|
Post by johnloony on Sept 4, 2019 22:13:30 GMT
All I know is that it happened some time in the 80s/90s. Neath used to have just North and South before then, and then someone cocked up splitting South into two wards. I did actually have an idea a few weeks ago, but I never mentioned it because I was awaiting a reply from the Electoral Services people at NPT council. But anyway: the thought occurs to me that it might be called "Neath East" because it is on the east bank of the river Neath; the implication that there might have been a "Neath West" further west, on the other side of the river, in earlier boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 4, 2019 23:13:20 GMT
The Neath error clearly dates from the 1983 boundary changes. I don't have a copy of the 1983 boundary change order; however a year or two back I got hold of a full set of the 1994 electoral arrangements orders for the Welsh reorganisation. (These weren't published as statutory instruments; however I found some of them available for download in the Welsh Government's library catalogue, and FOId the rest.)
The 1983 boundaries for Neath appear to have been copied unmodified into the County Borough of Neath and Port Talbot (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1994, although there was a reapportionment which saw four councillors disappear.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 5, 2019 6:59:12 GMT
I did actually have an idea a few weeks ago, but I never mentioned it because I was awaiting a reply from the Electoral Services people at NPT council. But anyway: the thought occurs to me that it might be called "Neath East" because it is on the east bank of the river Neath; the implication that there might have been a "Neath West" further west, on the other side of the river, in earlier boundaries. Ingenious, but I doubt it. There is a small discrepancy there though, which I have never bothered to investigate properly. The modern community boundary is of course the river, which is also the parish boundary on the tithe map. But Vision of Britain has a different parish boundary including a small area on the Blaenhonddan side of Neath Bridge (way too small ever to have merited its own councillor) together with a chunk of marshland. I'm not sure whether Vision of Britain is just wrong, or whether the parish/community boundary was changed and then changed back.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 5, 2019 7:48:05 GMT
And I think I'm most of the way to answering my own question again. I've found a second source for the slightly expanded boundary (a 1:25k OS Map from some time between 1949 and 1964). The culprit appears to be the Local Government Act, 1894, which realigned various parish boundaries with those of districts. I can't find the maps that go with the 1835 Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Municipal Corporations in England and Wales, but it's a cracking read. It begins:
"THE Limits of the borough of Neath are for all practical purposes well ascertained and are those described in the Map which accompanies the Boundary Report. Some doubt has been started as to one portion of the boundary which is said to be in that part too contracted but the question is of no practical importance."
This, I imagine is the area in question. But it then throws up an amusing bit of petty municipal corruption:
"There is in the possession of the corporation a document purporting to be a translation of a charter of James II. Prior to the year 1802, the charter, real or supposed, of which this document purports to be a copy, appears not to have been regarded in practice. In 1802, the corporation began to act upon this charter, in the manner after mentioned; and they continued to regard it as in force until six or seven years ago, when, the governing body of the corporation being advised that the charter in question was invalid and that the corporation existed by prescription only, they again (except in so far as regarded existing offices appointed under that charter) ceased to regard it in practice. The translation in the possession of the corporation has not any date; but from an old abstract of what seems to be a translation of the same charter, in the possession of an inhabitant of the borough, it would appear to be dated on the 8th of March in the first year of the reign of James II."
Yes, they forged a charter. Now, the Borough of Neath had a very distinctive Title: The Portreeve, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Neath. As far as I'm aware, only one other borough had this particular combination, Swansea. And among Swansea's various charters is one dated on the 28th of March in the first year of the reign of James II. See what they did?
So I imagine the weird little annexation on the Blaenhonddan side of the river was done after a similar fashion in about 1802. The real comedy bit of this is that the boundary was drawn to include land on both sides of Dŵr-y-felin Road, but to leave the road itself as the responsibility of Blaenhonddan parish. How kind.
It's also not hard to see the purpose of this little annexation, which the Commissioners surprisingly found to be "of no practical importance": the Portreeve was entitled to four pence per vessel on ships discharging on the north side of the river (rather than the shilling on the town side, and 2/6 on the Corporation Quay) – it was blatantly an attempt to clamp down on tax dodgers!
