Further Draft Recommendations for New Electoral Arrangements in the South and South Eastern Areas of Wiltshire Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Further draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements in the South and South Eastern areas of Wiltshire Council Electoral review July 2019 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 1525 Email: [email protected] Licencing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission 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 2018 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 Analysis and further draft recommendations in the areas of South and South East Wiltshire 1 South-East Wiltshire 2 Southern Wiltshire 6 Parish electoral arrangements 9 Have your say 10 Equalities 13 Appendix A 15 Further draft recommendations for the South and South Eastern areas of Wiltshire Council. 15 Appendix B 17 Submissions received 17 Analysis and further draft recommendations in the areas of South and South East Wiltshire 1 Following our consultation on the draft recommendations for Wiltshire Council, the Commission has decided to hold a period of consultation on further draft recommendations in the areas of south and south-east Wiltshire, prior to publication of its final recommendations. The Commission believes it has received sufficient evidence relating to the rest of the county to finalise its recommendations. 2 During consultation on the draft recommendations, that were published on 5 February 2019, we received 641 representations, most of which commented on our proposals for divisions in the south and south east of the county. A significant majority of these submissions expressed opposition. Many respondents provided a great deal of evidence describing their community to substantiate their opposition to our proposals. 3 Accordingly, we have been persuaded to amend our proposals and publish further draft recommendations for these areas. We are now inviting further views on our proposed division pattern. 4 We welcome all comments on these proposals, particularly on the location of the division boundaries and the names of our proposed divisions. This stage of consultation begins on 2 July 2019 and closes 29 July 2019. Please see page 10 for more information on how to send us your response. 5 The tables and maps on pages 2-8 detail our further draft recommendations for south and south-east Wiltshire. They detail how the proposed division arrangements reflect the three statutory criteria of: • Equality of representation • Reflecting community interests and identities • Providing for effective and convenient local government 1 South-East Wiltshire Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Alderbury & Whiteparish 1 10% Downton & Ebble Valley 1 -2% Laverstock 1 9% Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley 1 13% Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley 1 3% 2 Alderbury & Whiteparish, Downton & Ebble Valley and Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley 6 The Council proposed an Alderbury & Winterslow division comprising the parishes of Alderbury, Grimstead, Pitton & Farley and Winterslow, citing good links between the villages in this area. Grimstead Parish Council supported Wiltshire Council's proposal. 7 The Council also proposed a Downton & Whiteparish division comprising Downton, Whiteparish and West Dean parishes. It recognised that Whiteparish, whilst having strong ties with West Dean, could be seen to have greater links to Landford than Downton. It also noted that there are good links between Redlynch and Downton but concluded that the provision of single-councillor divisions consisting of whole parishes would be preferable to the creation of a two-councillor division or the creation of divisions with high levels of electoral inequality. 8 Our draft recommendations for this area were based on the Council’s proposals. In response to our consultation, the draft recommendations were supported by the Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party. However, we received over 100 submissions which proposed that Firsdown be placed in a different division from Winterslow. Many of those respondents also objected to placing Winterslow and Alderbury in the same division. Some respondents, including West Dean and Whiteparish Parish Councils argued that those areas should be included in a division with Alderbury rather than with Downton. Coombe Bissett Parish Council argued that it should be included in a Division with Downton whilst a local resident argued that Britford should also be included in a Downton division. 9 The submissions we received contained substantial evidence of the community relationships between parishes and we have been persuaded to amend our proposals in the light of that evidence. We propose that the existing Downton & Ebble Valley division be retained. We also propose that the current Alderbury & Whiteparish division, which would have an electoral variance of 16% by 2024 be augmented by the addition of Clarendon Park, Pitton & Farley and West Dean parishes. 10 We accept that Firsdown and Winterslow have strong community ties. However, they cannot by themselves constitute a division without creating a very high electoral variance. We therefore recommend that those parishes be combined with Allington, Cholderton and Newton Tony parishes, and with Porton and Idmiston villages to form a Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley division. This requires the Idmiston parishes to be divided between divisions, with East and West Gomeldon joining Winterbourne in Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley division. 3 Laverstock, Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley 11 The Council described Bourne Valley as a clearly defined community with settlements running south west toward Salisbury. It proposed a Winterbourne division which would combine all parishes in the valley with Durnford. Trowbridge Town Council suggested that Cholderton and Newton Tony parishes be replaced in the division by Wilsford cum Lake and Woodford parishes. A local resident disagreed with the idea that Woodford should be located in Bourne Valley division. 12 We considered that Wiltshire Council’s proposal would result in a division which better reflects local community ties whilst providing good electoral equality both in the Bourne Valley and in other parts of south-east Wiltshire. 13 During consultation, the Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supported our draft recommendation. However, we also received objections from Durnford and Woodford Parish Councils, from Wilsford cum Lake Parish Meeting and from local residents. They objected to the separation of parishes between divisions. We are persuaded by the evidence of community interactions between people in the three parishes and therefore propose to include Durnford in our Till Valley division. 14 The Council proposed a Laverstock division comprising Laverstock village, Ford, part of Old Sarum and Britford, Clarendon Park, Firsdown and Odstock parishes. The Council also proposed an Old Sarum division comprising the north eastern part of Laverstock parish. This division includes the site of a large housing development proposed at Longhedge Farm and a smaller development at Bishopdown Farm. 15 In our draft recommendations, we were not persuaded that Laverstock shares commonality with Britford and Odstock and recommended divisions which would combine the southern part of Laverstock village with the Milford area of Salisbury and combine Firsdown with Ford and Old Sarum. We proposed then to combine the Hampton Park area in a division with Bishopdown. 16 These proposals attracted the largest concentration of objections to our draft recommendations. Over 100 respondents objected to our proposed combination of Laverstock and Milford whilst a similar number objected to our proposed combination of Firsdown and Laverstock. Objections were accompanied by a great deal of evidence of community identity. The evidence demonstrated both the lack of interaction between Laverstock and Milford and a degree of interaction between Firsdown and Winterslow. 17 We are persuaded, as described above, to recommend a division which combines Firsdown with Winterslow. However, a division formed of just these two areas would result in a high electoral variance. Additionally, Laverstock’s electorate 4 is too large to constitute one division without resulting in excessive electoral inequality. We also consider that creating two divisions covering this area would arbitrarily dividing parts of Laverstock parish and cause excessive inequality in adjoining areas. 18 We have therefore decided to propose a Laverstock division which combines Laverstock Village with Hampton Park. We also propose an Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley