|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 8, 2021 9:02:34 GMT
They seem to mean physically adjacent/travel on foot not necessarily road or even right-of-way (think Lancaster & Fleetwood, NE Essex etc). Well, in the case of Lancaster & Fleetwood, I think they mean not so much 'walk' as 'swim' (unless the Knott End ferry is running).
Leaving aside such absurdities as Lancaster & Fleetwood, however, I think in practice you have to apply a bit of flexibility to the 'connectivity' rule. The Ellesmere Port & Bromborough seat now seems to feature without adverse comment in almost every plan; yet when it was first suggested, I think during the 'dry run' exercise using the electorates from Dec 2019, we expended some effort in poring over maps to discern whether it was possible to travel on minor roads between Ellesmere Port and Eastham whilst staying within the seat, purely because the major road that any reasonable person would use to make this short and easy journey strays outside the seat for about a hundred yards.
For my money this is an overly literal interpretation of 'connectivity' and I'd accept EP&B (if it comes to pass) as a properly connected seat even if the link along minor roads did not exist.
Another point is that close scrutiny of maps shows that it happens far more often than one might think that a ward contains parts that are not accessible from the rest of the ward without travelling outside it. Take an example from Sheffield. In the Neepsend area of the city, Bardwell Road leads to a few streets (Douglas Road, &c) that appear not to be accessible by any other route. But the railway under which Bardwell Road passes is the boundary between Burngreave and Hillsborough wards; therefore any constituency that includes Burngreave ward fails the strict connectivity test unless it also includes Hillsborough. Yet most Sheffield plans in the Y&H thread place these wards in different seats.
Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
Not sure why we're discussing this in the London thread, though. Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 8, 2021 9:04:55 GMT
They seem to mean physically adjacent/travel on foot not necessarily road or even right-of-way (think Lancaster & Fleetwood, NE Essex etc). Well, in the case of Lancaster & Fleetwood, I think they mean not so much 'walk' as 'swim' (unless the Knott End ferry is running). Leaving aside such absurdities as Lancaster & Fleetwood, however, I think in practice you have to apply a bit of flexibility to the 'connectivity' rule. The Ellesmere Port & Bromborough seat now seems to feature without adverse comment in almost every plan; yet when it was first suggested, I think during the 'dry run' exercise using the electorates from Dec 2019, we expended some effort in poring over maps to discern whether it was possible to travel on minor roads between Ellesmere Port and Eastham whilst staying within the seat, purely because the major road that any reasonable person would use to make this short and easy journey strays outside the seat for about a hundred yards. For my money this is an overly literal interpretation of 'connectivity' and I'd accept EP&B (if it comes to pass) as a properly connected seat even if the link along minor roads did not exist. Another point is that close scrutiny of maps shows that it happens far more often than one might think that a ward contains parts that are not accessible from the rest of the ward without travelling outside it. Take an example from Sheffield. In the Neepsend area of the city, Bardwell Road leads to a few streets (Douglas Road, &c) that appear not to be accessible by any other route. But the railway under which Bardwell Road passes is the boundary between Burngreave and Hillsborough wards; therefore any constituency that includes Burngreave ward fails the strict connectivity test unless it also includes Hillsborough. Yet most Sheffield plans in the Y&H thread place these wards in different seats. Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
Not sure why we're discussing this in the London thread, though. Applies to Harwich & N Essex too - at low tide you might be able to wade the Colne, but at those times you'd drown in the mud before you got to the channel. It differs mainly from Lancaster & Fleetwood in that the BCE didn't set out to deliberately put non-connected areas together, they just didn't notice that when they created the Witham seat they severed the road links. More generally (and we're perhaps getting on to a policy issue) I tend to think it's not an issue when an area isn't contiguous by road because eg the junction is just the either side of the ward boundary, but if it takes longer than 5 minutes by car to get from one bit to another and it'd take more than 30 minutes to walk then it's a problem. Some sort of minimum in terms of the numbers of electors affected is probably also sensible (although for parochial reasons, I'd want it set low, as in the case of Milton the detached part is mostly inhabited by Travellers and migrant workers, both of whom have very low rates of electoral registration.) |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 8, 2021 9:11:27 GMT
Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. They often wait to be asked to do a Principal Area Boundary Review, and there are resource implications for a council that loses population. So although Hertsmere's refuse collection trucks might find it difficult, Hertsmere is not going to run to the LGBCE asking for it to go into Watford. And for the sake of good neighbour relations, Watford isn't going to run to the LGBCE asking to pinch it off them. Though there is a notable reluctance among councils to give planning permission for housing right on their boundaries if it might, once built, be transferred to a neighbouring authority. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 8, 2021 9:12:19 GMT
Well, in the case of Lancaster & Fleetwood, I think they mean not so much 'walk' as 'swim' (unless the Knott End ferry is running).
