County of Gloucestershire Boundaries with Avon Hereford and Worcester Oxfordshire Warwickshire and Wiltshire Local Government

Home , Avon (county), Hereford and Worcester, Hillesley and Tresham, Northavon, Tresham

Local Government Commission England No. 5 74.

B^vievyL_Ql_N-QOr:Metropolitan Counties- COUNTY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE BOUNDARIES WITH AVON HEREFORD AND WORCESTER OXFORDSHIRE WARWICKSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

t'QU ENGLAND

REPORT NO. 5?^ LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMG MBE

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell CBE FRICS FSVA

Members Professor G E Cherry BA D.Sc FSTPI FRICS

Mr K F J Ennals CB

Mr G R Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany

Mr B Scholes QBE THE RT. HON. NICHOLAS RIDLEY MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES COUNTY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE: BOUNDARIES WITH AVON, HEREFORD AND WORCESTER, OXFORDSHIRE, WARWICKSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION

1. On 27 January 1986 we wrote to Gloucestershire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the County under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the letter were sent to the principal local authorities, and parishes, in Gloucestershire and in the surrounding counties of Avon, Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Wiltshire; to the National and County Associations of Local Councils; to the Members of Parliament with constituency interests and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to government departments with an interest; regional health authorities; the public utilities; the English Tourist Board; the editors of the Municipal Journal and Local Government Chronicles; the Police Superintendants' Association of England and Wales, and to local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. The County Councils were requested, in co-operation as necessary with each other and with the District Councils concerned, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. The County Councils were also asked to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of the police and to services in respect of which they have a statutory function, such as the administration of justice. 3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the adjoining counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their views in detail on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable and, if so, what they should be and how they would serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid dovn in the 1972 Act.

THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US: OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS

4. In response to our letter of 27 January 1986 we received representations from the principal local authorities concerned and a number of parish councils, from interested organisations and from members of the public.

5. The submissions made to us included various recommendations for changes to Gloucestershire's boundaries with Avon, Hereford and Worcester and Wiltshire. No submissions were received regarding changes to Gloucestershire's boundaries with Oxfordshire or Warwickshire and we made no draft proposals in respect of those boundaries. The submissions made to us expressing views about the future of the County of Avon as a whole were dealt with in our Report No. 568 dated 22 September 1988 on the review of that county.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND AVON

6. The review of this boundary aroused considerable public interest, particularly in th3 parishes of Hawkesbury and Badminton. One of the features of the letters from local residents of Hawkesbury was the enduring sense of grievance at the way in which the parish had been separated from Gloucestershire at the time of local government reorganisation. It was claimed that the views of residents had been either ignored or misrepresented; it was suggested that a Parliamentary debate on the matter had been influenced by a telegram purporting to show that residents supported the inclusion of the parish within the new county of Avon. 7. The letters also carried complaints about the planning policies which were being pursued in the rural parishes adjoining the boundary and which were considered inappropriate to areas of the Cotswolds, while the prospect of encroaching development was clearly of concern to many people. It was claimed that such issues would be more sensitively handled within a more rurally- orientated county. The predominant theme of most of the letters, however, was the assertion of a continuing loyalty to Gloucestershire and of a sense of separation from what were perceived as the more urban concerns of Avon.

8. We were well aware of the value to effective local government of county loyalty and a strong sense of local identity. One of the three main criteria in our guidelines is the wishes of the local inhabitants and we had some sympathy with those residents who had not as yet identified themselves with a comparatively new county. However, except in the parish of Hawkesbury, there were few expressions of dissatisfaction with the pattern of local government established in 1974, possibly as a result of the strengthening links between the rural Northavon parishes and the growth areas of Avon. We were, moreover, bound to take into account the effective operation of local government and associated services, for which the operational links to the south seemed equally strong. As regards the criticism of Avon's planning policies, our task was to establish the geographical framework most conducive to effective and convenient local government, rather than to respond to dissatisfaction with particular policies currently adopted by authorities.