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 7, 2019 8:58:51 GMT
BUT "the Commission is currently conducting a review of Neath Port Talbot and the names of the wards are being considered as part of that review" and "There is no specific scheduled date at present. The Commission are currently determining what the draft proposals should be. The draft proposals are due to be published later in the year" so they are actually doing it, but are still in the early stages. To return to this, is election by halves legal in Wales? If it is, then a council size of 54 looks ideal (otherwise, let's cull them all the way down to 27), rather than the no-man's-land reduction from 64 to 58 that the Commission seem to be proposing (or 61 as the Council is proposing) – a 27-ward pattern would work very nicely on the ground, at least in the 13 wards covering the former Neath district (with 4 to Pontardawe and 10 to Port Talbot): 106,043 divided by 27 gives 3927.52 1. Cwm Dulais / Dulais Valley – the communities of Onllwyn, Seven Sisters, and Crynant – 3,961 (1.01) 2. Glyn-nedd / Glynneath – the town of Glynneath and the community of Blaengwrach – 4,040 (1.03) 3. Cwm Nedd / Vale of Neath – the communities of Resolven, Clyne and Melincourt, and Tonna – 4,264 (1.09) 4. Llangatwg / Cadoxton – the Cilfrew, Aberdulais, and Cadoxton wards of the community of Blaenhonddan *plus about 600 electors from the Bryn-coch South ward (basically the Leiros Parc area)* – 3,629 (est.) (0.92) 5. De Bryn-coch / Bryn-coch South – *the remainder of the Bryn-coch South ward of the community of Blaenhonddan* – 3,891 (est.) (0.94) 6. Gogledd Bryn-coch a Dyffryn Clydach / Bryn-coch North and Dyffryn Clydach – the community of Dyffryn Clydach and the Bryn-coch North ward of the community of Blaenhonddan – 4,177 (1.06) 7. Gorllewin Coed-ffranc / Coed-ffranc West – the North and West Central wards of the community of Coed-ffranc *plus about one third of the West ward* – 4,018 (est.) (1.02) 8. Dwyrain Coed-ffranc / Coed-ffranc East – the Central and East Central wards of the community of Coed-ffranc *plus about two-thirds of the West ward* – 3,827 (est.) (0.97) [note that it's important mathematically that the West ward is the one split – it has huge population growth predicted] 9. Canol Castell-nedd / Neath Central – the existing Neath North renamed *plus about 700 electors from Neath East (basically draw a line along the A474 bridge and Lewis Road so that all of the town centre is in one ward)* – 3,651 (est.) (0.91) 10. De-orllewin Castell-nedd / Neath South West – the existing Neath East renamed *less those 700 electors* – 3,719 (est.) (0.95) 11. De-ddwyrain Castell-nedd / Neath South East – the existing Neath South renamed – 3,614 (0.92) 12. Cimla a Phelenna / Cimla and Pelenna – the existing Cimla and Pelenna divisions combined – 3,987 (1.02) 13. Llansawel / Briton Ferry – the town of Briton Ferry – 4,152 (1.06) Then the former Afan district (edited with a nice tidy fix, apart from 16 being pitchfork bait): 14. Glyncorrwg / Glyncorrwg – all three wards of the community of Glyncorrwg – 3,687 (0.94) 15. Cwmafan / Cwmafan – the community of Cwmavon, *less the portion south-east of the River Afan (c.600 electors)* – 3,799 (est.) (0.97) 16. Margam a'r Bryn / Margam and Bryn – the communities of Margam and Bryn, *and the portion of the community of Cwmavon south-east of the River Afan (c.600 electors)* – 3,606 (est.) (0.92) 17. Tai-bach / Tai-bach – the community of Tai-bach – 3,613 (0.92) 18. Port Talbot / Port Talbot – the community of Port Talbot – 4,177 (1.06) 19. Aberafan / Aberafan – the community of Aberavon *and the portion of the community of Sandfields East bounded by its boundary with the community of Aberavon, Moorland Road, Sandown Road, Victoria Road, Lake Road, Newbridge Road, and the River Afan (c.1200 electors)* – 3,881 (est.) (0.99) 20. Dwyrain Traethmelyn / Sandfields East – *the remainder of the community of Sandfields East* – 3,792 (est.) (0.97) 21. Morfa Baglan / Baglan Moors – the community of Baglan Moors, the community of Baglan Bay, *the portion of the community of Sandfields West bounded by its boundary with the communities of Baglan Moors and Baglan Bay, Solar Way, St Helier Drive, Fairway, and Southdown Road (c.1200 electors)*, *and the portion of the community of Baglan bounded by its boundaries with the communities of Cwmavon, Aberavon, and Baglan Moors, Seaway Parade, Pentwyn Baglan Road, St Illtyd's Drive, the Baglan Brook to its principal source, and a line from there to the point where the communities of Baglan, Briton Ferry, and Cwmavon meet (c.1500 electors) – 4,091 (est.) (1.04) 22. Gorllewin Traethmelyn / Sandfields West – the remainder of the community of Sandfields West – 3,720 (est.) (0.95) 23. Baglan / Baglan – the remainder of the community of Baglan – 3,791 (est.) (0.97) The Pontardawe area – it seems that two of the four inevitably end up outside the 10% here whatever one does: 24. Cilybebyll / Cilybebyll – the community of Cilybebyll – 3,966 (1.01) 25. Ystalyfera / Ystalyfera – the communities of Ystalyfera and Cwmllynfell – 4,563 (1.16)26. Gwaun-cae-gurwen / Gwaun-cae-gurwen – the community of Gwaun-cae-gurwen and the Rhyd-y-fro ward of Pontardawe town – 3,802 (0.97) 27. Pontardawe / Pontardawe – the Pontardawe and Trebanos wards of Pontardawe town – 4,860 (1.20)