Leaving aside such absurdities as Lancaster & Fleetwood, however, I think in practice you have to apply a bit of flexibility to the 'connectivity' rule. The Ellesmere Port & Bromborough seat now seems to feature without adverse comment in almost every plan; yet when it was first suggested, I think during the 'dry run' exercise using the electorates from Dec 2019, we expended some effort in poring over maps to discern whether it was possible to travel on minor roads between Ellesmere Port and Eastham whilst staying within the seat, purely because the major road that any reasonable person would use to make this short and easy journey strays outside the seat for about a hundred yards.
For my money this is an overly literal interpretation of 'connectivity' and I'd accept EP&B (if it comes to pass) as a properly connected seat even if the link along minor roads did not exist.
Another point is that close scrutiny of maps shows that it happens far more often than one might think that a ward contains parts that are not accessible from the rest of the ward without travelling outside it. Take an example from Sheffield. In the Neepsend area of the city, Bardwell Road leads to a few streets (Douglas Road, &c) that appear not to be accessible by any other route. But the railway under which Bardwell Road passes is the boundary between Burngreave and Hillsborough wards; therefore any constituency that includes Burngreave ward fails the strict connectivity test unless it also includes Hillsborough. Yet most Sheffield plans in the Y&H thread place these wards in different seats.
Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
Not sure why we're discussing this in the London thread, though. Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. "I call this meeting of the Watford cul de sac sub committee to order". |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,842 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 8, 2021 9:38:15 GMT
Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
I've been proofreading the Whitby&Esk electoral register and there a dozens of these. Not only solely accessible from a different ward, not only solely accessible from a different constituency, not only solely accessible from a different council area, but solely accessible from a different region! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 8, 2021 10:02:51 GMT
Well, in the case of Lancaster & Fleetwood, I think they mean not so much 'walk' as 'swim' (unless the Knott End ferry is running). Leaving aside such absurdities as Lancaster & Fleetwood, however, I think in practice you have to apply a bit of flexibility to the 'connectivity' rule. The Ellesmere Port & Bromborough seat now seems to feature without adverse comment in almost every plan; yet when it was first suggested, I think during the 'dry run' exercise using the electorates from Dec 2019, we expended some effort in poring over maps to discern whether it was possible to travel on minor roads between Ellesmere Port and Eastham whilst staying within the seat, purely because the major road that any reasonable person would use to make this short and easy journey strays outside the seat for about a hundred yards. For my money this is an overly literal interpretation of 'connectivity' and I'd accept EP&B (if it comes to pass) as a properly connected seat even if the link along minor roads did not exist. Another point is that close scrutiny of maps shows that it happens far more often than one might think that a ward contains parts that are not accessible from the rest of the ward without travelling outside it. Take an example from Sheffield. In the Neepsend area of the city, Bardwell Road leads to a few streets (Douglas Road, &c) that appear not to be accessible by any other route. But the railway under which Bardwell Road passes is the boundary between Burngreave and Hillsborough wards; therefore any constituency that includes Burngreave ward fails the strict connectivity test unless it also includes Hillsborough. Yet most Sheffield plans in the Y&H thread place these wards in different seats. Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
Not sure why we're discussing this in the London thread, though. Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. Interesting definition of 'newly built' - that area was built in the 1970s I think |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 8, 2021 10:05:12 GMT
Have you ever visited the new town in Edinburgh?
