local resident submissions to the canterbury district

Local resident submissions to the Canterbury District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 20 submissions.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between

bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Ayo Adebiyi

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to strongly oppose the abolition of the ward in which I currently live: Harbour Ward. Is it just a coincidence that the ward which consistently returns Labour councillors is being abolished. This looks like a fundamental attack on democracy.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Page 1 of 1Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

20/05/2014https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3365

1

Fuller, Heather

From:Sent: 11 March 2014 15:16To: Ward, LucySubject: Re: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CANTERBURY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONSAttachments: image001.png

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Thank you for this, Ms Ward. However, a significant number of Canterbury residents have now lost interest in LGBCE activities, knowing that our submissions will have no bearing on its decisions. I include myself among them. Clare Benfield >‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐ >From: [email protected] >Date: 11/03/2014 9:56 >To: >Subj: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CANTERBURY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS > >Dear Ms Benfield, > > >ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CANTERBURY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS > >Thank you for your submission regarding the electoral review of Canterbury City Council. I am pleased to announce the publication of the Commission's report outlining its draft recommendations for Canterbury City Council. A copy of the letter sent to the Chief Executive of Canterbury City Council and a summary of the Commission's report, outlining its draft recommendations can be found at http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all‐reviews/south‐east/kent/canterbury‐fer. The report and an interactive map of the draft recommendations are available in the LGBCE consultation area, consultation.lgbce.org.uk<http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk>. > > > >Your views on any aspect of the review would be very welcome. Any representations should be made to the Commission by 20 May 2014.

2

Representations should be made through consultation.lgbce.org.uk<https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node>, by email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> or in writing to this address: > > > > Review Officer (Canterbury) > > Local Government Boundary Commission for England > > Layden House > > 76‐86 Turnmill Street > > London > > EC1M 5LG > > >If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me. > >Yours sincerely > > > >Lucy Ward >Review Officer >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >020 7664 8520 >

3

> > > > > >

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: CLARE BENFIELD

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

There is no point in local residents responding to these proposals. A large number, represented by their Residents' Associations, did respond to the initial consultation-and were ignored. Either the LGBCE simply did not understand the issues (though they were explained clearly and at length in several of the detailed submissions) or the LGBCE has a political agenda of its own. Ominous.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



2

The Council have chosen to assume 100% student registration in 2018 , saying they 'can't' the common sense option of assuming the same registration proportion as the average for the District, the City or each ward concerned and also can't , incredibly, use the existing % registration assumption that CCC applies for all the new local voters of student age in 2018 who come of age between now and then. Many of them are students elsewhere (student can register at home and where they study). Blean is given probably 1‐2 too many councillors given the massive preponderance of students on the current electoral role for this ward and the City three in total too many. In total, Whistable and Herne Bay may in effect have one fewer councillor each than they would have if a rational % for students was applied. The 'bible' recommended by the Commission for assisting those who do forecasts in this area (see email string below) is clear that some kind of sensible assumption needs to be made. The above is also a reason to delay the process. A request for a new process can be made as early as next April if there has been a movement of 30% in the electorate of a ward. If the % of students in in Blean ward registering is say 50% or less, the 30% point may be triggered (calculations yet to be done as we have only just learned of this route). So , the process should be delayed by a year for that reason alone. Why the rush given this once in a lifetime circumstance and the probability of distortion created carrying on for the next 15 years (if the appeal trigger is not quite reached). It is odd that a cash strapped council is spending money on a campaign to get students to register. And it is certainly not consistent with the Council's own assumption of 100% registration! Yours Sincerely Graham Cox For the Whitstable Society

Cc Exec. Committee and the wider democracy campaign list. From: Graham Cox Sent: 08 May 2014 14:43 To: Subject: RE: Canterbury Review (my bold) 'we are unable to take into account changes that may arise from the implementation of Individual Elector Registration until it has taken place ‐ we can't know for certain that students will not register, so we can't assume that for the purposes of electoral forecasts. In each review, we work on the figures provided to us by the Council concerned. ' ============================================================================ ========================== Dear Lucy and Charlotte,

