Boundary Review 2018 - 6th blog

In my previous blogs on the Boundary Review 2018 I presented my initial ideas [1], a revised proposal [2], my experience of attending one day of the hearings at Stafford [3], some thoughts on a parliamentary debate [4] and my contribution to the secondary consultation [5].

I have today submitted comments on the revised proposals, following previous comments submitted [6], [7] and [8]


The revised proposals for constituencies Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove and Newcastle-under-Lyme are markedly different from the initial proposals for constituencies West Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent South, Stoke-on-Trent North and Newcastle-under-Lyme. 

In my opinion these are worse than the initial proposals. I still prefer my slightly modified version [6] of the initial proposals where I agreed with the initial proposal for Newcastle-under-Lyme and moved just 5 wards between the other 3 constituencies.

I think the revised proposals are worse because by solving a boundary issue dividing communities in the Normacot and Florence areas another is introduced across Meir Hay, Longton town centre is in a different constituency from its railway station and there is a worse community and urban / rural mix in Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone and Newcastle-under-Lyme. 

It does not appear, to me anyway, that there has been sufficient weighting of views submitted towards support for the initial proposals, particularly in respect of Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Very worrying is that there is a glaring error in the summary of the report on page 4 where it is stated that “We have also proposed one constituency that contains part of Staffordshire and part of Stoke-on-Trent.” This is not correct! The Revised Proposals include two, not one, such constituencies: Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone and Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove.

With the mistake in place it appears that the revision for the four constituencies Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove and Newcastle-under-Lyme results in three each containing wards from only 1 local authority area and one containing wards from 2 local authority areas. But in fact these four constituencies include only two each containing wards from 1 local authority area and two each containing wards from 2 local authority areas. I would argue that this true situation isn’t any better than the Initial Proposals for West Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent South, Stoke-on-Trent North and Newcastle-under-Lyme. Three of these each contain wards from only 1 local authority area and one contains wards from 3 local authority areas.

I am afraid to say that this error in such a prominent place in the report does reduce my confidence in how thorough the assessment and consideration of the consultation responses to the initial proposals has been.

Boundary Review 2018 - 5th blog

In my previous blogs on the Boundary Review 2018 I presented my initial ideas [1], a revised proposal [2], my experience of attending one day of the hearings at Stafford [3] and some thoughts on a parliamentary debate [4]. Of these the most relevant to my current comments is the second one, my revised proposal.

Yesterday I submitted my comments to the current phase of the consultation which ends on March 27th. This phase allows us to view and respond to comments made by other people on the Boundary Commission Initial Proposals. I highlight just some of the points I made here.

I read the comments filtered by current constituency, for Stone, Stoke-on-Trent South, Stoke-on-Trent Central, Stoke-on-Trent North and Newcastle-under-Lyme only.

There were two key themes. Firstly there is very considerable support for the Boundary Review Initial Proposals, particularly for placing Kidsgrove in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Secondly there is significant disagreement about where the boundary between Stoke-on-Trent South and West Staffordshire should lie, very particularly in the Dresden area but also in the Blurton and Trentham areas, although there is also support for the West Staffordshire constituency.

Dresden & Florence

The biggest issue seems to be dislike of the Stoke-on-Trent South / West Staffordshire boundary being placed between the Lightwood & Normacot and Dresden & Florence wards. The concerns include that this splits one coherent community, Dresden & Florence is an urban area with an industrial history that has nothing in common with rural country hamlets, Longton would be separated from its town park and the councillors for the two wards work closely together and it is easier to work with one MP. Some of the alternatives proposed have too severe a knock on effect for the Newcastle-under-Lyme area which has met with approval. But notably the revised proposal I submitted solves this problem by uniting these two wards in Stoke-on-Trent South whilst leaving Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency as proposed by the Boundary Commission.

Blurton

There is some concern about Blurton wards being in West Staffordshire. I would actually agree that their character is more akin to Stoke-on-Trent South. My proposal is flawed because it does not address this but I am unable to find a good solution that will which does not have less acceptable knock on effects elsewhere.

Trentham & Hanford

Concerns that have been submitted include a dislike for the Trentham & Hanford ward being in the West Staffordshire constituency in terms of a lack of commonality between communities, poor transport and having wards from 3 local authorities.

A personal view on Trentham:

Quite a number of contributors have discussed community identity, where a community faces, where its centre of place is and where people typically shop. This has prompted me to think about this more deeply for myself in Trentham. Personally I am quite happy with being in the new West Staffordshire constituency.

There are actually two parts of Trentham, the larger residential area including where I live, in Stoke-on-Trent and a smaller residential area and large leisure and shopping area ‘The Trentham Estate’, which are situated in Swynnerton & Oulton ward in Stafford Borough. The Trentham Estate has developed massively in recent years and includes Trentham Shopping Village. The West Staffordshire constituency would actually unite these two parts of Trentham. So there may be concerns about the new constituencies but there are also advantages.

Where do I shop? Because I am an outdoor type of person with a love of the countryside and walking, in actual fact I do most of my shopping for clothes and equipment in Trentham Shopping Village because it has a number of very good shops for outdoor kit and some other clothes shops. But I also travel to Hanley, Stafford and further afield if necessary for such things. In terms of food shopping I actually do a fair bit of that in Stone, but that is because a fair amount of my personal, social and leisure time is spent there. I am currently chair of Stone Ramblers. But I also shop for food all over the place as convenient.

Perhaps I fit well in West Staffordshire constituency because I am willing and able to travel. But for some others in Trentham the picture may be very different.

Conclusion

I consider that my proposals are still best as far as West Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent South and Stoke-on-Trent North are concerned and retain Newcastle-under-Lyme as in the Boundary Commission Initial Proposals.

My proposals would alter the Boundary Commission Initial Proposals as follows:

• Move Dresden & Florence ward from West Staffordshire to Stoke-on-Trent South.
• Move Springfields & Trent Vale ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to West Staffordshire.
• Move Abbey Hulton & Townsend ward from Stoke-on-Trent North to Stoke-on-Trent South.
• Move Hanley Park & Shelton ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to Stoke-on-Trent North.
• Move Joiner's Square ward from Stoke-on-Trent South to Stoke-on-Trent North.