Or the Pont Neuf in Paris?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 8, 2021 10:23:55 GMT
Why should detached parts and exclaves be a problem at all? If an MP has to go out of his constituency, and drive a few miles through a different constituency in order to get to the other bit of the constituency, that in itself does not make it more difficult to represent than if the intervening bit of road/land were joined on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 10:43:53 GMT
Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. They often wait to be asked to do a Principal Area Boundary Review, and there are resource implications for a council that loses population. So although Hertsmere's refuse collection trucks might find it difficult, Hertsmere is not going to run to the LGBCE asking for it to go into Watford. And for the sake of good neighbour relations, Watford isn't going to run to the LGBCE asking to pinch it off them. Though there is a notable reluctance among councils to give planning permission for housing right on their boundaries if it might, once built, be transferred to a neighbouring authority. I always point to Buckshaw Village, divided between Chorley and South Ribble, and the reasons you explain match this situation pretty much identically. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Feb 8, 2021 12:34:14 GMT
Have you ever visited the new town in Edinburgh? Or the Pont Neuf in Paris? if you look at an official neighborhood map of Frankfurt you'll see an Innenstadt (Inner Town) surrounding the Altstadt (Old Town) on three sides. It used to be known as the Neustadt (New Town) until about 1960 - the name had slipped from popular use though the new name is no better. Anyways the Old Town is the area within the 12th century city wall and the former New Town is broadly the area between the 12th and the 14th century city walls... |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 8, 2021 16:11:23 GMT
Pretty sure its the latter - the last seats with detatched bits went out of existence as recently as 1983 IIRC. Anyone else remember Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth? Or did I imagine this disconnected constituency? Or Stirling and the Falkirk Boroughs? |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,463
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Feb 8, 2021 16:52:00 GMT
Pretty sure its the latter - the last seats with detatched bits went out of existence as recently as 1983 IIRC. Anyone else remember Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth? Or did I imagine this disconnected constituency? Mention early on in the BBC October 1974 election night programme-the did exit poll there |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,463
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Feb 8, 2021 16:53:40 GMT
Anyone else remember Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth? Or did I imagine this disconnected constituency? Mention early on in the BBC October 1974 election night programme-they did an exit poll there |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Feb 8, 2021 18:29:19 GMT
Another point is that close scrutiny of maps shows that it happens far more often than one might think that a ward contains parts that are not accessible from the rest of the ward without travelling outside it. Take an example from Sheffield. In the Neepsend area of the city, Bardwell Road leads to a few streets (Douglas Road, &c) that appear not to be accessible by any other route. But the railway under which Bardwell Road passes is the boundary between Burngreave and Hillsborough wards; therefore any constituency that includes Burngreave ward fails the strict connectivity test unless it also includes Hillsborough. Yet most Sheffield plans in the Y&H thread place these wards in different seats. Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
Getting back to London, the Barnet/Enfield borough boundary (otherwise, the Chipping Barnet/Enfield Southgate constituency boundary) produces several cases of this kind of internal non-connectivity, in each case affecting small groups of residential streets in Barnet only accessible through streets on the Enfield side of the boundary. This arose because residential development of the area last century seems to have completely ignored what was originally the Hertfordshire/Middlesex boundary - the boundary was revised in the early 1990s, but apparently almost entirely to respect property lines and determine which borough was responsible for maintaining which parts of the local streets. The most northerly of these groups is roughly to the north-west of Cockfosters Underground station and involves Games Road, Verwood Drive (and the streets leading off it) and Gatcombe Way. All of these are in Barnet but only have vehicular access through Chalk Lane, wholly in Enfield (including all the houses actually on it). In turn, Chalk Lane has no direct vehicular access to any other streets in Barnet but only, at both ends, to Cockfosters Road. Having said that, there are several footpaths from Chalk Lane and Games Road to neighbouring Barnet streets - and the local Barnet polling station is in Chalk Lane, not only in Enfield but almost immediately next to the local Enfield polling station. The local Barnet polling district is quite a lot bigger than just the streets already indicated - voters coming by car from the rest of the polling district have the choice of either parking 100 metres or more away and walking through by one of the footpaths, or of driving round via Cockfosters Road straight past the Underground station in both directions. About a mile further south on the Barnet side of the boundary, next to Oak Hill College, is Farm Lane and the streets off it. Farm Lane leads into Chase Side, which constitutes the borough boundary at this point (or rather the property frontages on its western side do). However, the pavement that side of Chase Side stops at Oak Hill College and, at the northern edge of the college's grounds, the borough boundary runs about 200 metres west along that edge before turning north again (actually as a result of the 1990s boundary revision). There is a narrow but continuous pavement in the other direction, effectively along the borough boundary - but this leads into Brunswick Park ward, while Farm Lane is in East Barnet ward (as it has been since at least 1966 and remains after the latest LGBCE review). As it happens, Farm Lane's local polling station is just beyond the north-west corner of the Oak Hill College grounds, just on the Barnet side of the borough boundary - but there is no publicly accessible route through the College grounds to the polling station. As a result, the shortest route from Farm Lane to the polling station is just under a mile, mostly through Enfield, though only a quarter of that distance as the crow flies. Also, rather more than a mile south of Farm Lane, where Waterfall Road constitutes the borough boundary, there are two separate streets (Ashfield Road and Ryhope Road) running into it which should probably be classified as having low rather than no internal connectivity with the rest of Barnet - each of them only has vehicular access to the rest of Barnet along Waterfall Road but do have some other pedestrian access to the rest of Barnet, even if both have far better connectivity across Waterfall Road into Enfield. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 8, 2021 22:04:09 GMT
Well, in the case of Lancaster & Fleetwood, I think they mean not so much 'walk' as 'swim' (unless the Knott End ferry is running).