3

The Guidance was very illuminating and show beyond ambiguity that you have no justification for the use of words like 'can't' and 'unable' (see your joint position above) to adopt a policy of something other than assuming all existing and greater student numbers will in the forecast period register 100% despit the introduction of normal individual registration for student ; as opposed to the 100% compulsary registration that is being swept away now. . 1) You are invited explicitly in the section below from the Guide to use a methodology in such circumstances as we have. 'Students: When someone studies away from home, they are eligible to vote in local government elections both in their town of origin and also the town where they reside as a student. Where a local authority has within its area, a higher education institution which attracts a large number of students from outside of its area, the impact on the overall electoral roll can be significant. The number can fluctuate dramatically however, dependent on the vigour with which electoral registration campaigns are conducted. Authorities presenting methodologies to the Commission should set out the considerations they have made with regard to student sections of their population. ' 2) You already make an assumption as to ratio of registrants to population for all those adults becoming 18 over the forecast period. To apply the same to all students under individual registration is as they say, a 'no‐brainer'. You need to justify why not to do that given that it is the peer group and even if for some reason you do not use that you can use the average % registration of the population in general. . 3) You are required to use a 'soundly‐based reflection of the electorate expected in six years' time'; which naturally implies adopting the two items above as a starting and possibly ending point 4) The objective is set for you as follows in the Guide 'The need to secure equality of representation'. In assuming 100% registration when it is patently clear and evidence shows that it will not be anywhere near 100%, you directly give the three student heavy wards greater representation( the best example being Blean) and reduce the number of councillors for the other settlements (eg Whistable, Herne Bay and/or Hersden which have no students to speak of . This is a Stage 2 Complaint re CCC (my bold). Please change the numbers and allocations or delay the process. Yours Sincerely Graham Cox Later CC various people (incl others in your organisations and Laria). List on request From: Ward, Lucy Sent: 08 May 2014 10:53 To: Graham Cox Subject: RE: Canterbury Review Dear Graham The guidance for producing electorate forecasts is here http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/10394/electorate‐forecas ts‐guidance‐2012.pdf Links to other guidance publications can be found at http://www.lgbce.org.uk/policy‐and‐publications/guidance Kind regards

4

Lucy Ward Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Tel: 020 7664 8520 Email: [email protected] ‐‐‐ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Nicholas Eden-Green

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the Wincheap boundary cutting Thanington Parish area in two. Thanington has natural road and community links with Wincheap not Chartham. It goes against The Boundary Commissions own guidelines to make this break. I also object to Lansdowne Rd being amalgamated into Barton ward. The cul de sac opens into Wincheap ward. The Blean ward is ill considered. A section of the ward is students halls of residence. Because of the traditional dates on which elections are called, students are often absent and there is a history of extremely low turnout in the student area. There is thus a case for a university ward, augmented by a part of the existing Blean ward. Harbledown ward has clear existing boundaries and should not be absorbed into a huge 2 member Chartham ward. The southern rural 2 member wards are too diverse with road and community links which in no way bind them. To make these 2 member wards is perverse and unnecessary and they would be better served by single councillors as at present albeit with enlarged boundaries. Whilst councillor numbers have, as I understand it, now been decided, it is up democratic that Canterbury councillors will represent more constituents than most other councils. This is against the wishes of local people when consulted and has no merit under the localism agenda. Nick Eden-Green

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: jean fraser

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the breaking up of Harbour Ward, a well-defined community. Splitting this community in two is in contravention of LGBCE guidelines and as Harbour Ward is labour, this smacks of gerrymandering. It seems that the tories will go to any length to destroy local democracy. I say this NOT as a member of the Labour Party.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 19 May 2014 09:07To: Ward, LucySubject: FW: Electoral Review - Canterbury City Council


From: Eric Golding Sent: 18 May 2014 17:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review - Canterbury City Council Dear Sir - I fully endorse Mr Jeremy Baker's comments and suggestions in his e-mail to you of Sunday 1 Dec 2013 timed at 8.30 pm. Mr E Golding.