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Sept 8, 2019 21:15:25 GMT
Reading looks like a real bunfight. At the moment there are 15, three councillor wards and 1 one councillor ward. This is because the area north of the Thames is entitled to 10 councillors. The council has asked to increase the number of councillors to 48 so as to go back to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards. Looking at the future entitlements for current wards I make it as follows:
Peppard 3.05 Thames 2.98 Caversham 2.98 Mapledurham 1.00 Abbey 4.95 Katesgrove 2.98 Redlands 2.28 Park 2.77 Church 2.72 Whitley 4.16 Minster 3.02 Battle 3.33 Southcote 2.71 Norcot 3.15 Tilehurst 2.93 Kentwood 2.98
So the area north of the Thames is still entitled to 10 councillors. If the commission decide to stick to a rigid pattern of 3 wards that will lead to a cross-Thames monstrosity containing part of Caversham and the areas around Rivermead and Kingsmeadow.
More sensibly, the commission could keep the 4 wards north of the river unchanged, split Abbey into a 3 and 2 do some minor reshuffling. I suspect the former though, which will go down like a cup of cold sick in Caversham!
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 8, 2019 21:23:19 GMT
Reading looks like a real bunfight. At the moment there are 15, three councillor wards and 1 one councillor ward. This is because the area north of the Thames is entitled to 10 councillors. The council has asked to increase the number of councillors to 48 so as to go back to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards. Looking at the future entitlements for current wards I make it as follows: Peppard 3.05 Thames 2.98 Caversham 2.98 Mapledurham 1.00 Abbey 4.95 Katesgrove 2.98 Redlands 2.28 Park 2.77 Church 2.72 Whitley 4.16 Minster 3.02 Battle 3.33 Southcote 2.71 Norcot 3.15 Tilehurst 2.93 Kentwood 2.98 So the area north of the Thames is still entitled to 10 councillors. If the commission decide to stick to a rigid pattern of 3 wards that will lead to a cross-Thames monstrosity containing part of Caversham and the areas around Rivermead and Kingsmeadow. More sensibly, the commission could keep the 4 wards north of the river unchanged, split Abbey into a 3 and 2 do some minor reshuffling. I suspect the former though, which will go down like a cup of cold sick in Caversham! Wouldn't going for 42 be a better idea? Peppard 2.67 Thames 2.61 Caversham 2.61 Mapledurham 0.88 [for 8.77 north of the river] Abbey 4.33 Katesgrove 2.61 Redlands 2.00 Park 2.42 Church 2.38 Whitley 3.64 Minster 2.64 Battle 2.91 Southcote 2.37 Norcot 2.76 Tilehurst 2.56 Kentwood 2.61
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 8, 2019 21:45:34 GMT
Reading looks like a real bunfight. At the moment there are 15, three councillor wards and 1 one councillor ward. This is because the area north of the Thames is entitled to 10 councillors. The council has asked to increase the number of councillors to 48 so as to go back to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards. Looking at the future entitlements for current wards I make it as follows: Peppard 3.05 Thames 2.98 Caversham 2.98 Mapledurham 1.00 Abbey 4.95 Katesgrove 2.98 Redlands 2.28 Park 2.77 Church 2.72 Whitley 4.16 Minster 3.02 Battle 3.33 Southcote 2.71 Norcot 3.15 Tilehurst 2.93 Kentwood 2.98 So the area north of the Thames is still entitled to 10 councillors. If the commission decide to stick to a rigid pattern of 3 wards that will lead to a cross-Thames monstrosity containing part of Caversham and the areas around Rivermead and Kingsmeadow. More sensibly, the commission could keep the 4 wards north of the river unchanged, split Abbey into a 3 and 2 do some minor reshuffling. I suspect the former though, which will go down like a cup of cold sick in Caversham! The anomalous and rock-solid Conservative ward of Mapledurham will have the biggest knock-on effect on the majority of future ward boundaries in Reading. It will need to be subsumed into a redrawn Thames & Mapledurham ward, but where do you draw the boundary line for that new ward?
