Sheffield Ward Review 2013

[YL]

Looking at the submissions the two most controversial aspects of the Council's proposals seem to be splitting Broomhall along the ring road between the ward formerly known as Broomhill (the Council want to call it "Botanicals") and the city centre ward, and the proposal to move Highfield east of Bramall Lane into Arbourthorne (or "Park & Arbourthorne", a renaming which doesn't really make much sense IMO). The latter looks really ugly on the map, but given the numbers there may not be a better alternative. (JGH's proposal to add Olive Grove does at least make it look less ugly.) The former looks natural on the map, but clearly hasn't gone down well with the local community organisations.

[Deleted]

"(the Council want to call it "Botanicals")"

*has a private moment*

[J.G.Harston]

Bleaugh (again). Just finished typing up and proofing my response to the LGBC draft report. I think I'm getting past doing this sort of thing - why can't I just draw maps and send them in on their own without any supporting words?

I can go to bed now, then email it in, then get started on my tax return.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Aug 31, 2014 11:00:22 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

"(the Council want to call it "Botanicals")"

*has a private moment*

Suitable for shampoo or posh gin,not council wards.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2015 18:10:05 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Aug 31, 2014 11:00:22 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

"(the Council want to call it "Botanicals")"

*has a private moment*

Suitable for shampoo or posh gin,not council wards.

I respectfully disagree, of course

[David Ashforth]

Jan 15, 2015 18:10:05 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Aug 31, 2014 11:00:22 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

"(the Council want to call it "Botanicals")"

*has a private moment*

Suitable for shampoo or posh gin,not council wards.

Would doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ like to rename Fulwood ward as Carsick ward? 

(Probably derived from Carr meaning waterlogged woodland and Sick (or Syke) meaning stream.)

[J.G.Harston]

Consultation responses on draft recommendations published:
www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/yorkshire-and-the-humber/south-yorkshire/sheffield-fer

Next stage in March is to publish final recommendations, which will be (baring the SoS altering them) the new wards from 2016.

[YL]

Feb 9, 2015 22:09:49 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Consultation responses on draft recommendations published:
www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/yorkshire-and-the-humber/south-yorkshire/sheffield-fer

Next stage in March is to publish final recommendations, which will be (baring the SoS altering them) the new wards from 2016.

What do you think of that Green proposal? It avoids the Highfield problem, but is their version of Walkley too big to be acceptable?

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 12, 2015 21:42:02 GMT YL said:

Feb 9, 2015 22:09:49 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Consultation responses on draft recommendations published:
www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/yorkshire-and-the-humber/south-yorkshire/sheffield-fer

Next stage in March is to publish final recommendations, which will be (baring the SoS altering them) the new wards from 2016.

What do you think of that Green proposal? It avoids the Highfield problem, but is their version of Walkley too big to be acceptable?

Yea Glods, what have they (and the Council) done with Hillsborough? Added a mile of empty territory just to add 6 electors at Rutland Road. And why've they nicked Bole Hill Rec from us? Again, it has zero population and has always been seen as part of Walkley.

Adding loads of bits back into Walkley has ended up pushing it up to +10%, and the whole point of the review is to get wards close to quota, not push wards away from quota.

Taking Highfield out of Arbourthorne results in Arbourthorne being close to being too small. If you're going to remove Highfield, then Arbourthorne should be balanced up by taking in Olive Grove from Gleadless Valley.

It looks like they've tried to "solve" the Highfield problem by breaking things elsewhere. You can "solve" Highfield in a better way than this - I sketched out some options in my submission, expecting that locals submissions would find something suitable, but most submissions seems to be along the lines of "it ain't broke" (but it is, Central is twice too big) "so don't fix it" (but representative democracy demands that it does need fixing).

Several respondents have commented that if we weren't forced into 3-member wards by the current annual elections, then Highfield could be easily solved with a handful of 2-member wards, and it's about time to move to all-up elections to enable that.

I need to read the submissions in more detail when I'm a bit less tired.

[greenchristian]

Feb 12, 2015 23:12:57 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Several respondents have commented that if we weren't forced into 3-member wards by the current annual elections, then Highfield could be easily solved with a handful of 2-member wards, and it's about time to move to all-up elections to enable that.

Why would you need to move to all-out elections in order to have a few 2-member wards? There are plenty of district and borough councils that elect by thirds which have some 2-member and 1-member wards.

[YL]

Feb 13, 2015 19:12:56 GMT greenchristian said:

Feb 12, 2015 23:12:57 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Several respondents have commented that if we weren't forced into 3-member wards by the current annual elections, then Highfield could be easily solved with a handful of 2-member wards, and it's about time to move to all-up elections to enable that.

