sign in sign up
<<
Home , Berwick St John, Bowerchalke, Broad Chalke, Compton Chamberlayne, Firsdown, Horningsham

Further draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements in the South and South Eastern areas of 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 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 electoral arrangements 9 Have your say 10 Equalities 13 Appendix A 15 Further draft recommendations for the South and South Eastern areas of . 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 & Whiteparish 1 10% Downton & Ebble Valley 1 -2% Laverstock 1 9% & Lower Bourne Valley 1 13% & 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 of Alderbury, Grimstead, & 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 Constituency Liberal Democrat Party. However, we received over 100 submissions which proposed that 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. 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, and Newton Tony parishes, and with 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 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. 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 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 division which combines the whole of Old Sarum with the Ford area, Winterbourne parish and East and West Gomeldon. This division will have 13% more electors per councillor than the average for Wiltshire by 2024. While this is a relatively high variance, we note that the inclusion of the whole of Idmiston parish in Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley would result in an electoral variance of 18%, a degree of inequality we are not prepared to recommend.

19 We noted that a combination of Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley and Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley divisions to form a two-councillor division would provide greater electoral equality, having a variance of 8% by 2024, and avoid the splitting of Idmiston parish between divisions. We are not proposing a two-councillor division however, having regard to comments about the merit of such divisions expressed in responses to our earlier consultations.

5 Southern Wiltshire

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Chalke & Lower Nadder 1 -8% Mere 1 -5% Tisbury 1 -8% Upper Nadder & the Deverills 1 -1% Wylye Valley 1 -11%

Chalke & Lower Nadder, and Wylye Valley 20 The Council proposed a & Chalke Valley division based on the existing division of that name. It proposed modifications to the existing division by the inclusion of Coombe Bissett parish. The inclusion in Salisbury West of an area of housing development in Netherhampton parish would further alter the

6 existing division. Parish Council stated that its area should remain in Fovant & Chalke division. 21 In our draft recommendations, we proposed to include Britford and Odstock parishes in Fovant & Chalke Valley division, in part because we were not persuaded that the communities in those parishes share active links with those of Laverstock. We also proposed to include Tolland Royal parish in Tisbury division.

22 The Council’s proposed Nadder & division would extend from East Knoyle to South Newton. In proposing the inclusion of South Newton and Great Wishford, the Council asserted that doing so would achieve greater community cohesion. However, we were not persuaded that there was identifiable community links between these two parishes and and areas further to the west. Accordingly, we proposed that South Newton and Great Wishford be included in Till division and that Wylye and Steeple Langford be included in Nadder & East Knoyle division.

23 In order to provide good electoral equality through the southern parts of the county, we proposed to include parish in our Nadder & East Knoyle division.

24 The Council proposed a Wylye Valley & North division. The division would include eastern parts of Warminster parish whilst the rest of the division would comprise of a number of small parishes of similar character in the Wylye Valley leading toward the area.

25 Our draft recommendations for Warminster required a modification to the Council’s proposals for Wylye Valley in order to maintain good electoral equality. We proposed to do this by adding those communities which form the southern part of the existing Warminster Without division to Wylye Valley & Warminster North division.

26 In response to our draft recommendations, the Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party objected to our inclusion of Britford in Nadder & East Knoyle division. They also objected to the proposed division name. The Council also objected to the inclusion of and in Wylye Valley division. In response to the evidence received, we have decided to include Steeple Langford and Wylye parishes.

27 In proposing to retain the current Downton & Ebble Valley division, we must provide an alternative pattern of divisions in south Wiltshire if we are to provide for good electoral equality.

28 We therefore propose a Chalke and Lower Nadder division which comprises the parishes of Barford St Martin, Burcombe Without, Compton Chamberlayne, Dinton, Fovant, and Teffornt. It will also include the Chalke Valley

7 parishes of Bishopstone, , , Ebbesborne Wake and Stratford Toney. We recognise that this may represent a combination of communities separated by Bishopstone Down, but consider this arrangement to be preferable to dividing parishes with relatively small populations between divisions.

29 We also have moved away from our draft recommendations by removing from our proposed Wylye Valley division the parishes of , Horningsham, , and Maiden Bradley. Additionally, we have included Steeple Langford and Wylye parishes in our proposed Wylye Valley division. Whilst this division will have a relatively high electoral variance, we consider it is justified in order to ensure whole parishes are contained within the division.

Mere, Tisbury, Upper Nadder & the Deverills 30 The Council and Mere Town Council proposed that the existing Mere division be replicated with no changes as it would continue to offer good electoral equality and is a well-defined community bounded by the edges of the county. We adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

31 Parish Council expressed its wish that the parish remain in Tisbury division. West Tisbury Parish Council considered that parishes in the South West Area Board work well together and did not wish to see any changes. Wiltshire Council proposed to add & parish to the existing Tisbury division. Whilst we were content to accept that proposal, we also proposed that parish be placed in Tisbury division as we considered it to be isolated from parishes in Fovant & Chalke Valley division.

32 During consultation, Wiltshire Council and Mere and parish councils supported our draft recommendations. However, our recommendations for the Chalke, Nadder and Wylye Valleys mean that if we are to provide divisions with good electoral equality, we must revise out proposals for this area.