Only the western edge of Reading in terms of wards will remain relatively intact.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 8, 2019 23:53:32 GMT
Reading looks like a real bunfight. At the moment there are 15, three councillor wards and 1 one councillor ward. This is because the area north of the Thames is entitled to 10 councillors. The council has asked to increase the number of councillors to 48 so as to go back to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards. Looking at the future entitlements for current wards I make it as follows: Peppard 3.05 Thames 2.98 Caversham 2.98 Mapledurham 1.00 Abbey 4.95 Katesgrove 2.98 Redlands 2.28 Park 2.77 Church 2.72 Whitley 4.16 Minster 3.02 Battle 3.33 Southcote 2.71 Norcot 3.15 Tilehurst 2.93 Kentwood 2.98 So the area north of the Thames is still entitled to 10 councillors. If the commission decide to stick to a rigid pattern of 3 wards that will lead to a cross-Thames monstrosity containing part of Caversham and the areas around Rivermead and Kingsmeadow. More sensibly, the commission could keep the 4 wards north of the river unchanged, split Abbey into a 3 and 2 do some minor reshuffling. I suspect the former though, which will go down like a cup of cold sick in Caversham! What would the rough electorate of the North if the border was moved to the railway line, and not the Thames - could that push it up to 11 or 11.5? The area around York Road and Addison Road may be socially different (being considerably more diverse for example), but doesn't seem much less well-to-do than most of Caversham, and has better transport links to the north than to the south.
|
|
|
Post by arnieg on Sept 9, 2019 7:40:10 GMT
Reading looks like a real bunfight. At the moment there are 15, three councillor wards and 1 one councillor ward. This is because the area north of the Thames is entitled to 10 councillors. The council has asked to increase the number of councillors to 48 so as to go back to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards. Looking at the future entitlements for current wards I make it as follows: Peppard 3.05 Thames 2.98 Caversham 2.98 Mapledurham 1.00 Abbey 4.95 Katesgrove 2.98 Redlands 2.28 Park 2.77 Church 2.72 Whitley 4.16 Minster 3.02 Battle 3.33 Southcote 2.71 Norcot 3.15 Tilehurst 2.93 Kentwood 2.98 So the area north of the Thames is still entitled to 10 councillors. If the commission decide to stick to a rigid pattern of 3 wards that will lead to a cross-Thames monstrosity containing part of Caversham and the areas around Rivermead and Kingsmeadow. More sensibly, the commission could keep the 4 wards north of the river unchanged, split Abbey into a 3 and 2 do some minor reshuffling. I suspect the former though, which will go down like a cup of cold sick in Caversham! Why the low figure for Redlands? Is this a consequence of individual registration and the lower propensity for students to register?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 9, 2019 10:21:06 GMT
What would the rough electorate of the North if the border was moved to the railway line, and not the Thames - could that push it up to 11 or 11.5? The area around York Road and Addison Road may be socially different (being considerably more diverse for example), but doesn't seem much less well-to-do than most of Caversham, and has better transport links to the north than to the south. Doesn't look like there a significant number of electors between the river and railway, it looks like park, factory, shops, small handful of houses.
Looking at the map reminds me that Reading's one of those places that's too tightly drawn. I have an aunt who went to Reading University, and she was surprised to discover it wasn't actually in Reading, she lived in the Reading suburb of Early and was surprised that it wasn't in Reading. Half of Reading isn't in Reading.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,106
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Sept 9, 2019 10:26:10 GMT
What would the rough electorate of the North if the border was moved to the railway line, and not the Thames - could that push it up to 11 or 11.5? The area around York Road and Addison Road may be socially different (being considerably more diverse for example), but doesn't seem much less well-to-do than most of Caversham, and has better transport links to the north than to the south. Doesn't look like there a significant number of electors between the river and railway, it looks like park, factory, shops, small handful of houses.