2

4. We cannot see the logic of leaving one ward (Sturry) unchanged and altering Harbledown and Rough Common (HRC), which occupies a similar position abutting the City boundary, so drastically. Surely,in view of the size of HRC and its history of good representation by councillors over many years, it should remain unchanged - like Sturry. 5. We dispute the way in which you have dealt with the student population of the University of Kent. It is unrealistic to be influenced by persons who live on campus for at least one year, and who afterwards live in areas outside HRC and Blean. Student population is short term and transient, and should not be wholly included in the proposed Rough Common/ Blean ward. It is in any event correct to say that: a. Students' voting records are not good. b. They are more likely to turn for advice to the Students' Union and the University's Human Resources Section for assistance than to a councillor. Surely their democratic needs should take second place to the local residents, many of whom have lived in HRC for long periods. We also consider that the case for refusing to apportion the students between different wards has not been made out. It is illogical to include them all within Blean and Rough Common, and gives an artificial idea of the nature of the population. 6. The proposed merger of Harbledown and Upper Harbledown with Chartham Stone Street defies reason. It has no historical connection with Chartham, nor Stone Street, and the proposed new ward would extend 9 miles south into an area which at present is completely divorced from Harbledown and Upper Harbledown. This new ward would have only two councillors whose primary concern is likely to be Chartham Stone Street. The three areas have little, if anything, in common - nor have they ever. 7. The overall effect of the proposals for HRC would be to have 5 councillors, each of whom would only have a small proportion of voters in HRC. This would be the only new ward in the proposals to have 5 councillors, yet the new ward covers such a large and disparate area that representation for HRC residents will suffer. 8. We consider that in almost every proposed ward alteration/merger there will be duplication of work, considerable muddle and a wastage of councillors' time. As a result, councillors' expenses are bound to rise, especially if the City Council decides not to continue with the Executive system but to return to the previous Committee system. The present Council has indicated that it might consider returning to the Committee system in 2015. Since the City Council's proposals relied on the continuance of the Executive system in the foreseeable future in support of the reduction in councillor numbers, then conversely the liklihood of a return to the Committee system (which requires greater numbers of councillors) should be considered before deciding on the reduction. It is surely not too late now for you to write to the Council Leader, and its Chief Executive to see if their views are now different. We should also add that there is a petition launched on behalf of residents in Canterbury District to secure a referendum in 2015 as to what system should be used by the then new City Council. This petition has influenced a number of councillors of all political persuasions to publicise their agreement to a future Committee system. The effect of your proposals would create many problems for such a system, yet there is an undeniable belief within the District that such system would be more inclusive of all councillors, and would provide much better representation for residents. Please take account of this before making your final decision. 9. We are critical of the assumptions made by the City Council about the increase at the University of Kent of persons entitled to vote. We believe this increase has been over-stated. The City Council has obviously taken into account the current expansion of residential accommodation and the University's professed desire

3

to expand further. However, when the University Vice-Chancellor supported the planning application for the current Turing College with 800 rooms, he stated the University's wish to encourage even greater numbers of short term students, mature students and commercial/business users - many of whom do now, and will continue to come, from abroad, and who are and will be non-voters. Some of the short term users are at the University for as little as one month, and it is clear from the Vice Chancellor's remarks that the University considers that expansion of residential building is needed as much for commercial/business use as it it might be for ordinary student use. Indeed, the University is now arguably placing a greater emphasis on commercial/business/vacation use than on educational use - no doubt because of fears about a reduction in normal, long-term student numbers. 10. We can see more sense in moving part of Thanington Without ward into Chartham Stone Street, since there is a connection there, and this would make up the numbers for the new combined Thanington, Chartham, Stone Street ward. Adjustments could then be made within the City wards to even out the numbers required. As to HRC it would be possible to take back into the ward some of the area that was removed in a previous Boundary Review, ie the area described as St. Thomas's Hill/Cherry Drive. That area still has very strong connections with HRC and would be served by a single councillor. It is part of the St. Michael All Angels church parish. Within it are the allotments owned by HRC, and also a meadow between those allotments and Neals Place Farm for which HRC Parish Council has currently negotiated a long term management agreement for the benefit of the Parish. Residents in this area ally themselves more with HRC than with the City. 11. There is much disquiet within many wards over the proposals, and the alterations to their statuses in the current District draft Local Plan have caused much concern which your proposals do nothing to lessen. We ask you to reconsider matters, as requested above. Unnecessary decisions made now can create considerable difficulties in the future. I have lived in Canterbury District since 1973, and none of the previous Boundary Reviews have been anywhere near so drastic as the present proposals. It seems, from the City Council's wishes, that they are merely using a temporary financial imbalance of a political nature to irretrievably alter to the worse the democratic rights of its citizens, and to tamper with historical and geographical connections of great age. Yours faithfully, Barrie Gore.

