New electoral arrangements for ReadingDraft RecommendationsFebruary 2020

Translations and other formats:To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:Tel: 0330 500 1525Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Licensing:The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping:The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1

Who we are and what we do 1

What is an electoral review? 1

Why Reading? 2

Our proposals for Reading 2

How will the recommendations affect you? 2

Have your say 3

Review timetable 3

Analysis and draft recommendations 5

Submissions received 5

Electorate figures 5

Number of councillors 6

Ward boundaries consultation 6

Draft recommendations 7

Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights 8

Abbey, Battle, Kentwood and Thames 10

Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst 13

Coley and Katesgrove 15

Church, Park, Redlands and Whitley 17

Conclusions 23

Summary of electoral arrangements 23

Have your say 25

Equalities 29

Appendices 31

Appendix A 31

Draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council 31

Appendix B 33

Outline map 33

Appendix C 34

Submissions received 34

Appendix D 35

Glossary and abbreviations 35

1

Introduction

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an

independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any

political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs

chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out

electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE

(Chair)

• Andrew Scallan CBE

(Deputy Chair)

• Susan Johnson OBE

• Peter Maddison QPM

• Amanda Nobbs OBE

• Steve Robinson

• Jolyon Jackson CBE

(Chief Executive)

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a

local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed.

• How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their

boundaries are and what they should be called.

• How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main

considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each

councillor represents.

• Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity.

• Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local

government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when

making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

2

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance

and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found

on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Reading?

7 We are conducting a review of Reading Borough Council (‘the Council’) as the

value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in

Reading. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than

others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where

votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Reading are in the best possible places to help the Council

carry out its responsibilities effectively.

• The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the

same across the borough.

Our proposals for Reading

9 Reading should be represented by 48 councillors, two more than there are now.

10 Reading should have 16 wards, the same number as present.

11 The boundaries of all wards, except Park, should change.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the

Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are

in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward

name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or

result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary

constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local

taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to

consider any representations which are based on these issues.

3

Have your say

14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 4

February 2020 to 13 April 2020. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to

comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more

informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this

report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 13 April 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations.

See page 25 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable

17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of

councillors for Reading. We then held a period of consultation with the public on

warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation

have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

20 August 2019 Number of councillors decided

27 August 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards

4 November 2019 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and

forming draft recommendations

4 February 2020 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second

consultation

13 April 2020 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and

forming final recommendations

1 September 2020 Publication of final recommendations

4

5

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how

many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five

years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to

recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same

number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the

number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the

council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual

local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on

the table below.

2019 2025

Electorate of Reading 113,590 121,002

Number of councillors 46 48

Average number of electors per

councillor 2,469 2,521

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the

average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All

of our proposed wards for Reading will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Submissions received

23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may

be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on

from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These

forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the

electorate of around 7% by 2025.

25 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that

the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these

figures to produce our draft recommendations.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

6

Number of councillors

26 Reading Borough Council currently has 46 councillors. We have looked at

evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that increasing this number by

two will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be

represented by 48 councillors.

28 As Reading Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three

out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a

uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern

of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an

alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.

29 We received no submissions about the number of councillors in response to our

consultation on ward patterns. Therefore, we have based our draft recommendations

on a 48-member council.

Ward boundaries consultation

30 We received 19 submissions in response to our consultation on ward

boundaries. These included one borough-wide proposal from the Council, which

developed its proposals through a cross-party working group. This was approved at

a full Council meeting on 4 November 2019. The remainder of the submissions

largely provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of

the borough.

31 One submission was signed by 24 electors from Church ward and contained

two partial warding schemes. We gave this submission careful consideration but

concluded that the proposal was descriptive in nature and lacked the evidence to

support some of its proposals. In particular, we noted that the schemes often

mentioned moving electors from certain wards into others without specifying exactly

where this should take place. It was therefore difficult to accommodate these

suggestions. The submission also reasoned that parliamentary constituency

boundaries should be taken into account and used this as an explanation for some of

its proposals. However, parliamentary constituencies are not a point of consideration

for the Commission as they do not form part of our statutory criteria for assessing

ward boundaries. Where possible, and where evidence was provided, we have

sought to take account of the points raised in the submission. This submission also

received support from the Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association.