The Parish of Hawkesbury

9. We noted that this large rural parish was divided into three wards, Hawkesbury, Hillesley and Tresham, with the Hawkesbury ward containing a number of settlements, including part of the Badminton estate, and the two other wards centred on the villages of Hillesley and Tresham. Gloucestershire County Council suggested that the whole parish should be returned to Gloucestershire in accordance with local wishes. It argued that the residents looked to Wotton- under-Edge in Gloucestershire for most services and that the parish was closely linked socially, and related topographically, with Gloucestershire. With regard to education, the County Council said that secondary school pupils attended schools in either Wotton-under-Edge or Tetbury, and that although Hawkesbury and Hillesley had their own primary school, Tresham children looked to Wotton for primary education also. The County Council pointed out that Tresham could only be reached from within Gloucestershire. Hawkesbury Parish Council supported the idea of a transfer, having taken account of the results of polls conducted in each ward by Northavon District Council. A statement detailing the many ways in which the Hillesley and Tresham wards, in particular, had a close affinity with Gloucestershire wa.s submitted by the parish councillors for those wards.

10. Avon County Council and Northavon District Council were opposed to the transfer of the whole parish of Hawkesbury to Gloucestershire. The County Council pointed out that travel-to-work statistics demonstrated that at least as many parish residents worked in other parts of Avon as those who crossed into Gloucestershire. It emphasised the social and economic significance of Bristol, as confirmed by the existence of bus services to the City from Hawkesbury Upton. The County Council accepted that the transfer of the Tresham ward to Gloucestershire would probably be justified but maintained that the return of the whole parish would create a remote salient of Gloucestershire which would be very distant from the local authority centres in that County; it would also create new anomalies, particularly in the Badminton area. The County Council also pointed out that the poll in the Hawkesbury ward had shown only a small majority in favour of a transfer.

11, Objections to the suggested transfer of Hawkesbury were also submitted by the Governors and staff of Hawkesbury Primary School, on the grounds of the need for continuity, and by Frenchay Health Authority, which considered that changes would complicate the co-ordination of health care with the work of social services and voluntary agencies. Letters received from residents of the Hillesley and Tresham areas were however unanimously in favour of change. In the case of Hawkesbury, although a majority of letters wanted the whole parish to be transferred,!several residents expressed satisfaction with the existing arrangements. 12. We considered all the arguments very carefully. It was apparent to us that the transfer of Treshara to Gloucestershire would reflect the pattern of community life, accord with the wishes of the local inhabitants and be conducive to the effective operation of local government services. The arguments were less clear-cut in relation to Hillesley, but the details supplied by the parish councillors and the support from residents seemed to suggest that the village had a particularly close affinity with Wotton-under-Edge and neighbouring areas of Gloucestershire, and on balance we decided that Hillesley too should be transferred. We were not'persuaded that such changes would cause as severe difficulties as feared by the district health authority.

13. We decided to propose that Hillesley and Tresham should form a new parish within the District of Stroud, with a parish council of seven members. At district level, the new parish should be part of the Wotton-under-Edge and Kingswood ward, and at county level, it should be part of the Wotton-under-Edge division.

14. We accepted that the Hawkesbury ward had some ties with Wotton-under-Edge in that it depended upon Wotton-under-Edge for primary medical services and for secondary education. However such links were common to a number of parishes adjoining the boundary. Furthermore, this area of the parish was geographically the furthest from Gloucestershire and the evidence indicated that .it was likely to have equally close ties with areas to the south. As some residents had argued, the pattern of communications and closer proximity of the local Avon administrative centres indicated that services could not be as easily provided from Gloucester or Stroud. We also noted that in the ward poll, although there was a vote to return to Gloucestershire, only 26% of the electorate had positively voted in favour. In view of these factors, we decided to propose that the Hawkesbury ward should remain in Avon as a parish in its own right. The Parishes of Badminton and Acton Turville

15. Gloucestershire County Council, Badminton Parish Council and three Badminton residents, including the local incumbent, supported the transfer of this parish to Gloucestershire. Acton Turville Parish Council recorded an informal vote at n village meeting in favour of a transfer. Avon County Council and the Governors of the Acton Turville primary school wrote to oppose it. We noted that the parishes had no common boundary with Gloucestershire, and could not therefore be transferred if the Hawkesbury ward remained in Avon. While sympathising with those wanting to restore the traditional links with Gloucestershire, we concluded that a strong enough case had not been made for the transfer, and decided therefore to make no proposals.

The Parishes of Charfield. Wickwar. Falfield Hill. Rockhampton. Tortworth and Cromhall

16. Three residents wrote to suggest the transfer of some or all of the above parishes to GloucgiStershire, but there was no support for such wholesale changes from any of the local authorities and we did not accept that these would be warranted.

Minor Boundary Chs.nges Charfield

17. We received five further proposals, for minor boundary changes. Charfield Parish Council suggested that a factory situated just outside the village should be brought into its parish, and thus inside Avon. Northavon District Council had no objection, but the suggestion was opposed by Gloucestershire County Council, Kingswood Parish Council and representatives of the factory's management. We could see no real need for change but adopted a suggestion which would improve the definition of the boundary by aligning the boundary along a diverted section of the river (which elsewhere formed the boundary in this area) thus leaving the factory premises wholly within Gloucestershire. STONE

18. Ham and Stone Parish Council, supported by Gloucestershire County Council, suggested the transfer of properties just beyond the present boundary, in accordance with the owners' wishes. This was opposed by Northavon District Council. The properties seemed to be part of the village of Stone and we decided to accept the Parish Council's suggestion in principle but to propose an adjustment that would offer a better defined boundary.

CHASE HILL, WICKWAR

19. Avon County Council suggested minor boundary changes at three locations. The first, at Chase Hill, near Wickwar, would bring within Avon an isolated section of unclassified road and properties to which vehicular access was only possible from roads already in Avon. Gloucestershire County Council did not support the suggested change but gave no reasons for its view. We considered that this change should improve the effectiveness of local authority services.

HUNTINGFORD AND MOORSLADE LANE

20. We accepted the other two suggestions from Avon County Council, at Huntingford and Moorslade Lane, on the grounds, largely, of improved boundary definition. No properties appeared to be affected.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE

21. We received three suggestions for boundary changes from Cotswold District Council, at Kemble Wick, Somerford Keynes and Fairford.

KEMBLE WICK

22. Cotswold District Council suggested that the hamlet of Kemble Wick, presently divided by the boundary, should be brought into Gloucestershire. This was supported by Gloucestershire County Council and accepted by North Wiltshire District Council but opposed by Wiltshire County Council and Oaksey Parish Council. We accepted that on balance there was a need for change and therefore decided to issue a draft proposal accordingly.

SOMERFORD KEYNES

23. At Somerford Keynes, Cotswold District Council suggested that the boundary currently crossing the lake at Keynes Park should be re-aligned along the east side of the lake. This was supported by Gloucestershire County Council as a 'sensible rationalisation' but opposed by Wiltshire County Council. We doubted if the change could be justified in isolation from other possible changes which might in due course be needed because of future development, and decided therefore to make no proposals.

FAIRFORD

24. Cotswold District Council stated that the existing county boundary in the vicinity of Fairford and Meysey Hampton formed a narrow peninsula of Wiltshire which contained both a short section of the A417 (otherwise in Gloucestershire) and properties which were accessible only from within Gloucestershire. However, the new boundary suggested by the District Council, using a road to the south of Marston Hill, was opposed by Wiltshire County Council, North Wiltshire District Council and Marston Meysey Parish Meeting. Gloucestershire County Council said that it had been maintaining the Wiltshire section of the A417 for many years under a local agreement; whilst, on the face of it, some changes did seem desirable, it did not regard the suggested new boundary as acceptable.

25. We did not consider that there was a sufficient case for the whole of the area to be transferred, notwithstanding its isolation from the rest of Wiltshire, but decided that it would be appropriate to propose a minor realignment of the boundary along the south side of the A417 in order to avoid the need for the maintenance agreement. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND HEREFORD AND WORCESTER

WESTON SUBEDGE

26. We received a suggestion from Honeybourne Parish Council that an industrial estate presently in the parish of Weston Subedge in Gloucestershire be transferred to Hereford and Worcester. No reasons were put forward and no map or plan was submitted. We saw no justification for such a change and decided to make no proposals.

