JGH::Docs.Politics.WardReview.NewWards.Submission.Intro.htm Search

Sheffield Ward Boundary Review
Introduction

1. History

1.1 Sheffield was incorporated in 1843 and comprised the area covered by Sheffield Parish: Attercliffe Township, Brightside Bierlow, Sheffield Township, Ecclesall Bierlow, Upper Hallam and Nether Hallam. In 1893 Sheffield was awarded City status. In 1905 Sheffield expanded and took in parts of Ecclesfield Parish to the north and parts of Derbyshire to the south, deparishing the areas annexed. Over the rest of the 20th century Sheffield took in more of Derbyshire eventually almost doubling its area by 1968. In 1968 Sheffield also took in another part of Ecclesfield at the north, slicing Ecclesfield village in two. In 1974 Sheffield was merged with the remainder of Ecclesfield Parish, and with Bradfield Parish and Stocksbridge Town to form the City of Sheffield Metropolitan District.

1.2 The city currently has a population of 530,600 and an electorate of 379,123. The city covers approximately 36,333 hectares, more than 75% being open space or countryside.

2. Geography

2.1 The geography of Sheffield distinctively arranges the city into sectors bounded by hard features. The upper and lower Don valley, the Sheaf valley and the Sheffield Parkway form distinctive and easily-identifiable boundaries, and for most of their lengths run through areas of little population or areas with few cross-cutting communications links. Additionally, the River Rivelin and the River Porter form fairly hard boundaries, though these become softer near to the city centre. Additionally, the outer Ring Road along Ridgeway Road and the Carr Brook evolve into boundaries. Most of the sectors happen to have electorates very close to a whole number of wards, which also makes the task easier. It must be noted that these are geographical sectors that contain very different and disparate communities.

Map of forecast 2006 approximate electorate groupings
2.2 The geographic boundary formed by the Upper Don railway line is very hard. Along long sections it runs below a very steep cliff. It forces the North sector of the city to have an electorate equivalent to 6.1 wards, leaving an electorate equivalent to 7.9 wards in the West and South-West sectors. It is difficult to move this hard boundary sufficiently to transfer the 0.1 ward equivalent. This results in the six wards in the North sector result in having an aggregate average slightly over the city-wide target, and the 8 wards in the West and South-West sectors slightly below the city-wide target.

2.3 A set of proposals for new wards can be made in individual sectors with little impact on other sectors. In fact, any final implementation could very easily use the most appropriate model for each sector from different original submissions, regardless of which overall submission each sector was part of.

2.4 The geography is so distinctive that my model and the City Council’s model have both formed within the same sector model, and I am confidant that any submissions from other parties will fit into very similar geographical sectors.

2.5 Accordingly, this report details proposed new wards for the following six sectors of the city, each of which can be slotted into any other submission to make a complete model:

North-Westbounded by the upper Don valley railway and the River Rivelin
Westbounded by the River Rivelin and the River Porter
South-Westbounded by the River Porter and the River Sheaf railway line
Southbounded by the River Sheaf railway line, Ridgeway Road, Carr Brook and Sheffield Parkway
Eastbounded by Ridgeway Road, Carr Brook, Sheffield Parkway and the lower Don valley railway line
Northbounded by the lower Don valley railway line and the upper Don valley railway line

The boundary between the North-West sector and the North sector follows the Parish boundary east of Oughtibridge rather than the railway line. The railway line at this point runs through the centre of Oughtibridge, and so it would cut the community in two.

2.6 As both my model and the City Council’s model have evolved within the same sectors, I have numbered the proposed wards in this model to match the City Council’s numbering scheme for ease of comparison. This summarises which wards are in which sector of the city:

North-WestWards 1, 4, 5
WestWards 9, 10, 14
South-WestWards 15, 17, 18, 19
SouthWards 16, 20, 25, 21, 24
EastWards 13, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28
NorthWards 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12

Ward 1 - North-WestWard 11 - WestWard 21 - South
Ward 2 - NorthWard 12 - NorthWard 22 - East
Ward 3 - NorthWard 13 - EastWard 23 - East
Ward 4 - North-WestWard 14 - WestWard 24 - South
Ward 5 - North-WestWard 15 - South-WestWard 25 - South
Ward 6 - NorthWard 16 - SouthWard 26 - East
Ward 7 - NorthWard 17 - South-WestWard 27 - East
Ward 8 - NorthWard 18 - South-WestWard 28 - East
Ward 9 - WestWard 19 - South-West 
Ward 10 - WestWard 20 - South 

3. Proposed Council Size

3.1 This model proposes a council of 28 wards, one fewer than at present. This results in a council of 84 members. Legislation requires Sheffield, as a 1974 Metropolitan District, to have three members per ward, regardless of the geographical complications that this can cause.

3.2 While many Metropolitan Districts are, by definition, predominantly urban there are significant rural areas in many such districts where the requirement for a three-member ward system forces irrational warding arrangements inappropriate to rural areas.

3.3 Most new Unitary Authorities have three-member wards as the norm, but they have the flexibility to have two-member and one-member wards where more appropriate. Legislation to allow Metropolitan Districts such as Sheffield to be treated in the same way would be seen as fairer and would be welcomed by many people involved in the democratic process.

3.4 There have been some suggestions to consider a council size significantly smaller than at present. The City Council initially drafted proposals based on 23 wards as well as 28 wards. I believe that a council size similar to that at present best suits the administration of the council and the representation of residents.

3.5 In 2000 the city council moved from a committee structure to a cabinet/scrutiny structure. At the time it was anticipated that this would result in a lower council workload for elected members. In contrast, many members actually reported an increase in workload, as was submitted in evidence submitted to the 2001 pay review process.