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).

7

32 Some of the submissions made comments regarding the possibility of

amending the external borough boundary. We have been unable to have regard to

this issue in our draft recommendations as amendments to authority boundaries are

not considered as part of an electoral review.

33 The borough-wide scheme provided for a uniform pattern of three-councillor

wards for Reading. We carefully considered this scheme and were of the view that

the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most

areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

34 Our draft recommendations are therefore based on the borough-wide scheme.

However, we have also taken account of more localised evidence, which provided

information regarding community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some

areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between

our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

35 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the

ground. This tour of Reading helped us to decide between the different boundaries

proposed.

Draft recommendations

36 Our draft recommendations are for 16 three-councillor wards. We consider that

our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting

community identities and interests where we received such evidence during

consultation.

37 The tables and maps on pages 8–21 detail our draft recommendations for each

area of Reading. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the

three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation.

• Reflecting community interests and identities.

• Providing for effective and convenient local government.

38 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page

31 and on the large map accompanying this report.

39 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the

location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

8

Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

Caversham 3 0%

Emmer Green 3 3%

The Heights 3 0%

Caversham, Emmer Green and The Heights

40 We have based our draft recommendations for north Reading on the Council’s

proposals for the three-member wards of Caversham, Emmer Green and The

Heights. These proposals received support from the Bell Tower Community

Association. The proposed ward of The Heights was also supported by two local

residents who suggested combining Mapledurham and Caversham Heights. One of

these residents reasoned that the two areas had similar community groups and

should therefore be combined in the same ward.

41 One of the local residents also suggested moving the boundary between The

Heights and Emmer Green wards to Kidmore Road but did not provide any evidence

for this. Moving the boundary here would not achieve good electoral equality as a

three-councillor ward. As the Council elects by thirds, we are minded to recommend

a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards and will only move away from this pattern

of wards should we receive compelling evidence that an alternative pattern will better

9

reflect our statutory criteria. We do not believe that to be the case in relation to this

suggestion, and so we will not be recommending this boundary.

42 A local resident stated that they lived in Mapledurham but objected to being

represented by only one councillor. However, they did not elaborate further or

provide alternative warding arrangements for the area. In any event, our draft

recommendations will provide for three-member wards across Reading, including the

Mapledurham area.

43 On balance, we consider that the Council’s proposals for this area offer strong

and clearly identifiable ward boundaries, whilst also reflecting the identity of local

communities. Under our draft recommendations, Caversham, Emmer Green and The

Heights will all have good electoral equality by 2025.

10

Abbey, Battle, Kentwood and Thames

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

Abbey 3 -3%

Battle 3 2%

Kentwood 3 -8%

Thames 3 -6%

Kentwood

44 The Council’s proposed Kentwood ward is broadly similar to the current

Kentwood ward, with one minor amendment to the south-eastern boundary to

exclude one dwelling. This proposal received support from the Bell Tower

Community Association. A submission signed by 24 Church residents reasoned that

Scours Lane should be kept in Kentwood ward because it can only be reached via

this ward. This is in line with the Council’s proposal.

45 A local resident proposed that Winslet Place, which is located in the existing

Kentwood ward, should be transferred to either Battle or Norcot wards, with the

former being the preferred option. It was argued that this specific area had more in

common with areas to the east and that this would better reflect the pattern of travel

of local residents. During our visit to the borough, we noted that this area seems

better placed in the adjacent Battle ward, as it is separated from the housing in

Kentwood by two major roads and a roundabout.

46 Subject to placing the housing between Oxford Road and Portman Road into

Battle ward, we are basing our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals for

this ward. Our proposed Kentwood ward will have good electoral equality by 2025.