WALFORD

27. Ruardean Parish Council requested the transfer to Gloucestershire of an area in the parish of Walford principally on the grounds that the present boundary was ill-defined and that the inhabitants had close ties with Ruardean. However, we saw no evidence that the present boundary presented any difficulty to local people or to local authorities and decided therefore to make no proposals.

PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS

28. We announced our draft proposals, and interim decisions to make no proposals, in a letter to Gloucestershire County Council dated 15 February 1988. Copies of the letter were sent to the County Councils of Avon, Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Wiltshire. The six County Councils were asked to publish notices giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions and to post copies of them at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 15 April 1988. Copies of our letter were also sent to the District and Parish Councils concerned, to all those who had made representations to us and to those who appeared to us to have an interest in the review of Gloucestershire's boundaries with Avon, Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Wiltshire. RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS: OUR FINAL PROPOSALS

29. In response t:o our draft proposals and interim decisions letter we received representations from 51 sources, including comments from the local authorities concerned, interested organisations, two County Councillors, three Parish Councillors and over 25 members of the public.

30. The Cheltenham and District Health Authority and the Police Federation of England and Wales had no comments to make on our draft proposals. Northavon District Council had resolved that no objections be raised. The Avon and Somerset Constabulary considered the draft proposals to be sensible and a possible help in preventing further anomalies in policing practices. The other representations made to us are summarised below under the appropriate headings.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND AVON

THE PARISH OF HAWKESBURY

31. Gloucestershire County Council welcomed the proposal regarding Hillesley and Tresham wards of the Parish of Hawkesbury, but considered that the Hawkesbury ward should also be transferred. It pointed out that the Northavon District Council pall, which had shown a 2:1 majority in favour of a return to Gloucestershire, could be interpreted as representative of opinion in the ward. It stressed that Hawkesbury ward looked to Wotton-under-Edge for secondary school education, youth and community services, dentists and opticians together with other general services, and that this reflected the'pattern of community life. It discounted the views of the Frenchay Health Authority by pointing out that health service boundaries were established for administrative purposes and i, that general practitioners were free to refer their patients to any hospital. It also considered that the road network made travel easier into Gloucestershire than Avon and pointed to the balanced distribution of travel to work into Avon and into Gloucestershire.

10 32. Avon County Council supported the proposed transfer of Tresham ward to Gloucestershire because of its remoteness from Avon, but opposed the transfer of Hillesley. It considered that Hillesley was closer to local authority offices in Avon than to those in Gloucestershire and that it had better bus links with Avon than with Gloucestershire.

33. Stroud District Council welcomed our draft proposal but considered that Hawkesbury ward should also be transferred to Gloucestershire in view of the affinity of the parish of Hawkesbury as a whole to Wotton-under-Edge. Hawkesbury Parish Council also supported our draft proposal to transfer Hillesley and Tresham wards to Gloucestershire but expressed concern that insufficient note had been taken of a poll conducted by Northavon District Council in Hawkesbury ward.

34. Councillor Cordwell, a Gloucestershire County Councillor, supported our proposal for the transfer of Hillesley and Tresham wards to Gloucestershire. In addition, he considered that Hawkesbury ward should also be transferred in view of its links with Wotton-under-Edge. He also suggested some alternative warding arrangements in Gloucestershire, which were not strictly consequential to our proposal for boundary changes.

35. Councillor Larkins, an Avon County Councillor, supported our proposal regarding Hillesley on the ground that it reflected a division which already existed, both geographically and socially. Councillors Spencer, Goodenough, Deacon and Tucker, Hawkesbury Parish Councillors representing Hillesley and Tresham wards, in a joint letter supported the transfer of Hillesley and Tresham to Gloucestershire on the grounds that the proposal reflected local wishes and that both villages had closer connections with Gloucestershire, particularly with Wotton-under-Edge, than with Avon or any Avon town.