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Peter J C Halfpenny

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Until January 2007 I was a Canterbury City Councillor for Whitstable's Gorrell Ward, and my comment therefore concerns the proposed three-member Gorrell Ward (effectively an amalgamation of the existing Gorrell Ward with a slightly reduced Harbour Ward). My main point is that I feel that the existing Harbour Ward represents the coherent and compact community which is the town centre of Whitstable; even if the geographical area of the ward needs to be reduced to accommodate a single member it should be maintained as such. I would particularly take issue with the assertion in paragraph 66 that 'the railway line....does not represent a division of communities' because the railway line is raised and the High Street goes under it. In fact, the 'High Street' (actually Canterbury Road/Oxford Street) is the ONLY road that dissects the railway line along the whole length of its boundary with the existing Harbour and Gorrell wards, and in addition there is only one pedestrian access between the two wards -Stream Walk footpath which passes under the railway line between Old Bridge Road and Cromwell Road. [There is also a level crossing linking Clifton Road with Glebe Way but the latter is in Seasalter Ward]. I would argue that the proposed amalgamation of Harbour with Gorrell ward would mean that the coherent, compact and distinct town centre community would no longer be reflected electorally. The proposed enlarged Gorrell Ward has no basis in community coherence; it only makes sense in crude statistical terms (i.e. the ratio of electors per councillor). I would like therefore to advocate a single-member ward for the town centre of Whitstable. (I have no problem with the rest of the new Gorrell Ward being a two-member ward as at present).

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



of 2Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

27/03/2014https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/3117

1

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 15 May 2014 09:19To: Ward, LucySubject: FW: Electoral Review - Canterbury City Council


‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Chris Lowe Sent: 14 May 2014 18:09 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review ‐ Canterbury City Council Dear Sirs, As a resident in Tyler Hill since 1973, I am not in favour of becoming part of a 3 member ward. The current 2 member situation is not particularly effective, and it seems to me that as far as possible it should be one member to one ward, so that there is clear identification for constituents as to who is trying to represent them. In the case of the proposed Blean Forest Ward, and its three members, I can see no reason why this could not be split into the University of Kent Ward, as Jeremy Baker so ably suggested in his email of 1st December, 2013, and two wards of St Cosmos & St Damian in the Blean and Hackington possibly with some boundary amendments to give approximately equal constituencies. If that is not easily achievable, bearing in mind the parish boundaries, an arrangement similar to the existing 2 member Blean Forest could be achieved with some amendments of boundaries, plus the University Ward. At least this would be an improvement on the existing arrangements, and better than the draft recommendations from yourselves. Likewise for similar reasons I also support the retention of the Harbledown & Rough Common as single member Ward, because the proposed Chartham & Stone Street Ward has no identification with Harbledown & Rough Common. I have had significant involvement with that area (Harbledown & Rough Common) and so have first hand evidence of the cohesive nature of that area, and the need for it to be represented by one member. Living on the opposite side of the city to the proposed Barham Bridge & Littlebourne Ward I have less experience of the area, but it seems hardly realistic to expect such a large area to be effectively represented by two councillors. In practical terms if only to save them travelling over large distances to all the villages, single member Wards are required. For this phase of the consultation, I trust will you listen to the concerns of those outside the Conservative & Labour Party official responses, unlike these draft recommendations, for which you say: "In general, we have based our draft recommendations on the proposals from both the Council and Canterbury Constituency Labour Party." Yours faithfully, Chris Lowe

13th May 2014. The Review Officer (Canterbury) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