11

Abbey, Battle and Thames

47 We have broadly based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposed

Battle ward, with some minor amendments to better reflect community identities and

create more identifiable boundaries. As outlined in paragraph 46, we have included

the housing between Oxford Road and Portman Road in Battle ward as we consider

this area more likely to share community identities with adjoining housing in Battle

ward. The Bell Tower Community Association and the 24 signatories of Church ward

argued that the Little John’s Farm area to the west of Cow Lane should be placed in

Battle ward and not Thames ward, as proposed by the Council. They reasoned that

the farm is only directly accessible via Battle ward. On visiting the area, we also

noted that the entrance point to the farm was via roads in Battle ward and have

adopted this change as part of our draft recommendations.

48 We also visited the housing to the east of the railway line between Oxford Road

and George Street, which the Council placed in its proposed Battle ward. The

Council scheme placed the housing to the south of this, which sits between the

railway line, Oxford Road, Prospect Street and Tilehurst Road in the adjacent Abbey

ward, reasoning that the railway line acts as a strong boundary. We agree with the

view that the railway line acts as a clear and identifiable boundary, and noted that

whilst the railway line had an access point, that the housing between the railway line

and George Street would have more affinity with the adjacent ward, rather than

Battle ward. Furthermore, the Council’s proposed boundary of George Street is only

accessible via Great Knollys Street, which is in the adjacent Abbey ward. Therefore,

we propose that this housing be placed in Abbey ward, and the railway line be used

as the eastern ward boundary for our proposed Battle ward.

49 We have based our recommendations for Abbey ward on the Council’s

proposal, with two minor amendments. The Council’s proposal for this ward was

supported by the Bell Tower Community Association. We received a resident

submission for Abbey ward, which stated that Abbey ward should be defined by

Vastern Road and Tesco on Napier Way. The reasoning given was that this would

take into account the different needs of those in traditional housing compared with

those in flat dwellings. Whilst we considered this submission, we noted a lack of

evidence or clarity on the other boundaries proposed for the ward which made it

difficult to accommodate. Furthermore, the areas highlighted appear to be largely

placed in the Council’s proposed Thames ward. We are therefore of the view that the

residents’ comments have been broadly addressed in the Council’s scheme.

50 Our first proposed amendment to the ward, where we propose moving the area

of housing between the railway line and George Street into Abbey ward, is discussed

above. Our second proposed change is to south-eastern boundary of the ward. At

present, this boundary takes in the area south of Queen’s Road, between Eldon

Road and London Road. On visiting the area, we noted that Queen’s Road appeared

to form a clearer and more identifiable boundary than that proposed by the Council.

12

Whilst the Council stated that it had considered this option and subsequently chose

not to adopt it, limited evidence was provided in justification, except to state that

such a change was not necessary to achieve better electoral equality. This proposed

change will be discussed further in the next section of this report, in the context of

our proposed Redlands ward (paragraph 69).

51 Our recommendations for Thames ward largely follow the Council’s proposal

except for the ward boundary amendment discussed in paragraph 47, which moves

the proposed western boundary to Cow Lane. We received one submission from the

Bell Tower Community Association which stated that the area around Orts Road to

the south of the River Kennet should be placed in the adjacent Park ward due to the

lack of accessibility and strong boundaries formed by the river and railway line.

Whilst we acknowledge that the river does act as a clear and identifiable boundary,

we note that accommodating this proposal would result in an electoral variance of

-20% for Thames ward by 2025. Furthermore, the Council contended in its own

submission that this area is made up of the Orts Estate which has its own school and

looks onto the town centre, therefore suggesting that it has more affinity with

communities in the proposed Thames ward. On this basis, we have not

recommended this alternative proposal.

52 Under our draft recommendations, Abbey, Battle and Thames wards will all

have good electoral equality by 2025 and, in our view, reflect community identities.

13

Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

Norcot 3 4%

Southcote 3 3%

Tilehurst 3 -2%

Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst

53 We have based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposed Norcot,

Southcote and Tilehurst wards. These are largely based on the current warding

arrangements and this proposal received support from the Bell Tower Community

Association. The changes to the current warding arrangements included extending

the Tilehurst ward boundary slightly further south into the current Norcot ward, as

well as extending the southern boundary of the proposed Norcot ward to take in

housing south of Cockney Hill. The proposal also shortened the eastern boundary of

the proposed Norcot ward. The boundary now runs to the rear of properties on

Wantage Road instead of running along it. The north-eastern boundary of Southcote

14

ward was also extended further out, along the railway line instead of Parkside Road.