36. Three residents of the Hawkesbury ward of the Parish of Hawkesbury supported our interim decision to make no proposal for the transfer of the Hawkesbury ward to Gloucestershire. Fourteen other residents of Hawkesbury ward

11 jointly opposed our Interim decision. The main arguments deployed by them were that the Hawkesbury ward had greater affinity with Wotton-under-Edge in Gloucestershire than with Chipping Sodbury and Yate in Avon; that the parishes of Hawkesbury, Badiiiinton and Acton Turville were linked in one benefice; that there were various local government and associated services links with Gloucestershire, including all emergency services, doctors, dentists and secondary schooling; that part of the boundary of Hawkesbury ward was geographically parl: of the existing boundary between the Counties of Avon and Gloucestershire. One of these residents also suggested an alternative proposal to transfer that part of Hawkesbury ward comprising Little Badminton to the Parish of Badminton, and to transfer the rest of the ward into Gloucestershire with Hillesley and Tresham.

37. Some other local residents expressed concern that our draft proposal would divide the Hawkesbury Commons and pointed out that Assley and Harely Commons i would be transferred to Gloucestershire and Hawkesbury and Inglestone would remain in Avon, which could result in administrative problems.

38. We reassessed-our draft proposal in the light .of the representations we had received and gave careful consideration to the various points made in support of the proposal to transfer the entire parish of Hawkesbury to Gloucestershire. We noted that Gloucestershire County Council had welcomed our draft proposals as far as they went and that most of the arguments put forward by others supporting the transfer of the whole parish appeared to have been based upon old county loyalties and partly the fear among a rural populace of urban encroachment from the Avon towns.

39. We considered'that the various points made in support of the transfer of Hawkesbury ward hacl some merit. However, we concluded that, while the issue was finely balanced, little new evidence had been brought forward to justify the transfer of the entire parish of Hawkesbury to Gloucestershire. We also considered Avon County Council's sustained opposition to the transfer of Hillesley but have no doubt that it would be more appropriately placed .in

12 Gloucestershire. With regard to the alternative proposal made by a member of the public affecting Little Badminton, we noted that the residents of the village had previously voted in favour of remaining in Hawkesbury Parish and we therefore saw no justification in pursuing the alternative proposal. In the circumstances, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

40. So far as the administration of the Hawkesbury Commons is concerned, we understand that the matter would be for the authorities concerned to resolve under the appropriate regulations.

THE PARISHES OF BADMINTON AND ACTON TURVILLE

41. A member of the public opposed our interim decision to make no proposals for the parishes of Badminton and Acton Turville. However, we saw no justification for changing our decision and have accordingly decided to confirm our interim decision to make no proposals as final.

THE PARISHES OF CHARFIELD, WICKWAR, FALFIELD HILL, ROCKHAMPTON, TORTWORTH AND CROMHALL

42. We received no comments regarding our interim decision to make no proposals for the transfer of all or parts of the parishes of Charfield, Wickwar, Falfield Hill, Rockhampton, Tortworth and Cromhall. We have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

MINOR BOUNDARY CHANGES CHARFIELD

43. Charfield Parish Council expressed disappointment that we had made no proposal for the transfer of the SNFA factory to its parish and requested us to reconsider the matter. We noted that the factory site formed part of an almost continuous line of development to and across the existing county boundary but there was no indication that the other development was directly related to the SNFA factory. However, we considered that there was insufficient justification

13 in terms of effective and convenient local government to alter the boundary in the area and have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision to make no proposals.

STONE

44. Our draft proposal for this area did not evoke any adverse comment and we have decided to confirm it as final.

CHASE HILL, WICKWAR

45. Our draft proposal for this area was opposed by a local resident. He pointed out that that the present boundary followed a watercourse, which he considered to be better defined boundary than our proposal based on field boundaries. He also stated that none of the other residents concerned was in favour of the change, particularly since they had strong links with Gloucestershire. In the light of these comments, we reassessed our draft proposal and concluded that in this instance the wishes of the affected residents should prevail and we decided to withdraw our draft proposal for this area.

HUNTINGFORD AND MOORSLADE LANE

46. We received no comments in respect of our draft proposals for these areas and we have decided to confirm them as our final proposals.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE

KEMBLE'WICK AND FA1RFORD

47. Wiltshire County Council stated that it saw no justification for our draft proposals for these, areas. North Wiltshire District Council supported the proposals and Cotsvold District Council confirmed that it had no comments to

14 make. No new evidence had been submitted to justify changes in our draft proposals and we have decided to confirm them as final.