RESPONSE TO THE ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CANTERBURY

Dear Sir or Madam, I wish to point out what I consider to be both an inequity and a dubious practice with respect to the number of seats allocated to a particular revised Ward that is proposed in the new partitioning of Wards in the Canterbury District. The Ward I am referring to is Blean Forest. The Boundary Commission will be aware that this Ward is now to be changed to a 3 member Ward. This number of members is obviously based on the number of registered voters in that Ward. I hope that it will not have escaped the notice of the Boundary Commission that the reason for the very high number of potential voters here is due to the fact that the University of Kent’s campus accommodation is all located in the Ward. This means that at least three-quarters of the names on the Blean Forest electoral roll are university students who have been registered by the university. While I can understand that this situation might have legitimately materialised, it does to lead to some enormous paradoxes which in my view need to be addressed. The main points are:

• Any future councillor who is elected for the Ward will find that his/her workload will be (on average) considerably less than others. This is because the university authorities take care of almost all of the university students needs. Thus I suspect that university students will almost never have to consult with their local councillors. And I suspect that students registered at the university are very considerably less of a resource burden to the city council as are students who are registered in private “To Let” accommodation within the local area.

• I feel very confident that a considerable proportion of the students registered on campus will also be registered to vote at their normal home address. This registration will have most likely been done by parents who (a) may not know that their off-spring are registered at the University, (b) may genuinely consider that this home address is the proper place for their registration, and (c) who need to cover the fact that their children might have to vote at home during nearly 50% of the year, i.e. in non-term time.

So effectively perhaps half of all registered voters in Blean Forest are probably registered twice for elections. I cannot believe that this could be democratic or desireable. And I do not suppose that the Boundary Commission has any idea of the extent to which this double opportunity to vote is abused. I would appreciate if you would let me know how this “electoral injustice” is to be resolved by the Boundary Commission. And if it is illegal to be registered twice then what steps do the Boundary Commission take to check or remedy this. Very sincerely Dr Geoff Meaden

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Julie Mecoli

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Re: new proposed boundary for Barton ward, Canterbury I write to oppose the new boundary area proposed for Barton ward. The additional area would take in Canterbury East Station Road including one of four main nightclubs in Canterbury and many other alcohol-selling venues, that close in the early hours ( sometimes 4am). The problem in particular is with the addition of Station Road by Canterbury East Station, as this is the site of the nightclub Club Chemistry. Barton ward already suffers from much well documented anti-social behaviour due to night club hours and alcohol related problems. Before the night clubs came there were not these levels of endless anti-social behaviour. No other ward in the entire Canterbury district has three nightclubs, please do not add more trouble to the area residents and council representatives with this additional club.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Richard Norman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Comment text:

The proposed Chartham and Stone Street Ward and the proposed Barham, Bridge and Littlebourne Ward are far too large to represent anything like identifiable communities. They should each be divided into two one-member wards, which would make it easier for their councillors to represent the views and interests of their particular localities. And in view of the overall decrease in the size of the Council, there is no good case to be made for any three-member wards. Heron Ward, Blean Forest Ward, and Barton Ward should all be divided into separate two-member or one-member wards. There is no good reason for putting the old Harbour Ward into Heron Ward, and there is a lot of opposition to this on the part of the people who live there. The estimated size of Blean Forest Ward has been inflated by an unrealistic prediction of the number of students at the University of Kent who will register. And Barton Ward should be split into two, so as to maintain the balance with the other Canterbury city wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Isabelle Pallix

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The idea of dividing Harbour Ward is an outrage and should be abandonned immediately. Harbour Ward represents what Whitstable stands for and has always protected the town from ill-thought development plans. Such a move would expose the town to Irreversible damage.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Sian Pettman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The legitimacy and viability of the LGBCE's Electoral Review for Canterbury District In its 'Guide for Local Authorities, Elected Members and Staff on Council Size', the Boundary Commission states that: ‘In every review it carries out, the Commission aims to ensure its recommendations remain relevant for the long term.’ Any recommendation which the LGBCE makes with regard to Council size must, therefore, be relevant to the Council's future governance system. Canterbury City Council based its request for a reduction in Council size from 50 to 38 on the premise that the Executive system has ‘become imbedded’ as the Council’s decision-making structure and that ‘Executive arrangements ultimately mean that fewer councillors are needed for decisions to be taken.' (25 April 2013). However, on 24 April 2014 the Council passed a motion (with only one abstention) saying that: 'This Council believes that a Committee System is appropriate for its governance in the future...' There is, therefore, a serious discrepancy between the rationale which led the LBGCE to recommend a reduction in Council size and the likely governance structure for Canterbury City Council after May 2015. In such circumstances, the credibility and legitimacy of the current electoral review are thrown into question. Detailed comments on future boundary wards seem inappropriate and premature in these circumstances.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 23 May 2014 09:08To: Ward, LucySubject: FW: local government boundaries for Canterbury