On visiting the area, we noted that this appears to be a stronger and more

identifiable boundary.

54 We consider that the Council’s proposals for this area offer strong and clearly

identifiable boundaries, whilst also reflecting the identity and interests of the local

community. Under our draft recommendations, Norcot, Southcote and Tilehurst

wards will all have good electoral equality by 2025.

15

Coley and Katesgrove

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

Coley 3 -7%

Katesgrove 3 3%

Coley and Katesgrove

55 We have based our draft recommendations for this area on the Council’s

proposals, which proposed the three-member wards of Minster and Katesgrove.

These were broadly similar to the current warding arrangements, with an extension

of Minster to the north, and an adjustment to the boundary between the two wards so

that the boundary follows the A33 rather than the River Kennet. This proposal was

supported by the Bell Tower Community Association.

16

56 A submission from Church ward residents contended that there was no need to

move the boundary between Katesgrove and Minster wards from the River Kennet

as it provided a strong feature on which to base a ward boundary. On visiting the

area, we noted that whilst the River Kennet acts as a strong boundary, we were

minded to agree with the Council in moving the boundary to the A33. We observed

that the A33 acted as a stronger and more identifiable boundary. The road has very

few crossing points along the stretch between the two wards. We were also of the

view that the housing along Temple Place would have more community affinity with

Katesgrove than the adjacent ward.

57 The Reading Liberal Democrats and a local resident argued that Minster ward

should be renamed. They stated that those within the ward view the name of Minster

as a ‘historic anomaly’. The resident stated that the ward should be renamed Coley

whilst the Liberal Democrats suggested either Berkeley or Coley.

58 We have therefore decided to base our draft recommendations on the Council’s

proposals, subject to Minster ward being renamed Coley. This name change is in

line with the evidence received which suggested that this was more identifiable name

to the local community. Under our draft recommendations, Coley and Katesgrove

wards will have good electoral equality by 2025. We would be interested in hearing

from local views in relation to our proposed draft recommendations for this area. In

particular, we would like to know opinions on the proposed ward name change, as

well as our proposed warding arrangements for the Temple Place area.

17

Church, Park, Redlands and Whitley

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

Church 3 7%

Park 3 -8%

Redlands 3 0%

Whitley 3 10%

Park

59 We are recommending that the current ward boundaries for Park ward remain

the same. The Council proposed a slight change to the current warding

arrangements, by extending the western boundary to De Beauvoir Road rather than

keeping the boundary on Eastern Avenue. Its proposal was supported by the Bell

Tower Community Association. We also received a submission from Councillor

18

White who opposed this change, arguing that the ward should retain its current

boundaries as it is currently within an acceptable range for electoral equality.

Councillor White did suggest some possible alternatives which would involve moving

some of Redlands ward to the west of Eastern Avenue, should it be considered

necessary to improve electoral equality. The Councillor reasoned these alternatives

would line up the catchment areas of some of the local schools.

60 On visiting the area, we agreed with Councillor White that the current

boundaries do not require the Council’s suggested amendment. De Beauvoir Road is

only accessible via one side; to do as the Council proposed would not reflect local

road and transport links. Furthermore, we consider the current boundary of Eastern

Avenue to be much clearer and more identifiable than De Beauvoir Road. In respect

of Councillor White’s alternative suggestions, we contend that Eastern Avenue is

again a more identifiable boundary than these alternatives. Furthermore, any

extension of the ward to the west of Eastern Avenue has the potential to cut off the

small roads in this area from their access point and place them in a separate ward.