SOMERFORD KEYNES

48. Our interim decision to make no proposal for this area was not opposed and we have decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND HEREFORD AND WORCESTER

WESTON SUBEDGE AND WALFORD

49. Our interim decisions to make no proposals for these areas did not attract any adverse comments. We saw no reason to change our interim decisions and have decided to confirm them as final.

CONCLUSION

50. We are satisfied that the changes set out above are desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and we propose them accordingly.

ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES

51. The proposal in respect of the boundary between the Counties of Gloucestershire and Avon affecting the Parish of Hawkesbury would involve the transfer of approximately 370 electors to the County of Gloucestershire. The other changes recommended by us would involve very few electors. We further propose the consequential electoral changes set out in the annex to this report.

15 PUBLICATION

52. A separate letter, enclosing copies of this Report, is being sent to the County Councils of Gloucestershire, Avon, Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire asking them to deposit copies of this Report at their main offices for inspection for six months and to put notices to this effect on public notice boards and in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in the matter, and that it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals if you think fit, but not earlier than six weeks after they are submitted to you. Copies of this Report, which includes small scale maps, are also being sent to those who received our draft proposals and interim decisions letter and to those who made comments.

SIGNED: LS

G J ELLERTON (Chairman )

J G POWELL (Deputy Chairman)

G E CHERRY

K F J ENNALS

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SAKKANY

BRIAN SCHOLES

S T GARRISH Secretary

1989 16F LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

AFFECTING AVON AND WILTSHIRE FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing County Boundary Proposed County Boundary Proposed CP Boundary LOCATION DIAGRAM

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

AVON WILTSHIRE

Crown CopyrigM 1989 GLOUCESTERSHIRE

Wotton-under-E.dge,

' H H Inglnionc ^^ ^^^ f"1 ^-. Loveffi

AVON

GLOUCESTERSHIRE (Proposed) Area A .-. , -

AVON

Area A|'

AVON

[GLOUCESTERSHIRE AVON

Area BK

AVON

Charfield Green

/ 3295 -OI2h» 03 /[ 2792 OCMhj -01

AVON

AVON \ /s s^ C^^^^^^B^^^^^^^^^ Area B

V^Huntingfor% ' / d \X 0 .1 £) Crown CopyrigM 1989 GLOUCESTERSHIRE!

WILTSHIRE

5767 H-5S3ha IS'96

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM NO. REF. NO. REF. TO

Avon Gloucestershire Avon Gloucestershire Northavon District Stroud District Northovon District Stroud District -7 Howkesbury CP Hillesley and Tresham CP* || B Charfleld CP Alkington CP Hawkesbury Ward Wotton and Kingswood Ward Charfleld Ward Vale Ward Sodbury ED Wotton-under-Edge ED Ladden Brook ED Berkeley Vale Ward

Avon Gloucestershire Avon Gloucestershire Northavon District Stroud District Northavon District Stroud District A Charfleld CP Kingswood CP 12 A Falfield CP Ham and Stone CP Charfield Ward Wotton and Kingswood Word Charfleld Ward Berkeley Ward Ladden Brook ED Wotton-under-Edge ED Ladden Brook ED Berkeley Vale ED 8 Gloucestershire Avon Wiltshire Gloucestershire Stroud District Northavon District North Wiltshire District Cotswold District B Kingswood CP Charfield CP 13 Oaksey CP Kemble CP Wotton and Kingswood Word Charfleld Ward Minety Ward Thames Head Ward Wotton-under-Edge ED Ladden Brook ED Brlnkworth ED South Cotswold ED

Avon Gloucestershire Wiltshire Gloucestershire Northavon District Stroud District North Wiltshire District Cotswold District Falfield CP Ham and Stone CP 9 A 14 Marston Moisey CP Malseyhampton CP Charfield Ward Berkeley Ward A Crlcklade Ward Hampton Ward Ladden Brook ED Berkeley Vale ED Crlcklade ED East Cotswold ED Gloucestershire Avon Stroud District Northavon District Alkington CP Charfield CP * - Proposed new civil parish 10,11 A Vale Ward Charfield Ward Berkeley Vale ED Ladden Brook ED