Why would you need to move to all-out elections in order to have a few 2-member wards? There are plenty of district and borough councils that elect by thirds which have some 2-member and 1-member wards.

The LGBCE website says (point 6 here):

For councils, like Sheffield, that hold elections in three years out of every four, the Commission has a responsibility, set out in legislation, to devise a pattern of three-member wards across the whole authority. Such a ward pattern means that every elector would have the same opportunity to vote in local elections each time they are held. However, the Commission is able to move away from a uniform pattern of three-member wards – on a ward by ward basis - if it believes an alternative arrangement would better meet its other statutory criteria: to deliver electoral equality for voters, to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to promote effective and convenient local government.

So they could have proposed 2-member wards, but it's clear that they'd have wanted a very compelling case.

[YL]

Feb 12, 2015 23:12:57 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Yea Glods, what have they (and the Council) done with Hillsborough? Added a mile of empty territory just to add 6 electors at Rutland Road.

The Council's submission seems very concerned with "future proofing": they don't want to have to do all this again in a few years' time. They think that that area might start to be developed for housing, and think that if that happens Hillsborough has more capacity to take the extra electorate than Walkley.

The Greens go further: they're suggesting moving everywhere currently in Walkley east of the tram line to Hillsborough to reduce the electorate of Walkley.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 13, 2015 20:01:09 GMT YL said:

Feb 13, 2015 19:12:56 GMT greenchristian said:

Why would you need to move to all-out elections in order to have a few 2-member wards? There are plenty of district and borough councils that elect by thirds which have some 2-member and 1-member wards.

The LGBCE website says (point 6 here):

For councils, like Sheffield, that hold elections in three years out of every four, the Commission has a responsibility, set out in legislation, to devise a pattern of three-member wards across the whole authority. Such a ward pattern means that every elector would have the same opportunity to vote in local elections each time they are held. However, the Commission is able to move away from a uniform pattern of three-member wards – on a ward by ward basis - if it believes an alternative arrangement would better meet its other statutory criteria: to deliver electoral equality for voters, to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to promote effective and convenient local government.

So they could have proposed 2-member wards, but it's clear that they'd have wanted a very compelling case.

Thanks, that's the reference I was looking for.

[YL]

Final recommendations published

It looks like the LGBCE has largely followed the Greens' suggestions. In particular, Highfield east of Bramall Lane stays in City (renamed from Central) rather than the controversial original proposal to move it into Arbourthorne, Broomhall goes into Broomhill & Sharrow Vale (a much better name than "Botanicals") and Walkley does indeed lose the (large on the map, but thinly populated) area east of the tram line to Hillsborough (which means that Hillsborough Barracks and the Hillsborough Hotel will now be in Hillsborough ward). Broomhill & Sharrow Vale looks a bit oversized, but otherwise this seems a reasonable solution. I don't like the Ecclesall/Dore & Totley boundary, but Ecclesall was going to be too big, and I don't think anyone found an alternative.

Ward name changes (compared with current wards):
Arbourthorne becomes Park & Arbourthorne (not sure why)
Broomhill becomes Broomhill & Sharrow Vale (reflecting southern extension)
Central becomes City
Crookes becomes Crookes & Crosspool (as recommended by its current councillors)
Nether Edge becomes Nether Edge & Sharrow (reflecting major boundary changes)
but Southey retains its existing name unlike in the provisional recommendations.

[iain]

What will the partisan impact be?

[YL]

Ask someone with box counts for the current Central ward...

But my guess is:
- Nether Edge & Sharrow is more Green and less Lib Dem than the existing Nether Edge.
- Broomhill & Sharrow Vale is more Green than the existing Broomhill
- City may be less Green than the current Central, but I'm not sure
- Ecclesall is probably slightly better for Labour than the existing ward, but not enough to make them competitive outside of exceptional circumstances

[J.G.Harston]

Mar 29, 2015 8:45:00 GMT YL said:

... Walkley does indeed lose the (large on the map, but thinly populated) area east of the tram line to Hillsborough (which means that Hillsborough Barracks and the Hillsborough Hotel will now be in Hillsborough ward).

It will be really odd for people leafletting around Rutland Road asking people to vote for them as their candidate for Hillsborough. Yer what? Hillsborough's miles away! If they wanted to push the Hillsborough/Walkley boundary south there were much better ways of doing so. The pre-1970s boundary along Morley Street and down Ripley Street would have done it in a much better way.

Other than that one line, the whole map looks a very reasonable balance of conflicting objectives.