We consider our proposed Park ward, which maintains the current ward boundaries,

to be reflective of community identity and will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Church, Redlands and Whitley

61 We received the largest number of residents’ submissions in relation to this

area. It is worth noting that the Council’s proposal for this area differs somewhat to

the current warding arrangements and the area is also set to have the largest growth

in the borough. The Council’s scheme was supported by the Bell Tower Community

Association, but we have not chosen to adopt it in this area. We received one

submission from Councillor White who contended that the north of Cressingham

Road, which currently sits in Church ward, could be moved to Redlands ward to add

the required number of electors for this area. The Councillor reasoned that this a

primary school catchment area boundary and that the housing is similar to that found

on Northumberland Avenue and the Hexman Road Estate. Councillor White also

stated that people in this area use the same library and children’s centre as others in

the existing Redlands ward.

62 We also received a submission signed by 24 residents of Church ward. The

submission provided detail about what constitutes the current Church community

and listed some suggestions for the rest of the borough. The submission stated its

dissatisfaction with the Council’s proposal and said the Council’s ‘rationale for

redrawing the ward boundaries across the Council area’ failed to ‘retain the

character and content of Church ward’. The summary of the submission listed factors

which the residents regarded as being key identifiers of the ward. These included

shops along Northumberland Avenue and Shinfield Road, key bus services and the

community café on Northumberland Avenue. They also contended that, whilst the

ward is named after a church which is no longer in the ward, they are still content

19

with this name. The submission was supported by the Northcourt Avenue Residents’

Association because it would enable Northcourt Avenue to remain in Church ward.

Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association represents the areas of Northcourt

Avenue, Wellington Avenue and Stansfield Close. We have carefully considered the

evidence provided but consider that the alternative suggestions were not always

specific in stating where electors should be moved. Furthermore, they also often

lacked sufficient community evidence to justify making these changes. While we

have therefore not adopted all of these proposals, we have tried to accommodate

them where possible.

63 We received two further submissions from residents in relation to the new

developments being built to the south of the borough. One resident proposed that

the new developments at Kennet Island and Green Park should have their own ward

called Southside. The second submission largely followed this sentiment that the

new developments should be placed in a new and separate ward, noting that those

residing in the new developments are likely to have different needs from those in

Minster, Southcote and Whitley. We examined whether it was possible to create this

new ward, but we could not create a ward with good electoral equality which could

house the new developments in their entirety, even as a one- or two-councillor ward.

Furthermore, as the Council elects by thirds, there is a presumption that it will have a

uniform pattern of three-member wards. We will only move away from this pattern of

wards should we receive compelling evidence that an alternative pattern of wards

will better reflect our statutory criteria. We do not believe this to be the case in

relation to this suggestion, particularly given the high electoral variances that would

result. We have therefore decided to not base our draft recommendations on these

proposals.

64 The Council proposed reconfiguring Church ward. The reasoning for doing so

was largely premised on the new developments being built to the south of the

borough. Due to the location of the new developments in the existing Whitley ward,

there are limitations to how the new electors can be accommodated in relation to the

surrounding areas. The Council reasoned in its proposal that Whitley ward should

have a negative electoral variance by 2025 to allow for more development, which will

continue to occur after 2025. Whilst this not a legislative requirement which the

Commission considers, we do note the logic behind this reasoning.

65 In light of the evidence received, we have tried to accommodate the points

raised by some of the Church ward residents, but stress that we are constrained by

the factors listed above, in particular ensuring that the electoral variance for Whitley

ward is kept to a minimum. We have considered the points raised by the Church

ward residents and have therefore decided to draw the boundary between Church

and Whitley wards along Basingstoke Road. The Church ward residents have stated

that they would accept being placed with those residing on the east of this road.

Furthermore, this reflects the broad thrust of these proposals in terms of community

20

identities. Whilst we considered placing some of the housing on the western side of

Basingstoke Road in Katesgrove ward, it was not possible to do so without creating

poor electoral equality for this ward. Furthermore, we received no community

evidence to support this nor for any other changes to the surrounding Coley and

Redlands wards.

66 The current ward boundary between Church and Whitley runs down the end of

Northumberland Avenue and we note from the Council submission that this currently

divides a community. The Church ward residents stated that they would accept this

boundary in order to achieve better electoral equality but did not provide compelling

evidence for this. Therefore, we have chosen to run the ward boundary behind the

housing on Hartland Road. We consider this keeps the community together, but also

ensures good electoral equality. The western boundary of Whitley ward will follow

the railway line, which we consider provides a strong and clear boundary. While this

produces a relatively high electoral variance of +10% by 2025, we consider this

necessary in order to try and reflect the evidence raised by the Church residents.

