


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


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


Polling district: AQA - 1819

Deletions: (from AQA)

Rant Meadow 40 73

Three Corners 25 46

Flatfield Road 36 66

Goldcroft 51 93


Polling district: AQB - 2533

Additions: (from BAB)

Chambersbury Lane (part) - 34

TOTAL: 4009

Councillors: 2

17. NASH MILLS


Polling district: BA - 1822

Polling district: BAA - 234

Polling District: BAB 68

17

Deletions: (from BAB)


TOTAL: 2089

Councillors: 1

18. BERKHAMSTED CASTLE


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


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


Polling district: KAA - 1964

Polling district: KAB - 2439

TOTAL: 4403

Councillors: 2

21. TRING WEST


Polling district: DCA - 1982

Polling district: DCB - 1189

Polling district: DDA - 622

Polling district: DDB - 407

TOTAL: 4200

Councillors: 2

22. TRING CENTRAL


Polling district: DBA - 1122

Polling district: DBB - 1606

19

Polling district: DBC - 1142

TOTAL: 3870

Councillors: 2

23. TRING EAST


Polling district: DA - 2063

TOTAL: 2063

Councillors: 1

24. ALDBURY & WIGGINTON


Polling district: EAA - 552

Polling district: EAB - 163

Polling district: EB - 1132

TOTAL: 1847

Councillors: 1

25. NORTHCHURCH


Polling district: JA - 2220

TOTAL: 2220

Councillors: 1

26. ASHRIDGE


Polling district: FA - 915

Polling district: FB - 1253

TOTAL: 2168

20

Councillors: 1

27. WATLING


Polling district: GA - 1085

Polling district: GB - 2325

Polling district: GCA - 441

Polling district: GCB - 308

TOTAL: 4159

Councillors: 2

28. BOVINGDON, FLAUNDEN & CHIPPERFIELD


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


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

http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/

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


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



BULBOURNE ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD





PART IItem No. Page

No.




10. Options for Elector / Member Ratios 2

* * *

abcdefgh


42







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



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


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



DACORUM ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD





PART IItem No. Page

No.




14. Elector / member ratio options 3

* * *

abcdefgh


46







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.






Backgroundpapers:



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:


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


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:


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:



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


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


TUESDAY 12 JULY 2005 AT 7.30 PM






PART IItem No. Page

No.





* * *

abcdefgh


55







56

AGENDA ITEM: 4

SUMMARY



Purpose of report: To set out data comparing the ward models proposed by politicalgroups.

Recommendations That members consider the data and issues highlighted.






Backgroundpapers:



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


Pop/2065 ProposedCouncillors:


(%)

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


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


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




(%)

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


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



(%)Tring West 3994 1.90 2 1997 -5.1

Tring Central 3994 1.90 2 1997 -5.1


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


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


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


4366 2.03 2 2183 +1.7

62

Table (vi) Model C: Other Dacorum wards



(%)Tring West 3994 1.86 2 1997 -7.0

Tring Central 3994 1.86 2 1997 -7.0


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


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)



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)



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)



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


TUESDAY 19 JULY 2005 AT 7.30 PM






PART IItem No. Page

No.





* * *

abcdefgh

81







82

AGENDA ITEM: 4

SUMMARY



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.






Backgroundpapers:



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:




(%)

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


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.




(%)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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:




(%)

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


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


TOTAL: 4290

2. GROVEHILL


Redbourn Road 14 26Piccotts End Road 82 150Piccotts End Lane 12 22

Mill Close 9 16

TOTAL: 5871

3. GADEBRIDGE


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


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


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


TOTAL: 5869

9. ADEYFIELD WEST9


TOTAL: 3624

10. ADEYFIELD EAST



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


DeletionsRoughdown Avenue 36 66Roughdown Road 17 31



Moorside 10 18

TOTAL: 3452

12. CORNER HALL


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


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


TOTAL: 2131

15. BENNETTS END


Nash Mills ward - 2123

DeletionsLinsey Close 6 11

Longdean Park 31 57Highclere Drive 28 51




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:




(%)

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


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


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.




(%)

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


TOTAL: 4290

2. GROVEHILL & PICCOTTS END



Mill Close 9 16

TOTAL: 5871

3. GADEBRIDGE


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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.




(%)

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


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


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


TOTAL: 4290

2. GROVEHILL



Mill Close 9 16

TOTAL: 5871

3. GADEBRIDGE


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


Roughdown Avenue 36 66Roughdown Road 17 31



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


TOTAL: 5590

7. CENTRAL

Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: AAA - 1311Polling district: AAC - 1650

114


Mill Close 9 16Herbert Street 57 104Church Street 48 88



TOTAL: 2301


Composition: Properties: Estimated population:Polling district: ABA - 3416Polling district: ABB - 1290Polling district: ABC - 691

Herbert Street 57 104Church Street 48 88



TOTAL: 5869

9. ADEYFIELD WEST


Additions:Ranelagh Road 36 66Farland Road 38 70

Field Road 88 161Vauxhall Road (part) 34 62

TOTAL: 3983

10. ADEYFIELD EAST



115

Ranelagh Road 36 66Farland Road 38 70

Field Road 88 161Vauxhall Road (part) 34 62

TOTAL: 4077

11. APSLEY


AdditionsCedar Walk 79 145

Corner Hall Avenue 47 86

DeletionsRoughdown Avenue 36 66Roughdown Road 17 31



Moorside 10 18

TOTAL: 3683

12. CORNER HALL


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




TOTAL: 2131

15. BENNETTS END


Nash Mills ward - 2123

DeletionsLinsey Close 6 11

Longdean Park 31 57Highclere Drive 28 51




TOTAL: 5902

Documents

DACORUM BOROUGH PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW 2005 · 2 1. INTRODUCTION This report sets out Dacorum Borough Council’s proposals to meet the requirements of the Further Electoral Review