Looking at the map reminds me that Reading's one of those places that's too tightly drawn. I have an aunt who went to Reading University, and she was surprised to discover it wasn't actually in Reading, she lived in the Reading suburb of Early and was surprised that it wasn't in Reading. Half of Reading isn't in Reading.
The borough boundary wiggles across the Whiteknights campus and through the middle of buildings. It clearly needs tidying up. My son spent a couple of years there, his hall of residence was definitely in Reading borough, just off the main campus.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 9, 2019 10:36:19 GMT
Looking at the map reminds me that Reading's one of those places that's too tightly drawn. I have an aunt who went to Reading University, and she was surprised to discover it wasn't actually in Reading, she lived in the Reading suburb of Early and was surprised that it wasn't in Reading. Half of Reading isn't in Reading.
Maybe it's too tightly in parts and too loosely in others. In political terms, Caversham looks a lot more like South Oxfordshire than the rest of Reading.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 9, 2019 11:09:19 GMT
Looking at the map reminds me that Reading's one of those places that's too tightly drawn. I have an aunt who went to Reading University, and she was surprised to discover it wasn't actually in Reading, she lived in the Reading suburb of Early and was surprised that it wasn't in Reading. Half of Reading isn't in Reading.
Maybe it's too tightly in parts and too loosely in others. In political terms, Caversham looks a lot more like South Oxfordshire than the rest of Reading. From a quick look at the map, I'd draw Reading's bounday along the stream that runs through Sulham, along the M4, along the River Loddon. I don't like council areas bursting across river boundaries into adjoining counties, but in this case I think the northern pimple is about right.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 12, 2019 17:11:15 GMT
According to the Mayor of Trafford's Twitter, there will be a boundary review in Trafford for the 2022 election.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 12, 2019 23:12:14 GMT
According to the Mayor of Trafford's Twitter, there will be a boundary review in Trafford for the 2022 election. Broadheath ward looks to be rather oversized; I suspect the inner city wards will be too big on the 5 year forecast electorates as well.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 13, 2019 7:42:24 GMT
According to the Mayor of Trafford's Twitter, there will be a boundary review in Trafford for the 2022 election. Broadheath ward looks to be rather oversized; I suspect the inner city wards will be too big on the 5 year forecast electorates as well. That’s rather convenient for the current administration!
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 19, 2019 6:56:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 20, 2019 0:07:57 GMT
Reading looks like a real bunfight. At the moment there are 15, three councillor wards and 1 one councillor ward. This is because the area north of the Thames is entitled to 10 councillors. The council has asked to increase the number of councillors to 48 so as to go back to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards. Looking at the future entitlements for current wards I make it as follows: Peppard 3.05 Thames 2.98 Caversham 2.98 Mapledurham 1.00 Abbey 4.95 Katesgrove 2.98 Redlands 2.28 Park 2.77 Church 2.72 Whitley 4.16 Minster 3.02 Battle 3.33 Southcote 2.71 Norcot 3.15 Tilehurst 2.93 Kentwood 2.98 So the area north of the Thames is still entitled to 10 councillors. If the commission decide to stick to a rigid pattern of 3 wards that will lead to a cross-Thames monstrosity containing part of Caversham and the areas around Rivermead and Kingsmeadow. More sensibly, the commission could keep the 4 wards north of the river unchanged, split Abbey into a 3 and 2 do some minor reshuffling. I suspect the former though, which will go down like a cup of cold sick in Caversham! As a lifelong Caversham ward resident, I can confirm that cross-river boundaries are completely unacceptable to any resident. Someone down the thread described Caversham as never having left South Oxfordshire and they couldn't be more right. You would be surprised at how many people not only go to school in Chiltern Edge,Sonning Common(South Oxon) but Gillotts in Henley,which is already heavily oversubscribed. I myself go to college in South Oxon(Henley) and most 16-18 students go there instead of going to Reading College which is at most 2 miles away because we see it at our local college. Look what happened when Mapledurham ward was proposed to move to Reading West. Any more trouble and it'll be pitchfork time in the heights. I have had some boundaries ideas myself, which, if you're not a local,you'll need Google Maps to understand. Here goes: North of the river(10 wards) 1.Heights ward(3 member)-made up of abolition of Mapledurham ward and Thames ward and incorporation of the whole of the former Mapledurham ward and the part of the former Thames ward bounded by Hemdean Road,Hunters Chase and Kidmore Road. 2. Caversham ward(3 member)-within quota, so existing ward stays with no changes. 