67 We have chosen not to follow the Council’s proposed boundary between

Redlands and Church wards, which would follow Cressingham Road. Whilst we note

that this was approved by Councillor White, it is not possible to achieve good

electoral equality if one were to use this boundary. Furthermore, we note a lack of

support from residents for this proposal. The current boundary for Church ward takes

in the university buildings which sit along Northcourt Avenue, Elmhurst Road and

Upper Redlands Road, which would ensure that those represented by the Northcourt

Avenue Residents’ Association would be kept within one ward. It is important to

stress that it is not possible to keep the existing boundaries and achieve good

electoral equality for Church ward. The scale of development in the wider area

means that there has be a divide here. Therefore, we have had to consider which

boundary would effectively balance our statutory criteria.

68 In respect of the boundary between Redlands and Church wards, we

recommend keeping the existing ward boundary where it runs behind Hexham Road.

We then propose deviating from this, so that the boundary runs to the rear of

housing on Stanhope Road and along Wellington Avenue. We consider Wellington

Avenue to be a natural divide between communities as the housing on either side

faces in different directions and is separated on both sides by wooden fencing. We

did examine the possibility of running the boundary behind the housing on Northcourt

Avenue but noted that this option produces a less clear and identifiable ward

boundary. Furthermore, there is a new development being built near the university

which needs to be considered and we would risk cutting off a private close from its

only access point. This proposal also ensures that all university buildings and

accommodation in the borough are kept within one ward, which should provide for

effective and convenient local government.

21

69 In order to accommodate our proposed changes and ensure good electoral

equality for Redlands ward, we propose extending the north-western boundary so

that it runs along Queen’s Road. We consider this to be a stronger boundary than

the existing one which follows Eldon Road and London Road. As discussed in

paragraph 50, we have also deviated from the Council’s proposal for the east of this

ward, where we have used Eastern Avenue as the boundary.

70 We consider our proposed Church, Redlands and Whitley wards to reflect

community identities given the need to ensure good electoral equality and take

account of the significant housing developments that will be constructed over the

next five years. Given that we have largely developed our own proposals for this

area, we would particularly welcome comments on them during this current

consultation.

22

23

Conclusions

71 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft

recommendations on electoral equality in Reading, referencing the 2019 and 2025

electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral

variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of

the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2019 2025

Number of councillors 48 48

Number of electoral wards 16 16

Average number of electors per councillor 2,366 2,521

Number of wards with a variance more than 10%

from the average 3 0

Number of wards with a variance more than 20%

from the average 1 0

Draft recommendations

Reading Borough Council should be made up of 48 councillors serving 16 three-

councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated

on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping

Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for the Reading Borough Council.

You can also view our draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council on our

interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

24

25

Have your say

72 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every

representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether

it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

73 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think

our recommendations are right for Reading, we want to hear alternative proposals

for a different pattern of wards.

74 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps

and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at

www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

75 Submissions can also be made by emailing reviews@lgbce.org.uk or by writing

to:

Review Officer (Reading)

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England

1st Floor, Windsor House

50 Victoria Street

London SW1H 0TL

76 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Reading Borough

Council which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of

voters.

• Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities.

• Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge

its responsibilities effectively.

77 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as

closely as possible, the same number of voters.

• Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of

community links.

• Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries.

• Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

26

78 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the

same number of voters as elsewhere in Reading?

79 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or

other group that represents the area?

• Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from

other parts of your area?

• Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which

make strong boundaries for your proposals?

80 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented

effectively?

• Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate?

• Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of

public transport?

81 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public

consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for

public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account

as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on

deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents

will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

82 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or

organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal

or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is

made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

83 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft

recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier,

it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and

evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then

publish our final recommendations.

84 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have

proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which

27

brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out

elections for Reading Borough Council in 2022.