Leaving aside such absurdities as Lancaster & Fleetwood, however, I think in practice you have to apply a bit of flexibility to the 'connectivity' rule. The Ellesmere Port & Bromborough seat now seems to feature without adverse comment in almost every plan; yet when it was first suggested, I think during the 'dry run' exercise using the electorates from Dec 2019, we expended some effort in poring over maps to discern whether it was possible to travel on minor roads between Ellesmere Port and Eastham whilst staying within the seat, purely because the major road that any reasonable person would use to make this short and easy journey strays outside the seat for about a hundred yards.
For my money this is an overly literal interpretation of 'connectivity' and I'd accept EP&B (if it comes to pass) as a properly connected seat even if the link along minor roads did not exist.
Another point is that close scrutiny of maps shows that it happens far more often than one might think that a ward contains parts that are not accessible from the rest of the ward without travelling outside it. Take an example from Sheffield. In the Neepsend area of the city, Bardwell Road leads to a few streets (Douglas Road, &c) that appear not to be accessible by any other route. But the railway under which Bardwell Road passes is the boundary between Burngreave and Hillsborough wards; therefore any constituency that includes Burngreave ward fails the strict connectivity test unless it also includes Hillsborough. Yet most Sheffield plans in the Y&H thread place these wards in different seats.
Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
Not sure why we're discussing this in the London thread, though. Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. "Oh my God! This is so terrible." "I have been placed in this impossible position." "Would you believe I have been placed in a constituency where I am literally obliged to walk through a few hundred yards of 'Another Constituency Entirely' to get to my polling station." "I am sick with worry and distress over this." |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 8, 2021 22:13:40 GMT
Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. "Oh my God! This is so terrible." "I have been placed in this impossible position." "Would you believe I have been placed in a constituency where I am literally obliged to walk through a few hundred yards of 'Another Constituency Entirely' to get to my polling station." "I am sick with worry and distress over this." These discussions about boundaries are rather tongue-in-cheek to begin with. At least they are as far as I'm concerned. There's something inherently absurd about the drawing of constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 8, 2021 22:31:07 GMT
Local authority boundaries do sometimes matter like that, but only when courts have imposed injunctions/ASBOs etc requiring people to keep out of particular places.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 8, 2021 22:58:12 GMT
"Oh my God! This is so terrible." "I have been placed in this impossible position." "Would you believe I have been placed in a constituency where I am literally obliged to walk through a few hundred yards of 'Another Constituency Entirely' to get to my polling station." "I am sick with worry and distress over this." These discussions about boundaries are rather tongue-in-cheek to begin with. At least they are as far as I'm concerned. There's something inherently absurd about the drawing of constituencies. True. I lived for four years in a street where the other side of the same street was in not only another ward but another constituency. It's no longer the case but why create something so daft in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 8, 2021 23:25:18 GMT
Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. Interesting definition of 'newly built' - that area was built in the 1970s I think There's an even more extreme one in everyone's favourite unnecessary dismemberment candidate, the Bromsgrove constituency. The WWC polling district of Wythall West ward (i.e. Chelworth Road and the cul-de-sacs off it) is discontiguous by road from the rest of the district/ward/parish/parish ward and instead connects to two different City of Birmingham wards at either end; and moreover, its polling place is located outside the district and constituency at a nearby junior school in the City of Birmingham. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 9, 2021 8:22:51 GMT
Newly built cul de sac in Watford near the M1 is in Hertsmere but can only be accessed from Watford. The LGBCE needs to get on top of these things. "Oh my God! This is so terrible." "I have been placed in this impossible position." "Would you believe I have been placed in a constituency where I am literally obliged to walk through a few hundred yards of 'Another Constituency Entirely' to get to my polling station." "I am sick with worry and distress over this." It doesn't make much difference in terms of polling stations. It can cause confusion in regard to bins and accessing council services if a local authority boundary is involved. |
|