3. Peppard ward(3 member)- existing ward with the removal of the part of the current Peppard ward bounded to the east by Peppard Road to form a new 1-member Emmer Green ward and the addition of the part of the former Thames ward bounded to the west by Peppard Road. 4. Emmer Green ward(1 member)- formed from the removal of the part of Peppard Road bounded to the east by Peppard Road and to the west by Hemdean Road north of the Hemdean Road/Oakley Road/Grove Hill intersection. My recommendations for the rest of Reading are taking all of Abbey east of Forbury Road/north of Kings Road and putting it into Park, which should then be renamed to Newtown. There are loads of parks in Reading and Palmer Park is by no means the biggest and most prominent. That would finally unite the whole of Newtown into one ward. Redlands is partly heavily under quota because of the advent of IVR but it was always a small ward. I would take the small section of Abbey south of Queens Road into Redlands, extend it south towards the University into Church, taking the southern boundary of Redlands across east from John Madjeski Academy to the Woky borough in the middle of the UoR Whitenights campus. The ward would then be renamed University as it would contain both UoR campuses (the parts in Reading borough) and would no longer focus on Redlands Road, which is near the Royal Berks if you don't know. The over-quota Whitley ward which has expanded in population terms with the building of the new Green Park Village and Kennet Island housing estates on part former industrial/part greenfield land. Church ward would then be made up to quota by taking Whitley Wood off Whitley as this would make the most sense. It has the reasonable frequent number 9 bus linking both parts of the ward and Whitley Wood is a long way from the real "high street" of Whitley anyway, which is Whitley Street at the top of Katesgrove Hill looking down onto St Giles Church, Mill Lane flyover and the Oracle. Which is ,ironically, in Katesgrove ward, of course . Abbey ward wouldn't be perfectly on quota for 3 seats, but getting it exact is impossible by ruining and changing a load of other wards that don't need to change like Battle and Katesgrove. Half the problem,as other posters have touched on, is that half of what most people would consider as Reading is in West Berkshire and Wokingham council areas. Reading Buses serve it, the hospital still serves those out of borough, most children in Tilehurst and Newtown in particular go to schools like Maiden Erleigh, Bulmershe, Little Heath and Denefield which are currently in Wokingham and West Berkshire councils. Church ward boundaries, as I discussed earlier, would be particularly improved by the incorporation of the 1-member Wokingham borough North Shinfield ward, bringing Church ward nearly exactly onto the 3.00 ideal quota. It is separated from Shinfield by the M4 and it contains what would be thought of by most locals as Reading landmarks like Shinfield Park and the Weather Centre.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 20, 2019 0:13:40 GMT
Reading looks like a real bunfight. At the moment there are 15, three councillor wards and 1 one councillor ward. This is because the area north of the Thames is entitled to 10 councillors. The council has asked to increase the number of councillors to 48 so as to go back to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards. Looking at the future entitlements for current wards I make it as follows: Peppard 3.05 Thames 2.98 Caversham 2.98 Mapledurham 1.00 Abbey 4.95 Katesgrove 2.98 Redlands 2.28 Park 2.77 Church 2.72 Whitley 4.16 Minster 3.02 Battle 3.33 Southcote 2.71 Norcot 3.15 Tilehurst 2.93 Kentwood 2.98 So the area north of the Thames is still entitled to 10 councillors. If the commission decide to stick to a rigid pattern of 3 wards that will lead to a cross-Thames monstrosity containing part of Caversham and the areas around Rivermead and Kingsmeadow. More sensibly, the commission could keep the 4 wards north of the river unchanged, split Abbey into a 3 and 2 do some minor reshuffling. I suspect the former though, which will go down like a cup of cold sick in Caversham! The anomalous and rock-solid Conservative ward of Mapledurham will have the biggest knock-on effect on the majority of future ward boundaries in Reading. It will need to be subsumed into a redrawn Thames & Mapledurham ward, but where do you draw the boundary line for that new ward?
Only the western edge of Reading in terms of wards will remain relatively intact.
You could create a Heights ward formed of the whole of Mapledurham ward and the part of Thames ward bounded by Hemdean Road to the west up until the Oakley Road/Hemdean Road roundabout and then follow the existing Thames/Caversham ward boundaries to the River Thames south of the roundabout.
|
|