28

29

Equalities

85 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines

set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to

ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review

process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a

result of the outcome of the review.

30

31

Appendices

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for Reading Borough Council

Ward name Number of

councillors

Electorate

(2019)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

Electorate

(2025)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

1 Abbey 3 5,883 1,961 -17% 7,315 2,438 -3%

2 Battle 3 7,281 2,427 3% 7,709 2,570 2%

3 Caversham 3 7,470 2,490 5% 7,537 2,512 0%

4 Church 3 8,052 2,684 13% 8,079 2,693 7%

5 Coley 3 6,946 2,315 -2% 7,061 2,354 -7%

6 Emmer Green 3 7,652 2,551 8% 7,804 2,601 3%

7 Katesgrove 3 7,066 2,355 0% 7,825 2,608 3%

8 Kentwood 3 6,795 2,265 -4% 6,975 2,325 -8%

9 Norcot 3 7,645 2,548 8% 7,901 2,634 4%

10 Park 3 6,811 2,270 -4% 6,987 2,329 -8%

11 Redlands 3 7,004 2,335 -1% 7,575 2,525 0%

12 Southcote 3 7,642 2,547 8% 7,763 2,588 3%

32

Ward name Number of

councillors

Electorate

(2019)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

Electorate

(2025)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

13 Thames 3 5,612 1,871 -21% 7,124 2,375 -6%

14 The Heights 3 7,543 2,514 6% 7,586 2,529 0%

15 Tilehurst 3 7,255 2,418 2% 7,411 2,470 -2%

16 Whitley 3 6,933 2,311 -2% 8,350 2,783 10%

Totals 48 113,590 – – 121,002 – –

Averages – – 2,366 – – 2,521 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Reading Borough Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward

varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to

the nearest whole number.

33

Appendix B

Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying

this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-

east/berkshire/reading

34

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at:

www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/berkshire/reading

Local Authority

• Reading Borough Council

Political Groups

• Reading Liberal Democrats

Councillors

• Councillor R. White (Reading Borough Council)

Local Organisations

• Bell Tower Community Association

• Northcourt Avenue Residents’ Association

Local Residents

• 14 local residents

35

Appendix D

Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to

serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements

changes to the electoral arrangements

of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for

electoral, administrative and

representational purposes. Eligible

electors can vote in whichever division

they are registered for the candidate or

candidates they wish to represent them

on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the

same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the

number of electors represented by a

councillor and the average for the local

authority

Electorate People in the authority who are

registered to vote in elections. For the

purposes of this report, we refer

specifically to the electorate for local

government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local

authority divided by the number of

councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per

councillor in a ward or division than the

average

Parish A specific and defined area of land

within a single local authority enclosed

within a parish boundary. There are over

10,000 parishes in England, which

provide the first tier of representation to

their local residents

36

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish

which serves and represents the area

defined by the parish boundaries. See

also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral

arrangements

The total number of councillors on any

one parish or town council; the number,

names and boundaries of parish wards;

and the number of councillors for each

ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for

electoral, administrative and

representational purposes. Eligible

electors vote in whichever parish ward

they live for candidate or candidates

they wish to represent them on the

parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given

ceremonial ‘town’ status. More

information on achieving such status

can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per

councillor in a ward or division than the

average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per

councillor in a ward or division varies in

percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough,

defined for electoral, administrative and

representational purposes. Eligible

electors can vote in whichever ward

they are registered for the candidate or

candidates they wish to represent them

on the district or borough council

The Local Government BoundaryCommission for England (LGBCE) was setup by Parliament, independent ofGovernment and political parties. It isdirectly accountable to Parliament through acommittee chaired by the Speaker of theHouse of Commons. It is responsible forconducting boundary, electoral andstructural reviews of local government.

Local Government Boundary Commission forEngland1st Floor, Windsor House50 Victoria Street, LondonSW1H 0TL

Telephone: 0330 500 1525Email: reviews@lgbce.org.ukOnline: www.lgbce.org.uk www.consultation.lgbce.org.ukTwitter: @LGBCE