33 Accordingly, we are replacing West Knoyle parish with Maiden Bradley Parish in Mere division. We are also replacing Sedgehill & Semley and West Tisbury parishes with , Ansty, Berwick St John and in Tisbury division. Finally, we propose an Upper Nadder & the Deverills division comprising 15 parishes, only two of which will have electorates over 500 by 2024 and five having fewer than 100 electors.

8 Parish electoral arrangements 34 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

35 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority division arrangements. However, Wiltshire Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

36 As a result of our proposed division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Idmiston.

Further draft recommendations Idmiston Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Gomeldon 5 Idmiston & Porton 10

9 Have your say

37 The Commission has an open mind about its further draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from.

38 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Wiltshire Council, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of divisions.

39 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

40 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Wiltshire The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

41 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of divisions for Wiltshire 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

42 A good pattern of divisions 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

10 43 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Wiltshire?

44 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?

45 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed divisions too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the divisions appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed divisions? Is there any form of public transport?

46 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 in Westminster (London) 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.

47 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as 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.

48 In the light of representations received, we will review our further 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 further draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

49 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which

11 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 Wiltshire Council in 2021.

12 Equalities

50 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.

13 14 Appendices Appendix A Further draft recommendations for the South and South Eastern areas of Wiltshire Council. Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor % councillor average % Alderbury & 1 1 4403 4403 17% 4665 4665 10% Whiteparish

Chalke & Lower 2 1 3769 3769 0% 3936 3936 -8% Nadder

Downton & Ebble 3 1 3796 3796 1% 4152 4152 -2% Valley

4 Laverstock 1 4312 4312 15% 4658 4658 9%

5 Mere 1 3614 3614 -4% 4025 4025 -5%

Old Sarum & 6 Lower Bourne 1 3629 3629 -3% 4805 4805 13% Valley

7 Tisbury 1 3762 3762 0% 3921 3921 -8%

Upper Nadder & 8 1 4037 4037 8% 4208 4208 -1% the Deverills

Winterslow & 9 Upper Bourne 1 4099 4099 9% 4379 4379 3% Valley

15 Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor % councillor average % 10 Wylye Valley 1 3644 3644 -3% 3802 3802 -11%

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

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

16 Appendix B Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-west/wiltshire/wiltshire-unitary-authority-ua

Local Authority

• Wiltshire Council

Political Groups

• Constituency Liberal Democrats • Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party

Councillors

• Councillor B. Anderson (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor P Bishop ( Town Council) • Councillor J. Buckley (Luckington & Alderton Parish Council) • Councillor A. Bucknell (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor C. Cape (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor B. Clarkson ( Parish Council) • Councillor M. Connolly (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor B. Dalton (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor J. Davies (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor J. Durrant (Lacock Parish Council) • Councillor N. Farmer (Corsham Town Council) • Councillor J. Farquhar (Salisbury City Council) • Councillor G. Grant (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor M..Groom (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor S. Hocking (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor R. Hopkinson (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor J Ligo (Bratton Parish Council) • Councillor T Lindley (Salisbury City Council) • Councillor B. Mathew (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor I. McLennan (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor I Moody (Winterslow Parish Council) • Councillor N. Morris (Bratton Parish Council) • Councillor N. Murry (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor C. Newbury (Wiltshire Council)

17

• Councillor P. Robinson (Winterslow Parish Council) • Councillor C. Rogers (Salisbury City Council) • Councillor M Smith (Sherston Parish Council) • Councillor F. Vandelli (Malmesbury Town Council) • Councillor P. Whalley (Wiltshire Council) • Councillor C. Williams (Wiltshire Council)

Members of Parliament

• James Gray MP ()

Local Organisations

• Berryfield & Semington Road Action Group • Bowerhill Residents Action group • Colerne Neighbourhood Plan Group • Governors of Malmesbury Primary School • Malmesbury River Valleys Trust • Malmesbury St Paul Without Residents Association • Malmesbury Town Team • Malmesbury Civic Trust • Pewsey Community Area Partnership • Pickwick Association • Shaw Village Hall Committee • Trustees of Duchess of ’s Hospital • Warden & Freemen of Malmesbury

Parish and Town Councils

• Village Meeting • Bratton Parish Council • Broad Hinton & Winterbourne Bassett Parish Council • Calne Without Parish Council • Chippenham Town Council • Chirton & Conock Parish Council • Clarendon Park Parish Council • Parish Council • Colerne Parish Council • Coombe Bissett Parish Council • Corsham Town Council • Devizes Town Council

18 • Parish Council • Durnford Parish Council • Froxfield Parish Council • Heywood Parish Council • Lacock Parish Council • Landford Parish Council • Langley Burrell Without Parish Council • Laverstock & Ford Parish Council • Malmesbury Town Council • Manningford Parish Council • Marlborough Town Council • Melksham Town Council • Melksham Without Parish Council • Mere Town Council • North Bradley Parish Council and Trowbridge Town Council • Rushall Parish Council • Salisbury City Council • Seend Parish Council • Semington Parish Council • St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish Council • Warminster Town Council • West Dean Parish Council • West Knoyle Parish Council • Westbury Town Council • Whiteparish Parish Council • Wilcot & Huish Parish Council • Winterslow Parish Council • Woodborough Parish Council • Woodford Parish Council

Local Residents

• 551 local residents

Petitions

• Colerne Parish Council • Colerne Womens Institute • Monkton Residents

19

20