3.6 As an elected member myself I have also noted an increased workload with the new structure. I believe that going to a a 23-ward model would probably result in another 30% increase in workload, and that the new Cabinet system should be allowed to bed in for some years so that real information can be gathered on a suitable number of elected members.

3.7 Both main parties on the council have expressed support for the extension of the present Area Panel system. This will inevitably add to the workload and individual responsibilities of members. The move to cabinet/scrutiny may have removed the committee workload for many members, but it was always the case that the majority of members' workload was made up from casework, planning, licensing, appeals etc. This volume of work remains unchanged with the move to the new system.

3.8 At the Council's public consultation meetings that I attended no members of the public expressed support for a 23-ward model, rather, concern was expressed about the reduced democratic representation that larger wards would entail. Also, larger wards would result in some wards that would be very difficult to manage geographically by elected members and could put elected members out of touch with their constituents.

3.9 I have chosen 28 wards rather than 27 or 29 as a number that gives ward sizes close to the current average and as a number that is likely to better fit into future parliamentary constituencies.

4. Electoral Forecasts

4.1 This report uses the electoral forecasts supplied by Sheffield City Council’s electoral services section, with one difference.

4.2 The City Council’s forecasts show the city centre electorate decreasing from 2582 to 2309 by 2006. However, there are a lot of residential developments rapidly being completed within the city centre which will increase the city centre population. The 2001 register does not list several currently completed developments such as Cornish Place and Riverside. I have estimated an increase in the city centre electorate of about 2500 by 2006, resulting approximately 5000 electors. This is based on the following developments that are actively being completed on the ground:

 DwellingsElectors 
Glossop Road Baths2133 
Regent Street/Terrace 31 
West One466699 
Pitt Street173 
Royal Plaza162243 
Rockingham Street 257 
Morton's4974 
West Point87131 
Leopold Street3045 - estimate
Kelham Island98147 
Exchange Brewery6090 - estimate
Cornish Place6090 - estimate
Riverside6090 - estimate
St. Paul’s3045 - estimate
Ward's Brewery150225 - estimate
Leadmill3090 - estimate
Other natural growth 50 - estimate
Total 2513 

4.3 City-wide, the average numbers of electors per dwelling is about 1.7 (379,123 electors, approx. 220,000 dwellings). This figure is similar to many district councils across England and other metropolitan authorities in Yorkshire. I have erred on the cautious side in estimating city centre growth and used 1.5 electors per dwelling for developments where a stated occupancy figure has not been given.

5. Approach

5.1 Sheffield’s ward boundaries have been reviewed several times in the last century, including in 1934, 1952, 1968 and 1980. Most of these adjusted existing wards to fit the numbers appropriately. The 1980 review merely removed one ward and made minor adjustments to the boundaries of a few others. Over time this has meant that many of Sheffield’s wards have grown a long way from the electoral average. For this reason, I have chosen to completely disregard all currently existing wards, even those that are an acceptable size, and start again from scratch.

5.2 The boundary review is driven by numbers with the aim of electoral parity, but accepts that regard should be had to community ties that may be broken by warding arrangements. Taking communities ties as my main secondary aim, I have tried to put appropriate numbers together in the following manner:

i) "First do no harm" - if a community is already collected together into a single ward, I have aimed to not split it up.

ii) Try to repair splits - if a community has previously been split up in order to make numbers match previously, I have aimed to bring those disparate parts back together again.

iii) Remove anomalies - there are areas where existing boundaries have become defaced or made nonsensical, such as housing development creeping over old boundaries, or rivers being diverted or buried.

6. Parish/Town Councils

6.1 This proposal makes no recommendations on changing Parish or Town Council boundaries or warding arrangements, other than the changes to Stocksbridge South ward in Stocksbridge TC, Westnall ward in Bradfield PC and Burncross and Horbury wards in Ecclesfield PC. These are where a new city council ward boundary crosses a town/parish ward. The Parish and Town Councils have the opportunity to use the time between the City wards being put into place for 2004 and the next all-up Parish/Town elections in 2007 to recommend any comprehensive new warding arrangements. Any submission from the Parish Councils themselves on this matter is more likely to have the benefit of greater local knowledge.

7. About The Author

I started looking at Sheffield’s ward boundaries with a view to writing a review proposal in about 1992. In approximately 1996 I wrote to the then Boundary Commission to inquire as to what the expected future timetable might be.

In 1997 I produced a set of maps detailing the changing ward boundaries within Sheffield City Council over the 20th century and have been developing an ongoing project to document the electoral changes in Sheffield over its history. Much of my work is available on the Internet at http://www.mdfs.net/Docs/Sheffield.

In 1996 I joined the Liberal Democrats and in 1999 became elected to Sheffield City Council. From study I have an overview knowledge of the geography, history and community groupings across Sheffield and from living in Sheffield and from friends, family, campaigning, leafleting and other contacts have built up a grass-roots knowledge of large areas of Sheffield on foot on the ground.

This is a personal report, and has not been commissioned by any other person or political party. I have discussed and shared as much of my work with other people as they have been interested in. I have regularly sent copies of my drafts to Sheffield City Council officers leading on their proposals, as well as to lead members of the four political parties recently represented on the council, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Liberal and Conservative, and to independent members. I am happy for any other party, grouping or individual to endorse or reject any part of my proposals.

I attended as many of the City Council's public and member consultation meetings as I could get to to listen to and absorb as much of the comments from across the city.

8. Contact Details

Name:J.G.Harston
Address:70 Camm Street, Walkley, Sheffield S6 3TR
Telephone:0114 281-8708
Email:jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk
Web:http://www.mdfs.net/User/JGH