From: Christopher Rootes Sent: 23 May 2014 05:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: local government boundaries for Canterbury

23 May 2014

Review Officer (Canterbury)

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Layden House

76–86 Turnmill Street

London EC1M 5LG

[email protected]

Dear sir / madam,

I write to oppose the new local government boundaries for Canterbury. In particular, I am concerned by the increase in the number of multi‐member wards. This, combined with the reduction in the number of councilors overall, will have a damaging effect on democratic accountability and representation of local interests, particularly in the more rural areas.

2

I instance the case of the new Chartham & Stone Street ward. With 2 members, as proposed it will cover an area from Rough Common in the north to Waltham and Bossingham in the south, a large area in which there are no natural community ties, nor even any direct transport links, between north and south. The result is a geographically extensive and unwieldy ward that will be difficult for councilors adequately to represent, and in which it will be almost impossible for prospective councilors to canvas systematically for votes. I contrast this with the present Harbledown ward, whose single councilor is a familiar figure in the villages as he regularly walks the streets to inform and maintain contact with those he represents, with the result that we who live in the ward know who our councilor is and feel represented.

Another clear – and acknowledged – flaw in the present proposals is that it divides the existing Harbledown parish. Although Harbledown and Rough Common are in some ways an odd couple, they are clearly connected by road and footpaths and by longstanding parish boundaries. At least for those of us who are long‐term residents, this is an area with a clear community identity, and that I think should be respected by ward boundaries for the City Council.

But if Harbledown must be dismembered, it would make far more sense for the eastern part of the parish (Harbledown proper – from Summer Hill to Vernon Holme) to be added to the Westgate ward with which it is contiguous and with which it shares substantial community of interest and ease of communication.

As a longstanding student and, latterly, a professor of politics, I am alarmed by the progressive erosion of local democracy in Britain. Already, there are far fewer local councilors per head of population than in most European countries, with the result that local government and politics appears more remote from local people. Declining turnouts in local elections, especially among the young, many of whom will never establish the habit of voting, are worrying because they undermine the very basis of democratic accountability. The proposed new wards and ward boundaries in Canterbury are likely only to accelerate the disengagement of citizens from the democratic process. I urge you to think again.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Rootes

Canterbury District

Personal Details:

Name: Richard Stainton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am totally opposed to the abolition of Harbour Ward in central Whitstable. The centre of town has a strong community identity - the main expression of concern by local residents is that there is not enough joined-up thinking when it comes to decision making about issues concerning central Whitstable - splitting the town in two will exacerbate this. Many local people feel that the town is misunderstood and of low priority to a core group of councillors on Canterbury City Council - so it is important that the well-integrated commercial, artistic, family and crafts/trades communities that make up the centre of Whitstable can have strong and united representation. This is far more important for democracy than the equalisation of ward populations which I understand is driving this proposal. There is also a prevailing view that the reason the CCC leadership has proposed this is that Harbour Ward has consistently elected Labour party representatives in contrast to overwhelming trend in much of the surrounding wards - so the proposal is seen by many as deliberate and vindictive gerry-mandering to eliminate the Labour voice from CCC. This is absolutely unacceptable and against the best interests of both Whitstable and CCC itself - because without a proper democratic forum the council's decision-making process will be further diminished. The move itself is profoundly undemocratic too - I have never heard anyone in Harbour Ward express the view that the ward should be abolished and the town divided between the two adjacent wards (your comments will obviously show whether this is universally true or just va majority position). Given that Whitstable centre has a distinct identity and strong communities within it which work together well and express a strong interest in matters concerning the town , it is vital that Harbour Ward remains a single electoral ward. I hope that the current proposal will be rejected.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

